Datasets:

nkandpa2

/

regulations

like 0

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0007-0107

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.397462

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0007-0108

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.398105

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0007-0109

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.398737

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0012

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.419619

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0078

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.424664

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0079

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.425468

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0014-0170

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.431411

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017-0258

Supporting & Related Material

FIGURES FOR SECOND DRAFT OF PM STAFF PAPER ATTACHMENT 6A Chicago, IL Images Figure 1. Chicago, IL ­ < 10 g/ m3 PM2.5 Figure 2. Chicago, IL ­ 15 g/ m3 PM2.5 Figure 3. Chicago, IL ­ 20 g/ m3 PM2.5 Figure 4. Chicago, IL ­ 25 g/ m3 PM2.5 Figure 5. Chicago, IL ­ 30 g/ m3 PM2.5 Figure 6. Chicago, IL ­ 35 g/ m3 PM2.5 Figure 1. Chicago ­ < 10 g/ m3 PM2.5, 8/ 16/ 00 Figure 2. Chicago ­ 15 g/ m3 PM2.5, 8/ 7/ 00 Figure 3. Chicago ­ 20 g/ m3 PM2.5, 8/ 24/ 00 Figure 4. Chicago ­ 25 g/ m3 PM2.5, 8/ 25/ 00 Figure 5. Chicago ­ 30 g/ m3 PM2.5, 8/ 15/ 00 Figure 6. Chicago ­ 35 g/ m3 PM2.5, 8/ 26/ 00

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.460042

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017-0259

Supporting & Related Material

SECOND DRAFT OF THE PM STAFF PAPER ATTACHMENT 6A Denver, Colorado Images Note: These images were generated using the WinHaze 2.8.0 visual air quality modeling program. Figure 1. Denver, CO ­ 35 Mm­ 1 ( 112 km visual range) Figure 2. Denver, CO ­ 43 Mm­ 1 ( 91 km visual range) Figure 3. Denver, CO ­ 51 Mm­ 1 ( 77 km visual range) Figure 4. Denver, CO ­ 61 Mm­ 1 ( 64 km visual range) Figure 5. Denver, CO ­ 76 Mm­ 1 ( 52 km visual range) Figure 6. Denver, CO ­ 93 Mm­ 1 ( 42 km visual range) Figure 7. Denver, CO ­ 167 Mm­ 1 ( 23 km visual range) Figure 8. Denver, CO ­ 258 Mm­ 1 ( 15 km visual range) Figure 1. Denver, CO ­ 35 Mm­ 1 ( 112 km visual range) Figure 2. Denver, CO ­ 43 Mm­ 1 ( 91 km visual range) Figure 3. Denver, CO ­ 51 Mm­ 1 ( 77 km visual range) Figure 4. Denver, CO ­ 61 Mm­ 1 ( 64 km visual range) Figure 5. Denver, CO ­ 76 Mm­ 1 ( 52 km visual range) Figure 6. Denver, CO ­ 93 Mm­ 1 ( 42 km visual range) Figure 7. Denver, CO ­ 167 Mm­ 1 ( 23 km visual range) Figure 8. Denver, CO ­ 258 Mm­ 1 ( 15 km visual range) SECOND DRAFT OF THE PM STAFF PAPER ATTACHMENT 6A FOR CHAPTER 7, SECTION ON VISIBILITY Phoenix, Arizona Images Note: These images were generated using the WinHaze 2.8.0 visual air quality modeling program. Figure 1. Phoenix, AZ ­ 2.5 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 87 km visual range) Figure 2. Phoenix, AZ ­ 5 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 71 km visual range) Figure 3. Phoenix, AZ ­ 10 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 52 km visual range) Figure 4. Phoenix, AZ ­ 15 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 41 km visual range) Figure 5. Phoenix, AZ ­ 20 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 34 km visual range) Figure 6. Phoenix, AZ ­ 30 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 25 km visual range) Figure 7. Phoenix, AZ ­ 40 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 20 km visual range) Figure 8. Phoenix, AZ ­ 65 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 13 km visual range) Figure 1. Phoenix, AZ ­ 2.5 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 87 km visual range) Figure 2. Phoenix, AZ ­ 5 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 71 km visual range) Figure 3. Phoenix, AZ ­ 10 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 52 km visual range) Figure 4. Phoenix, AZ ­ 15 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 41 km visual range) Figure 5. Phoenix, AZ ­ 20 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 34 km visual range) Figure 6. Phoenix, AZ ­ 30 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 25 km visual range) Figure 7. Phoenix, AZ ­ 40 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 20 km visual range) Figure 8. Phoenix, AZ ­ 65 g/ m3 PM2.5 ( 13 km visual range)

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.462532

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0003-0084

Notice

Notice of Availability for Public Review and Comment of EPA Staff White Paper That Explores a Number of Options for Addressing Boutique Fuels

57099 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2001 / Notices addressed under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. DATES: Comments, identified by the docket control number OPP– 00730A, must be received on or before January 19, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of the August 22, 2001 Federal Register. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP– 00730A in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Ellenberger, Field and External Affairs Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305– 7099, fax number: (703) 305– 6244; and e­ mail address: ellenberger. jay@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. It may be of particular interest, however, to those persons who hold pesticide registrations, apply pesticides, or regulate the use of pesticides for states, territories, or tribes. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document? 1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this document and the draft PR Notice from the Office of Pesticide Programs' Home Page at http:/ /www. epa. gov/ pesticides/. You can also go directly to the listings from EPA Internet Home Page at http:// www. epa. gov/. To access this document, on the Home Page select `` Laws and Regulations'' and then look up the entry for this document under the `` Federal Register— Environmental Documents'' or go directly to the Federal Register listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. A copy of the draft PR Notice is also available at http:/ /www. epa. gov/ opppmsd1/ PR— Notices/ prdraft­ spraydrift801. htm. 2. Fax­ on­ demand. You may request a faxed copy of the draft PR Notice titled `` Spray and Dust Drift Label Statements for Pesticide Products'' by using a faxphone to call (202) 401– 0527 and selecting item 6142. You may also follow the automated menu. 3. In person. The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPP– 00730A. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The PIRIB telephone number is (703) 305– 5805. II. What Action is EPA Taking? In the Federal Register of August 22, 2001 (66 FR 44141) (FRL– 6792– 4), EPA announced the availability of a draft PR Notice titled `` Spray and Dust Drift Label Statements for Pesticide Products. '' The Agency provided a 90– day comment period, which was scheduled to end November 20, 2001. EPA is extending the comment period for the draft PR Notice for an additional 60 days, until January 19, 2002. List of Subjects Environmental protection, pesticides. Dated: November 5, 2001. Marcia E. Mulkey, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 01– 28523 Filed 11– 8– 01; 3: 21 pm] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7103– 1] Notice of Availability for Public Review and Comment of EPA Staff White Paper That Explores a Number of Options for Addressing Boutique Fuels AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The President's National Energy Policy issued on May 17, 2001, directed EPA to * * * study opportunities to maintain or improve the environmental benefits of state and local `` boutique'' clean fuel programs while exploring ways to increase the flexibility of the fuels distribution infrastructure, improve fungibility, and provide added gasoline market liquidity *** In response to this directive, EPA prepared a report that discusses the actions that EPA will take in the near term to ensure a smoother transition from winter to summer grade reformulated gasoline (RFG). That report, entitled: `` Study of Boutique Fuels and Issues Relating to Transition from Winter to Summer Gasoline'' has been sent to the President and has been made publicly available, as noted below. In addition, EPA staff also prepared a White Paper that addresses boutique fuels in the longer term. This White Paper, for which today EPA is announcing its availability, explores a number of options that could reduce the total number of fuels and lays the groundwork for further study. The Staff White Paper is entitled: `` Study of Unique Gasoline Fuel Blends (`` Boutique Fuels''), Effects on Fuel Supply and Distribution and Potential Improvements. '' EPA is publishing this notice of availability of and requesting public review and comment on the Staff White Paper. The public comment period will end December 31, 2001. The Staff White Paper, as well as the Study of Boutique Fuels and Issues Relating to Transition from Winter to Summer Gasoline, are both available in the public docket A– 2001– 20. The docket is located at U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Room 1500, Washington, DC 20460. The telephone number of the docket office is (202) 260– 7548. Both documents are also available on EPA's web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ fuels. htm. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Macallister, Office of Air Quality and VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 30 Nov 13, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14NON1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 14NON1 57100 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 220 / Wednesday, November 14, 2001 / Notices Transportation, (734) 214– 4131, or by email at macallister. julia@ epa. gov. Dated: November 7, 2001. Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. 01– 28522 Filed 11– 13– 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [CC Docket No. 92– 237; DA 01– 2593] Next Meeting of the North American Numbering Council AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: On November 8, 2001, the Commission released a public notice announcing the November 27– 28, 2001 meeting and agenda of the North American Numbering Council (NANC). The intended effect of this action is to make the public aware of the NANC's next meeting and its agenda. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Blue, Special Assistant to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at (202) 418– 2320 or dblue@ fcc. gov. The address is: Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, The Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Suite 6A207, Washington, DC 20554. The fax number is: (202) 418– 2345. The TTY number is: (202) 418– 0484. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Released: November 8, 2001. The North American Numbering Council (NANC) has scheduled a meeting to be held Tuesday, November 27, 2001, from 8: 30 a. m. until 5 p. m., and on Wednesday, November 28, 2001, from 8: 30 a. m., until 12 noon (if required). The meeting will be held at the Federal Communications Commission, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW– C305, Washington, DC. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting is open to members of the general public. The FCC will attempt to accommodate as many participants as possible. The public may submit written statements to the NANC, which must be received two business days before the meeting. In addition, oral statements at the meeting by parties or entities not represented on the NANC will be permitted to the extent time permits. Such statements will be limited to five minutes in length by any one party or entity, and requests to make an oral statement must be received two business days before the meeting. Requests to make an oral statement or provide written comments to the NANC should be sent to Deborah Blue at the address under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, stated above. Proposed Agenda 1. Announcements and Recent News 2. Approve Minutes —Meeting of October 16– 17, 2001 3. Report of North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA) 4. Report of NANPA Oversight Working Group 5. Report of National ThousandsBlock Pooling Administrator 6. Report of NANP Expansion/ Optimization IMG 7. Status of Industry Numbering Committee activities 8. Report of the Local Number Portability Administration (LNPA) Working Group —Wireless Number Portability Operations (WNPO) Subcommittee 9. Report of NAPM LLC 10. Report from NBANC 11. Report of Cost Recovery Working Group 12. Steering Committee —Table of NANC Projects 13. Report of Steering Committee 14. Action Items 15. Public Participation (5 minutes each) 16. Other Business Wednesday, November 28, 2001 (if required) 17. Complete any unfinished Agenda Items 18. Other Business Federal Communications Commission. Diane Griffin Harmon, Acting Chief, Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau. [FR Doc. 01– 28452 Filed 11– 13– 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6712– 01– P FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Meeting; Sunshine Act AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. TIME AND DATE: 11 a. m., Monday, November 19, 2001. PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551. STATUS: Closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees. 2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to the Board; 202– 452– 3204. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202– 452– 3206 beginning at approximately 5 p. m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http:// www. federalreserve. gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting. Dated: November 9, 2001. Robert deV. Frierson, Deputy Secretary of the Board. [FR Doc. 01– 28600 Filed 11– 9– 01; 11: 33 am] BILLING CODE 6210– 01– P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Granting of Request for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart­ Scott­ Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A( b)( 2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal Register. The following transactions were granted early termination of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 30 Nov 13, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14NON1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 14NON1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.471209

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0003-0085

Notice

EPA Staff White Paper That Explores a Number of Options for Addressing Boutique Fuels in the Longer Term; Extension of Public Comment Period

65488 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 19, 2001 / Notices 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation. II. Background Growth Products Ltd., P. O. Box 1259, White Plains, NY 10602 has requested an EUP for the microbial pesticide Companion TM , based on the active ingredient Bacillus subtilis Strain GB03. The proposed duration of the proposed program is 2 years. The EUP is being requested to obtain efficacy and phytotoxicity data, evaluate application rates, and evaluate timing to establish disease control. The target pests include root diseases such as Rhizoctonia, Pythium, Erwinia, Fusarium, Phytopthora, Verticillium, Sclerotinia, Botyris, Anthracnose, fire blight, wilt, crown rot, root rot, downy mildew, and damping off. The proposed experimental program is to cover a total of 200 acres in 5 states, as follows: California, Florida, New York, North Dakota, and Washington. The rate of application of the pesticide is to be: for field crops, 32 oz. per acre in sufficient water to ensure full coverage; for soil drench application, 16 oz. in 100 gallons of water for cell/ plug production; and 1 oz. per 30 gallons of water for closed systems (ebb and flow) and hydroponics. Proposed crop treatment sites include apples, broccoli, celery, citrus, cotton, grapes (raisin, table and wine), herbs and spices, lettuce (iceberg and leaf), melons, onions, potatoes, strawberries, sunflower, tobacco, and tomatoes. Disease severity and intensity will be observed, as well as measurements of root growth in both length and mass, leaf color, and tissue analysis of nutrient levels, all of which are indicators of healthy plants. Ground methods of application are proposed, including soil drench application by injection into irrigation systems, and closed systems (ebb and flow) and hydroponics by incorporation into closed continuous recirculation systems. III. What Action is the Agency Taking? Following the review of the Growth Products Limited application and any comments and data received in response to this notice, EPA will decide whether to issue or deny the EUP request for this EUP program, and if issued, the conditions under which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced in the Federal Register. IV. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? The Agency's authority for taking this action is under 40 CFR part 172, subpart A. List of Subjects Environmental protection, Experimental use permits. December 11, 2001. Kathleen F. Knox, Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [FR Doc. 01– 31247 Filed 12– 18– 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL– 7119– 6] Extension of Public Comment Period for EPA Staff White Paper That Explores a Number of Options for Addressing Boutique Fuels in the Longer Term AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Extension of public comment period for EPA Staff White Paper that explores a number of options for addressing boutique fuels in the longer term. In the November 14, 2001 Federal Register, (66 FR 57099) EPA published a notice of availability and requested public review and comment on the Staff White Paper entitled: `` Study of Unique Gasoline Fuel Blends (`` Boutique Fuels''), Effects on Fuel Supply and Distribution and Potential Improvements. '' This notice extends the end of the public comment period to January 30, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Macallister, Office of Air Quality and Transportation, (734) 214– 4131, or by Email at macallister. julia@ epa. gov. Dated: December 12, 2001. Robert Brenner, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. [FR Doc. 01– 31244 Filed 12– 18– 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560– 50– P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [OPP– 00755; FRL– 6814– 8] Pesticides; Expedited Review of Experimental Use Permits (EUPs) for Conventional Pesticides AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: The Agency seeks public comment on a draft Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice titled `` Guidelines for Expedited Review of Experimental Use Permits (EUPs) for Conventional Pesticides. '' This draft Notice provides criteria that, if met, can result in a greater number of food use EUPs being issued on an expedited basis for conventional pesticides. EUP applications submitted that meet all of the criteria identified in the Notice will be expedited through the Agency's review process and registrants will not need to utilize their priority slots. The Notice applies to all applicants for EUPs for non­ antimicrobial, conventional pesticides. The Notice does not apply to biological pesticides because these pesticides present different risk factors and because the Agency has not heard that the lack of biological pesticide EUPs is an issue. DATES: Comments, identified by docket control number OPP– 00755, must be received on or before February 19, 2002. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP– 00755 in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Holloman, Registration Division (7505C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305– 7193; fax number: (703) 305– 6920; e­ mail address: holloman. rachel@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 28 Dec 18, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 19DEN1. SGM pfrm02 PsN: 19DEN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.478232

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0035-0008

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.483003

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0035-0009

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.483939

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0035-0011

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.485282

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0035-0012

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.486295

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0061

Supporting & Related Material

June 29,2001 MEMORANDUM TO: Tim Smith, EPA­ OAQPS\ FROM: Patrick Cummiils, WRAP Co­ Project Manag _ I SUBJECT: Additional Technical Support Documentation Please find enclosed the following additional technical support documents related to the WRAP Annex: 1) Description of Methodology Used to Calculate State and Tribal Opt WOpt Budgets 2) Final Report on Regional Economic Impacts of Annex fi­ om ICF Consulting ( replaces Vol. IT of previous submittal) 3) Data Worksheets fiom ICF Consulting Detailing Utility Emissions Projections 4) Informatian on Emission Measurement Metliods for Non­ Utility Sources. We are in the process of finalizing our revised visibility modeling and that report will be sent in about two weeks. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding this information. Thank you for your ongoing assistance with this effort. Staffed by: Staffed by: Western Governors'Association National Tribal Environmental Council 1515 Cleveland Place, Suite 200 www. wrapair. org 2221 Rio Grande NW Dsnver, CO 80202 Albuquerque, NM 87104 ( 303) 623­ 9378 ( 505) 242­ 2175 Fax ( 303) 534­ 7309 Fax ( 505) 242­ 2654 Methodology Used to Calculate State and Tribal Opt IdOpt Out Budgets Th. e state and tribal milestone adjustments, and new source set­ aside adjustments were calculated using the same methodology that was used to develop the regional SO, milestones. The biggest component of the milestone was the projected emission inventory for the region, including emission reduction estimates due to the application of Best Available Retrofit Technology ( BART) to sources in the region. In addition, there was an uncertainty factor that was included in the milestones to account for possible errors in the projections. The spreadsheet titled Opt in Opt out adjustments. xls, which can be found in the Technical Support for the SupplementaryAnnex Submittal section of tbe Market Trading Forum web site ( www. wrapair. org), calculates the adjustments for each state and tribe. A copy of this spreadsheet is attached. There are 4separate worksheet pages that are used to calculate the adjustments for each of the milestone years, 2003,2008,2013 and 2018. These adjustments are summarized in a final chart titled Milestone Adjustments Due to States or Tribes Opting Out of the Regional Program Under 309 that was adopted by the WRAP on May 23,2001. The following sections describe in detail the data sources, and any assumptions that were made to develop these individual milestone year adjustments. Projected Emissions from Existing Sources for 2003,2008,2013 and 2018 In July and August, 2000, two contractors completed stationary source emission inventories and emission projections through the year 2018 for major sources of SO, in the 9­ state transport region. These inventories were used as the basis for final negotiations of the regional SO, milestones. Utility and Combined Heat and Power Source inventories were completed by ICF Consulting. The final results of this contract are included in the Technical Support Documentation for the Annex, and in a spreadsheettitled Zmission~ Reconciliation~ 4.01 that is included in the Technical Support for the SupplementaryAnnex Submittal ( see Market Trading Forum web site, located at IW. wrapair. or@. Non­ Utility inventories were completed by Pechan and Associates. The final results of this contract are included in the Technical Support documentation for the Annex, which can also be found on the Market Trading Forum web site. Both of these emission inventories, and projections though 2018 were calculated at the state level, and the numbers fi­ omthe contractors reports were. used as the starting point for the state and tribal budgets. The columns labeled Utilities, Smelters, CHP, and Other contain these imentory numbers with the following adjustments: 1. Several Tribal Sources were included in the state inventory totals. The inventories for these sources were subtracted from the state totals, and placed in a new entry for the applicable tribe. The specific sources were: Tribe Navajo Nation Navajo Nation Shoshone­ Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation Wind River Reservation Wind River Reservation Source State Four Corners Generating Station NM Navajo GeneratingStation Az Astaris ( formerly FMC) ID Deseret Generation and Transmission, UT Bonanza Plant Koch Sulfur Products WY Snyder Oil Corp WY 2. The inventory projections developed by EH Pechan and Associates for non­ utilities were done at the source category level. Retirement and growth estimates were applied to the category to obtain an overall projection number for the years 2003,2008,2013, and 2018. The new source growth estimates were subtracted fiom Pechan s inventory to obtain an estimate of emissions fiom existing sources in the region, including retirements. New source growth is treated as a separate line item. 3. The projected emissions for the Mohave Generating Station in Nevada in 2003 are based on an assumed fbture control level of 85%. 4. Emissions fiom non­ utility sources located on tribal lands were assumed to remain constant ficm 2003 to 2018. The regional category growth and retirement assumptions that were used by Pechan and Associates did not make sense when applied to individual sources or to a very small group of sources. This assumption will not affect new source growth on tribal lands because the milestones will be applied regionally. Additional Calculations for 2003 The SO, emissions projections for existing sources were combined into a regional subtotal of 677,858 tons. The new source growth estimate of 9,000 tons, and a tribal allocation of 20,000 tons were added to the existing source projections to achieve a subtotal of 706,858 tons. The milestone for 2003is 720,000 tons. The subtotal of 706,858 was subtracted from this milestone to derive a regional uncertainty estimate. The uncertainty estimate was then prorated to each of the states according to the percentage of total emissions for existing sources in each state with the following exceptihs: 1. Emissions from two suspended smelters were subtracted fiom the emission estimates for Arizona and New Mexico prior to the proration. This was done so that the milestone adjustments for other states would not be affected by the hture status of these two sources. As outlined in the summary tzble, the adjustment numbers for Arizona and New Mexico would be modified if either of these sources do not resume operation. . 2. Tribal sources were not included in the proration. As described above, these sources were treated separately due to problems with applying regional assumptions to individual sources. The new source growth estimate of 9000 tons was also prorated to each of the states according to the percentage of total existing emissions in each state. Additional calculations for 2008 The adjustments for 2008 were calculated in the same manner as 2003. The new source growth estimate was increased to 18,000 tons ( 9,000 tons every 5 years) and then prorated as described for the 2003 calculations. Additional calculations for 2013 The year 2013 contains an emission reduction down payment for the estimated BART reductions in 2018. As described for 2013, the projected regional SO, emissions for existing sources of 645,906 tons was added to the tribal allocation of 20,000 tons and the new source growth estimate of 27,000 tons for a subtotal of 692,906. The milestone for 2013 is 655,000. When the subtotal was subtracted & om this milestone, it left a regional down payment on BART of 37,906. This down payment was prorated to each of the states according to the utility BART estimates for each of those states as described below for the 2018 adjustments. Tribal sources were not included in the proration. Tribal sources were again treated separately due to problems with applying regional assumptions to individual sources. Additional calculations for 2018 The regional emission reduction estimates calculated in Allstate8. xls, which was included in the Technical Support Documentation for the Annex, was used to estimate BART reductions. The reductions in Allstate8. xls were calculated at the source level, recognizing that these estimates were only valid when applied regionally to an entire source category. The source level calculations were added up for each state and tribe for both utilities and non­ utilities. These are listed in the columns labeled Utility BART and Other BART. The projected emissions from existing sources subtotal is 634,523 tons SO,. Utility BART estimates of 151,795 for utilities and 16,120 for non­ utilities were subtracted fi­ omthis subtotal to achieve new regional subtotal less BART of 466,608. Thp trihsl nllnwtinn of 20,000 tons and the new source allocation of 27,000 tons were added to this subtotal of 513,608. The milestone for 2018 is 510,000. The difference between these two numbers is primarily a rounding adjustment, and was prorated based on the emission projection less BART for each state. As described above, these sources were treated separately due to problems with applying regional assumptions to individual sources. .

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.551383

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0062

Supporting & Related Material

1999 SO2 1999 Heat Input State Plant Name ORISPL Unit ID ( tons) ( mmBtu) 1999 Genr. MWh Arizona Apache Station 160 1 1 2,867,718 290,758 Arizona Apache Station 160 2 2,976 14,406,374 1,235,901 Arizona Arizona Apache Station Cholla 160 3 113 ** 5 2,992 ­ 16,021,489 ­ 1,374,459 ­ Arizona Cholla 113 1 909 8,887,753 759,492 Arizona Cholla 113 2 1,254 18,386,998 1,571,238 Arizona Cholla 113 3 8,912 22,818,034 1,949,887 Arizona Cholla 113 4 7,987 28,086,848 2,400,127 Arizona Coronado 6177 UIB 10,475 31,197,302 2,823,334 Arizona Coronado 6177 U2B 9,522 28,224,076 2,554,259 Arizona lrvington 126 1 1 1,567,150 141,853 Arizona lrvington 126 2 4 1,651,313 149,471 Arizona irvington 126 3 1 1,965,366 177,898 Arizona lrvington 126 4 2,857 7,731,982 640,474 Arizona Navajo 4941 1 5,854 59,551,004 5,282,215 Arizona Navajo 4941 2 1,822 68,268,218 6,055,438 Arizona Navajo 4941 3 1,486 62,231,335 5,519,963 Arizona Springerville 8223 I 9,576 31, I74,548 2,969,489 Arizona Arizona Springerville Springerville 8223 2 8223 3 8,811 ­ 30,002,862 ­ 2,857,882 ­ Colorado Arapahoe 465 1 716 2,988,525 195,898 Colorado Arapahoe 465 2 520 2,171,264 142,326 Colorado Arapahoe 465 3 1,070 3,935,436 257,968 Colorado Arapahoe 465 4 1,858 8,658,173 567,543 Colorado Cameo 468 I 585 2,290, OO1 40,032 Colorado Cameo 468 2 2,046 3,995,022 430,446 Colorado Cherokee 469 1 3,309 8,772,266 806,964 Colorado Cherokee 469 2 3,515 8,545,294 786,085 Colorado Cherokee 469 3 4,800 11,634,028 1,070,219 Colorado Cherokee 469 4 6,917 20,887,954 1,921,491 Colorado Comanche 470 1 6,492 24,406,852 2,283,757 Colorado Comanche 470 2 7,208 24,292,013 2,273,011 Colorado Craig 6021 Cl 4,730 34,136,231 3,144,278 Colorado Craig 6021 C2 4,486 34,390,315 3,167,682 Colorado Craig 6021 C3 1,446 25,143,799 2,315,988 Colorado Hayden 525 HI 1,554 18,214,289 1,426,590 Colorado Hayden 525 H2 5,125 19,575,309 1,533,188 Colorado Martin Drake 492 5 1,155 3,171,412 252,254 Colorado Martin Drake 492 6 2,395 6,601,652 525,095 ' Colorado Martin Drake 492 7 3,047 8,336,087 663,052 Colorado Nuda 527 1 1,476 8,678,484 641,756 Colorado Pawnee 6248 ** 2 ­­ Colorado Pawnee 6248 1 16,666 45,855,909 3,977,069 Colorado Rawhide 6761 101 1,117 25,800,967 2,118,734 Colorado Ray D Nixon 8219 ** NAI ­­­ Colorado Colorado Ray D Nixon Ray D Nixon 8219 I 8219 2 4,601 ­ 11,783,206 111,739 1,133,791 ­ Colorado Ray D Nixon 8219 3 ­ 92,911 Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Valmont Valmont Valmont Valmont WN Clark WN Clark Mohave Mohave North Valmy North Valmy Reid Gardner Reid Gardner Reid Gardner Reid Gardner 477 14 ­ 477 21 ­ 477 24 ­­­ 477 5 2,835 7,430,699 726,714 462 I 253 1,227,848 95,599 462 2 349 1,688,202 127,020 234I I 19,440 48,9 16,026 4,830,020 2341 8224 8224 2324 2324 2324 2324 87 2442 2442 2442 2442 2442 2468 2468 2451 2451 2451 2451 6106 7790 3644 3644 2 19,200 49,654,253 4,902,914 1 5,554 16,9 15,541 1,657,133 2 1,275 18,839,839 1,845,647 1 800 7,532,248 608,132 2 863 8,059,105 650,669 3 1,007 10,239,513 826,708 4 524 19,647,823 1,586,308 1 1,515 22,271,758 1,567,570 1 3,352 14,365,079 1,249,754 2 3,254 13,489,466 1,173,577 3 4,989 19,501,245 1,696,598 4 15,046 60,397,513 5,254,552 5 15,881 62,627,013 5,448,518 4 ­­ 5 159 516344 35,516 1 5,745 25,689,631 2,232,002 2 5,023 25,333,201 2,201,034 3 9,885 44,003,093 3,823,137 4 8,772 38,965,397 3,385,445 1SG 16,577 42, I94,918 3,697,900 1 1,135 35,695,733 3,227,344 1 1,827 5,734,311 508,644 2 2,561 7,995,268 709,194 1 2,636 32,246,110 2,880,999 2 2,962 37,664,030 3,365,058 3 1,447 36,240,776 3,237,899 1 2,030 36,666,383 3,513,857 2 11,870 37,695,527 3,612,483 1SGA 1,566 65,573,338 5,924,2 14 2SGA 2,132 79,089,402 7,145,321 BW41 5,350 10,853,919 755,551 BW42 5,568 1; I, 324,966 788,341 BW43 8,477 17,86 1,947 1,243,386 BW44 8,507 35,067,519 2,441,081 BWI 7,673 50,496,020 4,168,505 BW2 7,920 52,243,407 4,312,754 BW73 6,484 42,447,268 3,504,071 BW4 3,703 47,448,763 3,916,950 1 3,748 47,892,475 4,127,009 2 3,615 46,477,951 4,005,116 3 3,706 44,693,616 3,851,355 1 7,112 14,951,993 1,182,645 2 9,576 19,658,118 1,554,881 3 5,156 24,651,223 1,949,816 559 2, O19,926 150,477 New Mexico Escalante New Mexico Four Corners New Mexico Four Corners New Mexico Four Corners New Mexico Four Corners New Mexico Four Corners New Mexico Raton New Mexico Raton New Mexico San Juan New Mexico San Juan New Mexico $ an Juan New Mexico San Juan Oregon Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Wyoming Boardman Bonanza Carbon Carbon Hunter ( Emery) 6165 Hunter ( Emery) 6165 Hunter ( Emery) 6165 Huntington 8069 Huntington 8069 Intermountain 6481 Intermountain 6481 Dave Johnston 4158 Dave Johnston 4158 Dave Johnston 4158 Dave Johnston 4158 Jim Bridger 8066 Jim Bridger 8066 Jim Bridger 8066 Jim Bridger 8066 Laramie River 6204 Laramie River 6204 Laramie River 6204 Naughton 4162 Naughton 4162 Naughton 4162 Neil Simpson 4150 Wyoming Neil Simpson I1 7504 1 641 8,625,148 705,087 Wyoming Osage 4151 1 620 1,321,752 78,725 Wyoming Osage 4151 2 640 1,364,742 81,218 Wyoming Osage 4151 3 651 1,385,617 82,465 Wyoming Wyodak 6101 BW91 9,082 38,092,484 2,819,563 433,521 2,252,494,994 495,895,832 29,424 133,991,322 0.439189636 ncap CF Based on Projected CF Change in 2018 Generation Retire by 2018 Tons Name Plate ( Name Plate) Fuel Quality MWhr ( Name Plate) 2018? ( Name Plate) 0.443 0.500 1 328,500 NO 1 0.725 0.850 1 1,449,759 NO 3,491 0.806 ­ 0.850 ­ 1 1 1,449,759 NO ­ NO 3,156 ­ 0.763 0.850 1 846,134 NO 1,013 0.621 0.850 I 2,151,149 NO 1,717 0.770 0.850 1 2,151,149 NO 9,832 0.662 0.850 1 3,082,644 NO 10,258 0.784 0.850 1 3,059,859 NO 11,353 0.710 0.850 1 3,059,859 NO 11,407 0.149 0.500 1 476,544 NO 2 0.157 0.500 1 476,544 NO 11 0.179 0.500 1 497,568 NO 2 0.422 0.850 1 1,290,392 NO 5,756 0.751 0.850 1 5,980,329 NO 1,529 0.861 0.861 1 6,055,438 NO 1,822 0.785 0.850 1 5,980,329 NO 1,610 0.798 0.850 1 3,163,061 NO 10,200 0.768 ­ 0.850 ­ 1 1 3,163,061 NO ­ NO 9,752 ­ 0.508 0.850 1 ­ YES ­ 0.369 0.850 1 ­ YES ­ 0.669 0.850 1 327,624 NO 680 0.648 0.850 1 744,600 NO 1,524 0.208 0.850 1 163,812 NO 2,396 1. I17 1. I17 1 430,446 NO 2,046 0.921 0.921 1 806,964 NO 1,655 0.816 0.850 1 819,060 NO 1,831 0.814 0.850 1 1,116,900 NO 1,002 0.627 0.850 1 2,606,100 NO 2,536 0.745 0.850 1 2,606,100 NO 7,408 0.741 0.850 1 2,606,100 NO 8,264 0.804 0.850 1 3,323,894 NO 5,001 0.810 0.850 1 3,323,894 NO 4,707 0.592 0.850 1 3,323,894 NO 2,076 0.857 0.857 1 1,426,590 NO 1,554 0.681 0.850 1 1,913,622 NO 1,442 0.490 0.850 1 437,989 NO 2,005 0.679 0.850 1 656,998 NO 2,996 0.515 0.850 1 1,094,562 NO 5,029 0.923 0.923 ­ 1 1 641,756 NO ­ NO 1,476­ 0.908 0.908 1 3,977,069 NO 16,666 0.848 0.850 ­ 1 1 2,122,780 NO ­ NO 1,119­ 0.563 0.850 1 1,712,580 NO 6,949­­ 1 ­ NO 1 ­ NO 1 ­ NO I ­ NO ­­ 1 ­ NO ­ 0.499 0.850 1 1,237,898 NO 966 0.661 0.850 1 122,859 NO 325 0.659 0.850 1 163,812 NO 450 0.674 0.850 1 6,091,573 NO 3,678 0.684 0.850 1 6,091,573 NO 3,578 0.744 0.850 1 1,893,220 NO 6,345 0.789 0.850 I 1,988,082 NO 1,373 0.609 0.850 1 848,844 NO 1, I16 0.652 0.850 1 848,844 NO 1,126 0.828 0.850 1 848,844 NO 1,034 0.671 0.850 1 2,010,420 NO 664 0.768 0.850 I 1,734,918 NO 1,676 0.751 0.850 1 1,415,336 NO 3,796 0.705 0.850 1 1,415,336 NO 3,924 0.764 0.850 1 1,887,114 NO 5,549 0.733 0.850 1 6,091,573 NO 17,443 0.760 ­ 0.850 ­ 1 1 6,091,573­ NO NO 17,755 ­ 0.541 0.850 I 55,845 NO 250 0.706 0.850 1 2,688,006 NO 6,918 0.718 0.850 1 2,606,100 NO 5,947 0.817 0.850 1 3,976,164 NO 10,281 0.724 0.850 1 3,976,164 NO 10,302 0.753 0.850 I 4,173,483 NO 18,709 0.921 0.921 I 3,227,344 NO 1,135 0.774 0.850 1 558,450 NO 2,005 0.712 0.850 1 846,134 NO 3,056 0.737 0.850 1 3,323,894 NO 3,042 0.813 0.850 1 3,518,235 NO 3,097 0.746 0.850 1 3,689,999 NO 1,648 0.805 0.850 1 3,708,108 NO 2,143 0.828 0.850 1 3,708,108 NO 12,184 0.825 0.850 1 6,105,720 NO 1,614 0.995 0.995 1 7,145,321 NO 2,132 0.759 0.850 1 846,134 NO 5,991 0.792 0.850 1 846,134 NO 5,976 0.618 0.850 1 1,708,857 NO 11,651 0.774 0.850 1 2,680,560 NO 9,341 0.823 0.850 1 4,302,857 NO 7,921 0.852 0.852 I 4,312,754 NO 7,920 0.692 0.850 1 4,302,857 NO 7,962 0.798 0.850 1 4,174,228 NO 3,946 0.827 0.850 1 4,244,220 NO 3,854 0.831 0.850 1 4,095,300 NO 3,696 0.799 0.850 1 4,095,300 NO 3,940 0.827 0.850 1 1,215,187 NO 7,307 0.816 0.850 1 1,620,250 NO 9,979 0.682 0.850 1 2,430,374 NO 6,426 0.788 0.850 I 162,323 NO 603 1.006 1.006 1 705,087 NO 641 0.781 0.850 1 85,629 NO 674 0.806 0.850 1 85,629 NO 675 0.819 0.850 1 85,629 NO 675 0.889 0.889 1 2,819,563 NO 9,082 219,753,176 426,794 ( 1,154,270) 29,930,949 2008 Projected 2003 Projected 2003 Tons Projected Generation ( MWh) Generation ( Name Plate) Generation 328,500 326,780 1 328,500 1,449,759 1,442,166 3,472 1,449,759 1,449,759 1,442,166 3,140 1,449,759 ­­ 846,134 841,702 1,007 846,134 2,151,149 2,139,884 1,708 2,151,149 2,151,149 2,139,884 9,781 2,151,149 3,082,644 3,066,500 10,204 3,082,644 3,059,859 3,043,835 11,293 3,059,859 3,059,859 3,043,835 11,348 3,059,859 476,544 474,048 2 476,544 476,544 474,048 11 476,544 497,568 494,962 2 497,568 1,290,392 1,283,634 5,726 1,290,392 5,980,329 5,949,011 1,521 5,980,329 6,055,438 6,023,726 1,812 6,055,438 5,980,329 5,949, Ol I 1,602 5,980,329 3,163,06 1 3,146,496 10,147 3,163,061 3,163,061 3,146,496 ­ 9,701 ­ 3,163,06 1 ­ 327,624 325,908 1,192 ­ 327,624 325,908 1,192 327,624 325,908 676 327,624 744,600 740,70I 1,516 744,600 163,812 162,954 2,383 163,812 430,446 428,192 2,036 430,446 806,964 802,738 1,646 806,964 819,060 814,771 1,822 819,060 1,116,900 1,111,051 997 1, I16,900 2,606, I00 2,592,452 2,522 2,606,100 2,606,100 2,592,452 7,370 2,606, I00 2,606,100 2,592,452 8,221 2,606,100 3,323,894 3,306,487 4,974 3,323,894 3,323,894 3,306,487 4,682 3,323,894 3,323,894 3,306,487 2,065 3,323,894 1,426,590 1,419,119 1,545 1,426,590 1,913,622 1,903,600 1,434 1,913,622 437,989 435,695 1,994 437,989 656,998 653,557 2,981 656,998 1,094,562 1,088,830 5,003 1,094,562 641,756 638,395 1,468 641,756 ­.. ­­ 3,977,069 3,956,24 1 16,579 3,977,069 2,122,780 ­ 2,111,663 1,113 ­ 2,122,780­.. 1,712,580 1,703,61I 6,913 1,712,580 ­­­­­ 63,254 2013 2008 Tons Projected ( Name Plate) Generation 1 328,500 3,491 1,449,759 3,156 1,449,759 ­ 1,013 846,134 1,717 2,151,149 9,832 2,151,149 10,258 3,082,644 11,353 3,059,859 11,407 3,059,859 2 476,544 11 476,544 2 497,568 5,756 1,290,392 1,529 5,980,329 1,822 6,055,438 1,610 5,980,329 10,200 3,163,061 9,752 3,163,061 ­ 680 327,624 1,524 744,600 2,396 163,812 2,046 430,446 1,655 806,964 1,831 819,060 1,002 1,116,900 2,536 2,606,100 7,408 2,606,100 8,264 2,606, I00 5,001 3,323,894 4,707 3,323,894 2,076 3,323,894 1,554 1,426,590 1,442 I, 913,622 2,005 437,989 2,996 656,998 5,029 1,094,562 1,476 641,756 ­ 16,666 3,977,069 1,119 2,122,780 ­ 6,949 1,712,580 ­ ­­­­ 1,237,898 1,231,415 961 1,237,898 966 1,237,898 122,859 122,216 324 122,859 325 122,859 163,812 162,954 448 163,812 450 163,812 6,091,573 6,059,671 24,389 6,091,573 3,678 6,091,573 6,091,573 6,059,671 23,730 6,091,573 3,578 6,091,573 1,893,220 1,883,305 6,312 1,893,220 6,345 1,893,220 1,988,082 1,977,670 1,366 1,988,082 1,373 1,988,082 848,844 844,399 1,110 848,844 1,116 848,844 848,844 844,399 1,120 848,844 1,126 848,844 848,844 844,399 1,028 848,844 1,034 848,844 2,010,420 1,999,892 661 2,010,420 664 2,010,420 I, 734,918 1,725,832 1,667 1,734,918 1,676 1,734,918 1,415,336 1,407,924 3,776 1,415,336 3,796 1,415,336 1,415,336 1,407,924 3,904 1,415,336 3,924 1,415,336 1,887,114 1,877,232 5,520 1,887,114 5,549 1,887,114 6,091,573 6,059,671 17,351 6,091,573 17,443 6,091,573 6,091,573 ­ 6,059,671 ­ 17,662­ 6,091,573 17,755 6,091,573 ­ 55,845 55,553 248 55,845 250 55,845 2,688,006 2,673,929 6,882 2,688,006 6,918 2,688,006 2,606,100 2,592,452 5,916 2,606,100 5,947 2,606,100 3,976,164 3,955,341 10,227 3,976,164 10,281 3,976,164 3,976,164 3,955,341 10,248 3,976,164 10,302 3,976,164 4,173,483 4,151,627 18,611 4,173,483 18,709 4,173,483 3,227,344 3,210,443 1,129 3,227,344 1,135 3,227,344 558,450 555,525 1,995 558,450 2,005 , 558,450 846,134 841,702 3,040 846,134 3,056 846,134 3,323,894 3,306,487 3,026 3,323,894 3,042 3,323,894 3,518,235 3,499,810 3,081 3,518,235 3,097 3,518,235 3,689,999 3,670,675 1,640 3,689,999 1,648 3,689,999 3,708,108 3,688,689 2,131 3,708,108 2,143 3,708,108 3,708,108 3,688,689 12,121 3,708,108 12,184 3,708,108 6,105,720 6,073,745 1,606 6,105,720 1,614 6,105,720 7,145,321 7,107,901 2,121 7,145,321 2,132 7,145,32 1 846,134 841,702 5,960 846,134 5,991 846,134 846,134 841,702 5,945 846,134 5,976 846,134 1,708,857 1,699,908 11,590 1,708,857 11,651 1,708,857 2,680,560 2,666,522 9,292 2,680,560 9,341 2,680,560 4,302,857 4,280,323 7,879 4,302,857 7,921 4,302,857 4,312,754 4,290,168 7,878 4,3 12,754 7,920 4,312,754 4,302,857 4,280,323 7,921 4,302,857 7,962 4,302,857 4,174,228 4,152,367 3,925 4,174,228 3,946 4,174,228 4,244,220 4,221,993 3,834 4,244,220 3,854 4,244,220 4,095,300 4,073,853 3,677 4,095,300 3,696 4,095,300 4,095,300 4,073,853 3,920 4,095,300 3,940 4,095,300 1,215,187 1,208,823 7,269 1,215,187 7,307 1,215,187 1,620,250 1,611,764 9,927 1,620,250 9,979 1,620,250 2,430,374 2,417,647 6,393 2,430,374 6,426 2,430,374 162,323 161,473 600 162,323 603 162,323 705,087 701,394 638 705,087 641 705,087 85,629 85,181 671 85,629 674 85,629 85,629 85,181 671 85,629 675 85,629 85,629 85,181 672 85,629 675 85,629 2,819,563 2,804,797 9,035 2,819,563 9,082 2,819,563 220,408,424 219,254,154 467,844 219,753,176 426,794 219,753,176 2013 Tons ( Name Plate) 1 3,491 3,156 ­ 1,013 1,717 9,832 10,258 11,353 11,407 2 11 2 5,756 1,529 1,822 1,610 10,200 9,752 ­­­ 680 1,524 2,396 2,046 1,655 1,831 1,002 2,536 7,408 8,264 5,001 4,707 2,076 1,554 1,442 2,005 2,996 5,029 1,476 16,666 1,119 ­ 6,949 ­­ Adjusted Scenario 2013 Tons ( Name Plate) 0 911 823 760 1,717 1,475 2,331 5,009 5,033 0 2 0 863 1,529 1,822 1,610 3,954 3,780 ­­­ 204 457 359 307 496 549 75I 1,902 1,111 1,240 2,206 2,077 2,076 1,295 1,260 301 449 754 22I ­ 2,500 840 ­ 1,042 ­­ ­ 966 325 450 3,678 3,578 6,345 1,373 1,116 1,126 1,034 664 1,676 3,796 3,924 5,549 17,443 17,755 ­ 250 6,918 5,947 10,281 10,302 18,709 1,135 2,005 3,056 3,042 3,097 1,648 2,143 12,184 1,614 2,132 5,991 5,976 1 1,651 9,341 7,921 7,920 7,962 3,946 3,854 3,696 3,940 7,307 9,979 6,426 603 724 49 68 3,678 3,578 952 206 1,116 1,126 1,034 664 1,676 2,033 2,102 2,973 9,344 9,512 ­ 37 4,151 3,568 6,168 6,181 2,806 1,135 30I 458 2,281 2,323 1,648 1,948 1,828 1,614 2,132 899 896 1,748 3,046 5,400 5,165 5,193 3,288 2,965 2,843 3,031 1,096 1,497 4,191 90 641 674 675 675 9,082 426,794 96 101 i01 101 3,892 179,072 \ . c Based on Summer Capacity ­ For Comparitive Purposes Only. CF Based on Projected Summer CF 2018 Generation 2018 Tons Capacity ( Summer) MWhr ( Summer) ( Summer) 0.467 01806 0.897 ­ 0.788 0.732 0.856 0.721 0.883 0.799 0.200 0.21 I 0.193 0.469 0.804 0.922 0.840 0.942 0.906 ­ 0.508 0.369 0.669 0.584 0.193 1.003 0.861 0.847 0.773 . 0.623 0.802 0.775 0.839 0.845 0.648 0.885 0.668 0.613 0.759 6.569 0.733 ­ 0.917 0.923 ­ 0.622 ­­ 0.500 0.850 0.897 ­ 0.850 0.850 0.856 0.850 0.883 0.850 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.850 0.850 0.922 0.850 0.942 0.906 ­ 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 1.003 0.86I 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.885 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.850 0.917 0.923 ­ 0.850 ­ ­ 310,980 1,303,050 1,374,459 ­ 819,060 1,824,270 1,949,887 2,829,480 2,823,334 2,717,790 354,780 354,780 459,900 I, 161,576 5,584,500 6,055,438 5,584,500 2,969,489 2,857,882 ­­­ 327,624 826,506 176,470 430,446 806,964 789,276 1,176,468 2,620,992 2,419,950 ' 2,494,410 3,186,888 3,186,888 3,037,968 1,426,590 1,950,852 349,962 588,234 990,318 744,600 ­ 3,977,069 2,118,734 ­ 1,548,768 ­­ 1 3,137 2,992 ­ 980 1,456 8,912 9,416 10,475 10,132 1 9 2 5,181 1,428 1,822 1,504 9,576 8,811 ­­ 680 1,691 2,581 2,046 1,655 1,765 1,055 2,550 6,879 7,910 4,795 4,513 1,897 1,554 1,470 1,602 2,683 4,550 1,712 ­ 16,666 1,117 ­ 6,285 ­­ ­ 0.466 0.850 0.574 0.850 0.604 0.850 0.698 0.850 0.708 0.850 0.733 0.850 0.769 0.850 0.631 0.850 0.675 0.850 0.858 0.858 0.658 0.850 0.761 0.850 0.839 0.850 0.788 0.850 0.880 0.880 0.811 0.850 0.841 0.850 ­ 0.588 0.850 0.806 0.850 0.805 0.850 0.894 0.894 0.776 0.850 0.831 0.850 0.867 0.867 0.829 0.850 0.771 0.850 0.792 0.850 0.926 0.926 0.936 0.936 0.955 0.955 0.970 0.970 0.825 0.850 0.995 0.995 0.814 0.850 0.849 0.850 0.617 0.850 0.844 0.850 0.915 0.915 0.947 0.947 0.769 0.850 0.860 0.860 0.857 0.857 0.831 0.850 0.799 0.850 0.844 0.850 0.845 0.850 0.674 0.850 1.177 1.177 ­ 1,325,388 1,034 141,474 375 178,704 491 5,882,340 3,551 5,882,340 3,455 1,921,068 6,438 2,040,204 1,409 819,060 1,077 819,060 1,086 826,708 1,007 2,047,650 677 1,749,810 1,691 1,265,820 3,395 1,265,820 3,510 1,696,598 4,989 5,510,040 15,778 5,510,040 16,060 ­ 51,377 230 2,352,936 6,056 2,323,152 5,301 3,823,137 9,885 3,708,108 9,608 3,782,568 16,957 3,227,344 1,135 521,220 1,872 781,830 2,823 3,090,090 2,828 3,365,058 2,962 3,237,899 1,447 3,513,857 2,030 3,6 12,483 11,870 6,105,720 1,614 7,145,321 2,132 789,276 5,588 789,276 5,575 1,712,580 11,676 2,457,180 8,563 4,168,505 7,673 4,312,754 7,920 3,871,920 7,165 3,916,950 3,703 4,127,009 3,748 4,095,300 3,696 4,095,300 3,940 1, I91,360 7,164 1,563,660 9,630 2,457,180 6,497 150,477 559 1.006 1.006 705,087 641 0.881 0.881 78,725 620 0.909 0.909 81,218 640 0.923 0.923 82,465 651 0.961 0.961 2,819,563 9,082 209,501,143 402,991

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.573386

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0063

Supporting & Related Material

CONS UlTl HG rcFF Economic Impacts of Implementing a Regional SO, Emissions Program in the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region Prepared for: Western RegionalAir Partnership Market Trading Forum Prepared by: ICFConsulting January 2WO rCF CONSULTlNG Agenda m Overview of Analytic Framework and Inputs to REMI m Detailed Discussion of Economic Impacts 1 ICF CON I" f­ lN G Regional Economic Impact 8 Regional economic impacts were analyzed using REMl's Policy Insight Model. AlO­ region, 53 sector version of REMl's model was acquired to simulate the regional economic impact of regional SO, reduction policies at the state level for the the nine GCVTC states and the single tribal region. 14t Key drivers to REMI were derived from the economic modeling using ICF's IPM. 2 L I COINS U LTlN CI ICF Key Inputs to REMI Key inputs to REMI derived from IPM are: ­ Non­ fuel expenditures resulting from the policy Total Capital Investment Annual incremental cost ­ Changes in wholesale electricity prices ­ Changes in fuel production and consumption ­ Net revenue from permit allocations. m All impacts from IPM were characterized by state, sector and year. ! cF Key Drivers: Non­ Fuel Expenditures Incremental Capital Investments 1t 4 Annualized Cost ( byState and Sector) Expenditures from Installation of Equipment ( scrubbers, new generation or retrofits) * Capital expendituresare split between constructionand equipmentpurchases Regional Purchasetheficients ( RPC) in REMI determinesalocatjon ofexpenditures across regions ­ REMI allocates regional expendituresby sector and input mix. . Secondary effects are on householdincome, wages, prices, . Net Change in annualized productioncosts = change in revenue+ changein annual capital and FOM+ Netfuel cost changes+ netpermit revenues ­ Electric generatorspass­ throughunrecoverable cost changes or excess revenuesto shareholders Share ownership­ national and distributed based on household income * Other sectors experiencedecreasedprofitability due to increased production cost > Sectors that compete regionally pass­ through costs via to producers and consumers 5 Sectors that compete nationallyexperience a change in market share 3 Annual Incremental Cost m Annual incremental costs, projected by IPM, denote the compliance cost of the policy and are incrementalto the base case. 1 Annual incremental cost consist of changes in capital investment and changes in variable and fixed operating cost. R Annual incremental costs affect the regional economy in two main ways. ­ Non­ electric industries that compete nationallyexperience a decrease in competitiveness, while non­ electricindustries that compete locally change their product price. Electricgenerators pass through unrecoverable cost changes or excess revenues to shareholders. ­ Capital investments spur construction and increase equipment purchase. Incremental Annual Cost in 2013 ( millions 1997$) Environ­ Command 8, State Minontv MTF EPA mental Control A2 10 25 32 62 37 CA 3 ­ 31 ­ 54 ­ 130 ­ 1 co ID ­ 7 ­­ 19 1 ­ 26 2 ­ 49 55 5 ­ 2 NM 5 15 19 38 1 NV ­ 14 ­ 33 ­ 44 ­ 83 4 OR ­ 9 ­ 9 ­ 9 ­ 9 4 UT 4 12 15 25 11 WY 11 28 40 75 102 Tribal 8 20 26 50 ­ Total 11 9 I ­ 16 21I 4 ICF CONSUL7IY6 lncremental Annual Cost in 2018 ( millions 1997$) EnGron­ Command & State Minority MTF EPA mental Control CA 6 ­ 22 ­ 39 ­ 37 ­ 2 co 15 39 43 33 47 ID 1 I 1 1 ­ NM NV 5 ­ 2 IO ­ 12 3 ­ a 5 ­ 3 ­ 6 OR 2 2 2 ­ 1 4 UT 1 16 20 21 12 WY 24 41 51 199 108 Tribal 3 9 I1 1 2 Az 5 25 41 68 40 ._ Total 60 121 145 274 210 CON5I) LTING Annual lncremental Cost ( Continued) Sources located in AZ, CO and WY bear most of the cost ( primarily capital investment costs) associated with the command & control scenario because a large share of the BART­ eligible sources are located in these states. Sources located in CA realizes lower costs in 2013 and 2018 under the trading scenarios because of the lower level of repowering of existing oil/ gas steam units relative to the Baseline. 5 Annual Incremental Cost ( Continued) a Similarly, sources located in CO and WY realize lower costs in 2013 under the trading scenarios relative to the baseline because repowering ofexisting IC1boilers is postponed in anticipation ofthe policy in 2018. ICF Trading Cases ­ CONSULrlNG Incremental Cost for GCVTC States in 2018 500 Environmental 400 1M­­ IH 200 100 0 ­ 1 00 MTF $ 123 MM ­ 200 Variable O& M Fixed O& M 0Fuel 0Capital 6 EF CON II1 L1 ING Incremental Annual Capital Cost in 2013 ( millions 1997$) Environ­ Command & State Minoritv MTF EPA mental Control Az 1 3 4 a 21 CA 0 ­ 5 ­ 9 ­ 23 ­ 1 co ­ 3 ­ 9 ­ 12 ­ 25 28 ID 0 0 0 0 0 NM 1 2 2 5 3 NV ­ 4 ­ 9 ­ 12 ­ 25 3 OR ­ 2 ­ 2 ­ 2 ­ 2 4 UT 0 ­ 1 ­ 1 ­ 2 6 Tribal Total ­ 4 ­ 14 ­ 20 44 107 WY 2 4 6 11 43 1 3 4 9 0 ICF IncrementalAnnual Capital Cost in 2018 ( millions 1997$) Environ­ Command & State Minority MTf PA mental Control Az ­ 1 3 4 ­ 22 22 CA 0 ­ 5 ­ 9 ­ 27 ­ 1 co 3 11 10 ­ 24 27 ID 2 2 2 2 0 2 4 3 ­ 10 5 ­ 1 ­ 1 ­ 1 ­ 16 0 OR 3 3 3 3 4 UT ­ 1 3 2 ­ 20 7 4 6 8 20 45 NM NV WY Tribal ­ 2 ­ 3 ­ 5 ­ 33 1 Total 9 23 17 ­ 127 110 7 L B ICpl< ey Drivers: Changes in Wholesale C 0 N I U L'FI N t in Electricity Prices I Electric Distribution Companies I. Changes in electricity prices affects industrial, commercialand residential customers. I * Changes in wholesaleelectricity prices affects utility revenuesand shareholder profits. 11 CommercialAndustrial Users of Electricity Residential User of Electricity * Changes in electricity prices for the ­ Changes in electricity prices affects residential commercialindustrialsector affects the costof consumers as change in Consumer Price Index raw material inputs. ( CPI) and purchasingpower ­ Non­ electricsectors that compete regionally Changes In CPI directly affects real after­ tax wage are able to pass­ throughinput cost changes to rate, and has indirect effects on migration, labor their consumers. force and government services. change in competitivenessrelative to Wholesale Electricity Prices 1p1 Projected changes ( relative to the baseline) in wholesale energy prices from IPM are used to derive changes in retail energy prices paid by residential, commercial and industrial sectors. I We assume competitive market conditions where changes in wholesale energy prices are the only price impacts observed by end users under a policy. Any unrecoverable costs are absorbed by shareholders; revenues in excess of costs are passed on to shareholders in the form of increased dividends. 8 CDNLU LTlNG Wholesale Electricity Prices ( Continued) Wholesale energy prices in IPM represent the variable cost of the marginal generating unit and simulate continuously clearing competitive electric generation markets. M Electricity prices only change if the variable cost of production of the marginal unit changes. I Electricity price impacts in the command & control scenario are small relative to the trading scenarios because capital investment ( which does not directly influence variable operating cost) dominate the compliance strategy under ICF CONSU LilfiG Wholesale Electricity Prices ( Continued) I Since fuel costs ( which directly influence variable cost of operation) dominate incremental cost under the trading scenarios, electricity price impacts under the trading scenarios are relatively more pronounced. m Decline in electricity prices in 2013 represent inter­ temporal tradeoffs in anticipation of the policy in 2018. h I 9 ICF CDNSULrlNG Wholesale Electricity Price Impacts Stale Minoriiy I MTF I 2013 Enwronmental I Command& ConVol EPA 1997 mills percent 1897 mills percent kWh change ­ A2 ­ 0.32 ­ 0.2% CA ­ 0.19 ­ 0.7% 4.33 ­ 0.1 % CO ­ 0.17 ­ 0.7% ­ 0.32 ­ 02% ID ­ 0.19 ­ 0.7% ­ 0.33 ­ 0.1% NM ­ 0.19 4.7% ­ 0.33 ­ 0.1% NV ­ 0.18 ­ 0.7% ­ 0.33 ­ 02% OR ­ 0.18 ­ 0.7% ­ 0.33 ­ 0.1K UT ­ 0.18 ­ 0.7% ­ 0.32 ­ 0.2% WY ­ 0.17 ­ 03% ­ 0.32 ­ 0. z % Tribal ­ 0.17 ­ 0.7%/ ­ 0.32 ­ 1.30.1 ­ 0.43 ­ 1.7% 1 ­ 0.81 ­ 3.2% 1 ­ 0.05 ­ 02% Average ­ 0.18 I ­ 0.32 1 ­ 0.42 I ­ 0 80 I ­ 004 Wholesale Electricity Price Impacts 2018 State Minority I MTF I EPA I Environmentill Command & Control 1997 mills percan ' 1997 mills psrcen 11997 malls percan ' 1997mills psrcen 1997 mills percent IkWh changa 1 IkWh chanBi 1 RWh change / kWh change A2 0.18 0.7% I 041 17% 0.96 3.9% 0.0% CA 0.29 1.1% 0.50 2.0% 063 25% 1.22 4.8% 0.05 0.2% CO 0.18 0.7% 0.31 1.3% 041 17% I 0.96 3.9% 0.0% ID 0.24 1.0% 0.37 1.5% 051 20% 1.12 4.5% 0.03 0.1% NM 0.26 1.0% 0.39 1.5% 053 21% 1.16 4.6% 0.04 0.2% NV 0.24 0.9% 0.41 1.6% 052 21% 1.09 4.4% 0.03 0.1% OR 026 %. OR 0.39 1.5% 053 21% 1.16 4.6% 0.04 0.2% UT 0.22 0.9% 037 1.5% 048 19% 1.04 42% 0.02 0.1% WY 0.18 0.7% 0.31 1.3% 041 17% 0.96 3.9% 0.0% Tribal 0.18 0.7% 0.31 13% 041 17% 0.96 3.9% 0.0% Average 0.22 0.37 0 48 1.06 0.02 10 t 3 CONSULTING ICF Fuel Mix Impacts in REMI Fuel Productionand Consumption I Changes in the value of coalproduced Changes in the value of gas consumptionby the ekcttic utility and non­ utilitysector Changes in fuel expenditures by sector and region is modeled as a change in dividends for publiGutilitysector companies and as production costs for nonpublic utility sector Companies I I 1 Coal Gas * Change in the value of coal producedaffects REMI determines the share of gas consumption the mining sector in REMI that is produced within a particular region FU~ IProduction & Consumption m Regional coal production is a key driver to the REMI model and is based on changes in coal production by state as projected by IPM. E A coal producer experiences revenue losses ( gains) when less ( more) coal is produced and coal prices decrease ( increase) due to lower ( higher) quantity of coal demanded. 1p Changes in coal production have been valued at the market clearing mine­ mouth price based on IPM projections. Changes in gas consumption, based on IPM projections, also feed into the REMI model I _ I t CONSULllNG ICF Impacts on Coal Markets Coal prices and coal production in IPM are endogenously determined in IPM and are based on coal supply curves. rn Coal revenues increase under the trading scenarios. The total increase in the GCVTC region is less than a percent ( 0.7 %) in 2018 under the Environmental scenario. m Coal revenues decline under the Command & Control scenario. The total decline in the GCVTC region is less than a percent ( 0.5 %) in 2018. ICF impacts on Coal Markets CDNSULilNG Trading Scenarios B Although coal­ based generation ( and coal consumption) decreases in the 9 states GCVTC region in the Trading scenarios, coal production in the same 9 state region increases. E Revenues from coal production from the 9 states region increases as the SO, reduction requirement becomes more stringent across the trading scenarios. Increase in coal revenues is largely due to increased exports of western coals to other parts of the countrv. 12 ICF Impacts on Coal Markets CONSULrl NG Trading Scenarios ( Continued) 1 Increased demand for western coals is offset by decreased demand for coal from other regions of the country, predominantly the mid­ west. N lncreased export of western coal to other parts of country reflect: ­ Decreased demand for coal in the GCVTC region. ­ Less stringent national SO, cap due to SO, reductions inthe GCVTC region. This leads to increased coal generation in the rest of the country. Impacts on Coal Markets CON I ULTlN G Command & Control Scenario 1 Under the command and control scenario coal revenues in the GCVTC region declines. 1 Command & control is a capital intensive program that does not lower coal purchases in the GCVTC region: ­ Coal consumption increases slightly in the GCVTC region. ­ lncreased coal demand in the 9 state region is largely the result of additional new coal capacity. 13 I ICF Impacts on Coal Markets CON SI1 L IIN G Command & Control Scenario ( Continued) rn Increased coal demand in GCVTC region: ­ Puts upward pressure on western coal prices and plants capable of receiving non­ western coal switch away from western coal. ­ Decline in export of western coal to other parts of the country leads to a decline in coal production in the western states. rn Production cuts in the western states are balanced by production increases in the Appalachian region. ic CONSUL F : lNG Coal Revenue Impacts by State in 2013 ( millions 1997$) Environ­ Command State Minority MTF EPA mental & Control AZ CA co ID NM ­ 0.01 NV OR UT ­ 0.31 WY 2.87 2.93 2.95 2.85 ­ 30.70 Tribal ­ 0.12 Total 2.87 2.93 2.95 2.85 ­ 31.14 14 ICF LoN5ULiiNG Coal Revenue Impacts by State in 2018 ( millions 1997$) Environ­ Command State Minority MTF EPA mental & Control HL CA co 13.40 ID ­ NM ­­ 0.01 0.00 ­ 0.22 ­ 0.01 NV ­ OR ­ UT ­ 21.02 30.20 52.08 WY 4.65 ­ 6.80 ­ 6.30 ­ 30.58 ­ 12.68 Tribal ­ 0.12 ­ 6.25 ­ 19.03 ­ 0.12 Total 4.65 14.09 17.65 15.65 ­ 12.81 Gas Consumption s Change in gas consumption is relatively small under the Command & Control scenario because the policy does not create incentives to shift to natural gas. m Gas consumption increases with the stringency of the trading program because increased generation from gas is a significant compliance strategy. 15 ICF CONSUL I ING Gas Consumption by State in 2013 ( millions 1997$) Environ­ Command State Minority MTF EPA mental & Control A2 9 20 26 53 0 CA 2 ­ 25 ­ 42 ­ 100 0 co ­ 3 ­ 6 ­ 9 ­ 18 6 ID 0 I 2 5 ­ 2 NM 4 12 16 33 ­ 2 NV ­ 8 ­ 20 ­ 26 ­ 53 5 OR ­ 6 ­ 6 ­ 6 ­ 6 ­ 3 UT 4 11 14 27 0 WY 8 21 30 60 44 Tribal 6 14 19 37 0 Total 16 22 24 38 48 5CF CONSULTtN G Gas Consumption by State in 2018 ( millions 1997$) Environ­ Command State Minority MTF EPA mental & Control A2 7 17 24 92 0 CA 5 ­ 16 ­ 27 ­ 4 ­ 1 co 7 16 22 59 0 ID ­ 1 ­ 1 ­ 1 0 0 NM 3 6 9 29 0 NV I 4 6 11 0 OR ­ 6 ­ 6 ­ 6 ­ 6 ­ 3 UT 3 8 12 39 0 WY 7 16 22 188 47 Tribal 5 12 16 48 0 Total 31 56 77 456 43 16 !. CFPermit Trading Impacts in REMI Revenue Impacts from Allocations I ­ Allowance allocation is comparedto projectedemissions to determine net allowance position by sector and geographic area Revenue impacts from allocation depend on net allowance position and permit price I Non­ Tribal Revenue impacts from allocations for sectors ' that compete regionallyflows through as changes in dividends for shareholders Revenue impacts from allocations for sectors that compete nationallyflow throughto the production cost of that sector ICF CONLULTING I 1 Tribal Revenueimpacts from allocation to tribal areas flow through as changes in tribal government expenditures. Allowance Allocation Revenues I Revenues ( or expenses) from net allowance sales ( or purchases) represent the net position of each state given the initial distribution of allowances and projected emissions. mi Data on the distribution of allowances by sector and ' state were provided by MTF participants. P Allowance prices and the emissions in each state were projected by IPM. IE A state sells allowances if its allocation exceeds its emissions and buys allowances if its emissions exceeds its allocations. 17 CONSULTING Allowance Revenue Impacts in 2018 ( millions 1997$) Minority MTF EPA Environmental AZ 3.5 3.2 6.5 17.8 CA ­ 0.4 ­ 4.1 ­ 7.5 , ­ 24.8 co ­ 5.3 2.9 ­ 0.4 5.9 ID 1.6 ­ 0.4. ­ 2.0 ­ 1 1.4 NM ­ 2.6 ­ 2.9 ­ 2.4 ­ 31 . O NV ­ 7.6 ­ 12.6 ­ 17.8 ­ 20.3 OR ­ 2.0 ­ 5.5 ­ 9.0 ­ 22.1 UT ­ 9.1 ­ 8.6 ­ 1 3.7 ­ 24.1 WY 7.6 6.8 14.4 47.6 Tribal 14.2 22.4 30.7 61.9 18 EF CONS I1 IT1 WG Economic Impacts B For the purposes of this analysis, three indicators of economic impacts are reported: ­ Employment, ­ Gross regionalproduct, and ­ Real personaldisposable income. I­ I ICF Review of Key Assumptions m Sectors that compete regionally are able to flow through changes in productioncost to prices. 8 Sectors that compete nationally are unable to flow through production cost increases to priceand pass­ through these changes to shareholders ( as changes in profits). Electric utility sector operates in a competitive regional market. To the extent that price increases are reflected in wholesale electric prices, they are recovered. Excess recovery or under­ recovery are flowed through to shareholders. I Shareholders are distributed across the country and are approximated by the distribution of personal income. On this basis, approximately twenty percent of the shareholders are estimated to be located in the nin 19 I ICF Economic Impacts for GCVTC CONSULIING States in 2013 Erniron­ command ~ nges Minority MTF EPA mental & Control Employment 1,965 3,738 4,180 7,801 4,473 GRP ( Million 9s) 127 241 264 489 244 Real Disp Pers Inc ( Million 9%) 94 172 217 410 84 Note: Totals might not match due to rounding. Environ­ Command % Change Minority MTF EPA mental & Control Employment 0.005 0.010 0.012 0.022 0.012 GRP 0.006 0.012 0.013 0.023 0.012 Real Disp Pers Inc 0.007 0.013 0.016 0.030 0.006 ­ ! CE Economic Impacts for GCVTC States in 2018 Environ­ Command Changes Minority MTF EPA mental 8, Control Employment ­ 926 ­ 1,418 ­ 1,434 ­ 7,918 ­ 625 GRP ( Million 92$) ­ 29 ­ 43 ­ 22 ­ 271 42 Real Disp Pers Inc ( Million 92$) ­ 78 ­ 133 ­ 159 ­ 525 44 Note: Totals might not match due to rounding. Environ­ Command % Change Minority MTF EPA mental & Control Ernpfoyment ­ 0.002 ­ 0.004 ­ 0.004 ­ 0.021 ­ 0.002 GRP ­ 0.001 ­ 0.002 ­ 0.001 ­ 0.012 ­ 0.002 Real Disp Pers Inc ­ 0.005 ­ 0.009 ­ 0.011 ­ 0.036 ­ 0.003 20 ICF CON ). U L1 ING Regional Economic Impacts E Changes in the three economic indicators are positive in 2013 and negative in 2018 by a similar order of magnitude. m The magnitude of the changes in the three economic indicators are all very small, with no change in an economic indicator being larger than 0.05 percent at the regional level. m Impacts on the three economic indicators are relatively small because the cost of the SO, reduction policies are all relatively small. Even the highest cost of $ 274 million to all sectors is well under one percent of the, total production cost oft IiEFCONSUITtNG Command & Control Scenario rn Economic impacts from the command and control scenario are positive in 2013 and comparable to the EPA trading scenario. rn Increased economic activity in 2013 under the command and control scenario reflects the surge in capital investmentthat begins in 2013. II The onetime surge in employment in 2013 is primarily due to capital investments under the command and control scenario. Employment levels decline with some lag. 21 I ICFCONS " IT1 N t Command & Control ( Continued) m Economic impacts in 2078 under the command and control scenario, however, are negative, but of a more modest magnitude. m Command and control scenario is a capital intensive program primarily affecting the electric utility sector. 8 Because under the command and control scenario most costs impacts are capital, electricity price impacts in competitive markets are relatively small. I­ ICF CON S "( TINS Command and Control a Declines in gross regional product and real personal disposable income occur in 2018 under the command and control scenario after positive impacts in 2013. m For the command and control scenario, the longer­ term economic equilibrium would be expected to approach pre­ policy levels due to the fact that the policy reflects a one­ time shock to the region that does not systematically alter the non­ utility sectors. PI Shareholders of the utility sector continue to bear the costs of the policy. However, these effects are distributed nationally, with, of the nine state area, only California bearing a significa 22 ­ ICF CON 1U L TIN G Trading Scenarios I All trading scenarios yield an overall increase in all three economic indicators in 2013, and an overall decrease in the economic indicators in 2018. The dampened decline in gross regional production in 2018 under the EPA scenario represents the lagged effects of 2013. EPA trading scenario, unlike the other trading scenario, has no incremental cost in 2013. CONSULZING ICF Trading Scenarios Impacts ( Continued) II Economic impacts from the environmental scenario are greater than the other trading scenarios because in these scenarios nationally competing, non­ utility sectors bear a larger portion of the compliance cost relative to the other trading scenarios. m Thus, they loose competitiveness and market share with attendant impacts on employment, wage rates, and household income. E The Environmental Scenario also has the lowest level of capital investment, lower than the Base Case, thus employment impacts are largest. 23 CONSULTING ICF Trading Scenarios Impacts ( Continued) m California bears a large share of the impacts in employment, GRP and income relativeto other states. This is primarily due to its relative size. California is the largest of the nine states, in terms of employment, income and output. ­ income was used as the proxy for shareholderdistribution. Sixty­ six percent of GCVTC utility shareholdersare assumed to be located in California. ­ GCVTC electric utility shareholders realizea loss in income when increased electric utility expendituresdue to the policy are not recoveredthrough electric prices. ­ California experiencesa larger than average increase in electric prices which increasesthe cost of productionfor all other inhustries. COHSULrlNG ICF Trading Scenarios Impacts ( Continued) R In addition, the mix of industry in California affects the relative impacts. ­ Many of the industries located in California compete nationally and are not able to pass through the increased production cost from higher electricity prices. ­ These industriesbecause less competitive as a result of the the increased production cost from electric price increase. ­ Loss of competitivenessleads to lower output, resulting in lower employment, reduced income and lower gross regional product. 24 l! F Impact on Gross Regional Product in 2013 ( millions 1992$) Environ­ Command State Minority MTF EPA mental & Control Az CA co ID NM NV OR UT WY Tribal Total 18 40 48 90 61 48 73 64 113 79 21 32 41 75 31 2 4 4 7 8 0 17 18 32 1 6 7 3 9 ­ 9 6 11 14 29 24 7 14 18 32 13 12 26 32 58 33 7 18 23 45 2 128 242 265 490 244 lOcF Impact on Gross Regional Product in 2018 ( millions 1992$) State Minority MTF EPA A2 ­ 4 0.2 4 CA ­ 53 ­ 102 ­ 126 co 13 39 47 ID ­ 4 ­ 7 ­ 9 NM 1 1 1 NV 4 ­ 8 19 OR ­ 9 ­ 17 ­ 26 UT ­ 3 20 28 WY 16 13 18 Tribal 11 19 20 Total ­ 29 ­ 43 ­ 22 E nvironmental ­ 75 ­ 259 76 ­ 61 ­ 27 37 ­ 74 24 65 21 ­ 271 Com mand & Control 7 ­ 25 ­ 5 0 I ­ 1 1 ­ 1 0 ­ 9 1 ­ 42 25 ­­ ICF CONSUL1 ING Impact on Employment in 2013 ( Number of Workers) State Minority MTF EPA Az 298 688 850 CA 762 1,135 1,078 co 376 518 682 ID 44 79 79 NM ­ 43 244 251 NV 110 147 58 OR 74 205 249 UT 117 215 270 WY 132 268 351 Tribal 100 247 314 Total 1,969 3,745 4,183 Environ­ Command mental & Control 1,595 1,041 1,906 1,027 1,253 746 150 120 411 19 185 ­ 173 579 377 486 279 618 1,005 618 30 7,801 4,471 I1 lockImpact on Employment by State in 2018 ( Number of Workers) Environ­ Command State Minority MTF EPA mental & Control Az ­ 125 ­ 104 ­ 88 ­ 1,708 108 CA ­ 963 ­ 1,775 ­ 2,197 ­ 4,285 ­ 459 co 165 585 679 641 ­ 45 ID ­ 80 ­ 135 ­ 186 ­ 1,247 1 NM ­ 25 ­ 36 ­ 74 ­ 653 22 NV 42 ­ 162 265 439 ­ 193 OR ­ 167 ­ 314 ­ 466 ­ 1,281 ­ 34 UT ­ 101 106 140 ­ 307 11 WY 132 109 126 133 ­ 48 Tribal 198 312 371 346 15 26 I­ I ICF CDNlULllNG Impact on Real Disposable Personal Income by State in 2013 ( millions 1992$) Environ­ Command State Minority MTF PA mental 8 Control AZ 13 30 39 72 23 CA 31 48 48 91 20 co 21 41 56 104 I1 ID 2 3 3 6 4 NM 0 7 8 14 1 NV 9 7 19 38 ­ 8 OR 6 11 14 29 9 UT 5 9 11 21 6 WY 4 8 10 17 16 Tribal 3 8 10 19 1 I­ Impact on Real Disposable Personal Income by State in 2018 ( millions 9992s) Environ­ Command State Minority MTF EPA mental 8 Control A2 ­ 7 ­ 1 1 ­ 12 ­ 97 3 CA ­ 52 ­ 97 ­ 121 ­ 213 ­ 29 co 2 11 13 8 ­ 2 ID ­ 6 ­ 8 ­ 11 ­ 109 0 NM ­ 2 ­ 3 ­ 5 ­ 24 0 NV ­ 1 ­ 10 2 3 ­ 7 OR ­ 13 ­ 22 ­ 31 ­ 69 ­ 2 UT ­ 5 ­ 1 ­ 1 ­ 18 0 WY 4 3 3 ­ 6 ­ 5 Tribal 3 5 5 I 0 Total ­ 78 ­ 133 ­ 159 ­ 525 27 I ICF CONSULTING Sensitivity Analysis rn Regionaleconomic impacts are sensitive to assumptions about the recovery from ratepayers of compliance cost borne by the electric generating industry. 8 We assumed that retail prices reflect competitive prices in wholesale markets based on marginal energy costs. Thus, revenues in excess of production costs accrue to shareholders. m However, an alternate assumption that the electric utility sector may be able to fully recover its costs through price flow­ through to end user has a more extended impact on the regional economy. JiCFCONLULTlNt Sensitivity Analysis ( Continued) rn Under this alternate assumption of guaranteed cost recovery, the production cost of other sectors, using electricity as an input, increases. I The following three slides detail the regional economic impact of a command and control scenario for 2013 and 2018 under these alternate assumptions regarding cost recovery. 28 CONSU iTlN1 1 ICF Economic Impacts by State Million 92 $ Az ­ 2 CA 63 co ­ 26 ID 4 NM ­ 4 NV 6 OR 9 UT ­ 1 WY 26 Tribal 0 I ICF Economic Impacts by State Percent Millicin 92 $ Percent 0.00 ­ 89 0.00 0.10 ­ 55 0.00 ­ 0.02 ­ 100 ­ 0.06 0.01 ­ 3 ­ 0.01 ­ 0.01 ­ 8 ­ 0.02 0.01 ­ 3 0.00 0.01 ­ 19 ­ 0.01 0.00 ­ 22 ­ 0.03 0.13 ­ 21 ­ 0.10 0.00 ­ 3 ­ 0.01 C0N5U1TlN~ Sensitivity Analysis Command 8 Control Scenario Changes in Real Disposable Income Million 92 $ Percent Million 92 $ Percent Az ­ 37 ­ 0.03 ­ 76 ­ 0.06 CA 28 0 ­ 16 0 co ­ 39 ­ 0.03 ­ 80 ­ 0.06 ID 1 0.01 ­ 1 0 NM ­ 2 ­ 0.01 ­ 5 ­ 0.01 NV 5 0.01 5 0.01 OR 2 0 ­ 8 0 UT ­ 4 ­ 0.01 ­ 14 ­ 0.03 WY I1 0.09 ­ 13 ­ 0.11 Tribal ­ 1 ­ 0.01 I ­ 1 ­ 0.01 29 Y b ' a.' 9 I CONSULTING ICF Economic Impacts by State la1ysis­ Sensitivity AI Command i3Contro Changes in Empl 2013 Persons Perceni Az ­ 93 0. oc CA 865 0. oc co ­ 310 ­ 0.01 ID 49 0.07 NM ­ 69 ­ 0.01 NV 63 o. oa OR 155 0.01 Scenario byment 2018 Persons Percent ­ 1,400 ­ 0.05 ­ 873 0.00 ­ 1,600 ­ 0.05 ­ 5 ­ 0.01 ­ 124 ­ 0.01 19 0.00 ­ 257 ­ 0.01 UT 42 0.00 ­ 334 ­ 0.02 WY 805 0.25 ­ 273 ­ 0.08 Tribal ­ 3 0.00 ­ 3 ­ 0.01 Total 1.504 ­ 4.850 CONiUIilNt Conclusions Change in employment, gross regional product and disposable income are by state, and may appear to be more significant if the economic impacts are concentrated within the certain localities of a state. The modeling framework was constructed to report at the state level. Employment, gross regional product and disposable income increasejust before a policy takes effect and decrease after the policy takes effect. 1 Changes in employment, gross regional product and disposable income represent anticipatedfluctuations in economic cycle due to policy. 30

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.591026

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0076-0064

Supporting & Related Material

Data Worksheets from ICF Consulting Detailing Utility Emissions Projections n KUP k , mmmm 2 "" V 0000 0 =. ­. m­ N' r: N . II L cu B a U 0) c E s

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.600992

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0017-0005

Supporting & Related Material

Summary of Methyl Bromide Crltlcat Use Meeting Environmental Protection Agehcy, Washington DC February 16,2001 lntroductioh After welcomlng and introduction, EPA thanked everyone for their attendance an The outline for the meeting schedule and goals was as follows: 1) Discussion of EPA's timeline for formulating a critical use process; 2) Review of the Montreal Protocol and Clean Air Act ( CAA) language relating to Critical and Emergency Use Exemptions; and 3) tdentlflcation of any issues, questions, and concerns raised by stakeholders. PA then stated that stakeholder input is extremely valuable in ensuring that the process is a success. especially because the policy­ making process is still in Its early stages­ Methyl Bromide Critical U s e Exemption PA gave a slide presentation discussing the foollowing: 1) The steps taken to conform the methyl bromide phaseout with the Montreal Protocot ( Protocol) and the CAA, 2) The regulatory steps In developing an exemption process: 3) EPA's timeline; 4) Montreal Protocol language relating the Critical and Emergency Use exemption: and 5) Recent Changes to the CAA relating to Critical and Emergency U s e exemptions. International Perspective EPA began the discussion by assuring attendees that the goal of a methyl bromide phaseout is to phase out methyl bromide, not to harm agricultural interests. Stakeholders should not hat the US. government, including the Departments of Agriculture and State, not EPA alone, negotiate the critical use exemption criteria agreed by the Parties ( countries that have ratified the Montreal Protocol) and that the Parties formulated the language for Critical Use Exemptlons. EPA explained that portions of the Essential Use process already in operation for CFCs and other chemicals might possibly be used as a template for the Critical and Emergency Use exemption process, stressing that the essential use process will have to be modified far agriculture. ln addition, EPA discussed the Parties understanding of the need for flexibility in the Critical and Emergency Use exemption process to account for regional and crop­ speciflc considerations. EPA also illustrated how the methyl bromide Critical Use Exemption process could possibly function internationally. Stakeholders should note that with the exception of the January 1, 2005 date set for allowing exempted uses, the timeline for the international process has not yet been set by the Parties. The following steps, based on the Essential Use process for CFCs, summarize a possible international process for critical uses: 1 ) National governments submit nominations to the Ozone Secretariat by January 31, 2003: 2) The Ozone Secretariat submits nominations to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel ( TEAP), which submits nominations to the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee ( MBTOC) for review; 3) MBTOC makes a recommendation to TEAP; 4) TEAP considers the recommendatlon and sends it to Parties for debate in meetings ( mid 2003); 5) The Parties reach a declslon ( fall 2003) in suficient time to enable conttnued critical use after the January 1,2005 methyl bromide phaseout. The process may be repeated in the following year to make supplemental requests for 2005, as well as requests for 2006­ 1 . Summary of Stakeholder Suggestions and Concerns Many stakeholders expressed concern, as the methyl bromide phaseout date approaches, over the future of crops currently uslng methyl bromide. The following bulleted list summarizes stakeholder suggestions and concerns that were introduced and discussed at the meeting. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of every attendee at the meeting or of PA; rather, thfs list is provided as a summary of information offered by stakeholders. Text In bold represents stakeholder tAmrnents. All other text represents clarifications made by EPA in response to stakeholder concerns and questions. The Critical Use Exemption Process Critical Use Exemptions will not exist until 2005. Users can acquire methyl bromide until the phaseout, as long as they are wllllng to pay the market price. ­ Individual methyl bromide users are not currently required by EPA regulations to consume less methyl bromide than in the past. PA requires only methyl bromide producers and importers to reduce their production and import. The Montreal Protocol negotiates Qn the basis of methyl bromide consumption, not emissions. Policy has addressed the reduction of emissions only through minimizing consumption; thus, Critical Use exemptiohs are related to production and consumption, not emissions. ­ The Critical Use exemptfon process is designed to provide users with approved exemptions for calendar year 2005. In order to process a larger number of applicatlons under time constraints, EPA has increased Its staff working on methyl bromide, ­ ­ The timetine of the appllcation process could possibly be a5 follows: ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ Application process begins, mid 2002; US. government reviews appllcations, late 2002; EPA submits only those nominations approved by the US, government to the Protocol Parties, January 2003; Protocol makes determinations for granting critical uses, December 2002: Applicants notified of Protocol decisions, 2004; and Approved applicants allowed to use methyl bromide, January 7 , 2005. Critical use exemptions should: ­ Consider use ovw volume; ­ ­ Be granted to coincide with crop cycles; Be granted on a multi­ year basis: ­ ­ The CAA and the Protocol do not specify the time period of granted exemptions­ EPA is checking with Protocol officials. Growlng conditions and pesticide needs do not change drastically annually. It Is therefore unlikely that an exemption would be needed one year and not the next. ­ Requiring single­ year exemptions would decrease the security level of ­ Metfunctlons In the adminlstratlve process are posstbte; a multiyear exemption would further minimize rlsk to growers; and Not be denled because of atternetjveo that are feasible but not available in the US. TEAP has noted that 90% of all uses have alternatives that ate technically feasible. However, EPA realizes that not all of these alternatives are available in the U. S. gfOWQr8. ­ The exemption process should: Be simple and meaningful; Reflect 8 cooperative effort between EPA, USDA, and stakeholders; Reflect the lessons learned from the 1996 FIFRA Section 18 workshop ~ n creating a worlrabte exemptioh process; Be timely, reflecting the fact that mQthyl bromlde is the first agricultural product to be considered for an exernptfon from the phaseout of otone­ depleting substances; Allow growers' assodatlons rather than indivlduals, to submit applicatfons; Allow fat an appeal review processlpeer review panel should the viewpolnts of applicants and EPA scientists dlffer; and Be consistent. In the FlfRA Sectlon 18 precess, the first state submitting might be required to submit a greater amount of data than another state submftting for the same use. Such inequalltles could exlst in the crttlcal use process. ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ ­ 0 In order to standardlte the crltical use exemption process, PA should: ­ ­ ­ Dlstlnguish between regtonal and natlonal significant market dlsruptions; Define phrases such as, " slgnlflcant market disruption" and " technlcalfy and economically feasible;" and Keep decislons made at the international level ( between now and 2005) In harmony with decislons made at the EPA to avoid complications. ­ ­ ­ While the Parties wlll use a common set of criteria b judge applications, each country designs its own domestic policy. EPA should look to the criteria set by Canada and the Ozone Secretarkat before finalizing U. S. criterla. Bill Thomas, a member of MBTOC. and Paul Horwitz, EPA's primary Montreal Protocol negotiator. wlll help EPA get as close to the thinking at the international level as possible. Critical use applications will be sent to the Parties for review regardless of the recommendations given by the TEAP. which does not have the authority to grant or deny exemptions. Under Decision fX/ 6, the TEAP does not consider " significaht market dlsruption", but does consider " technically and economically feasible alternatives." " Significant market disruption" could vary for every country. and therefore the Parties decided that it would be overly subjective for them to review this criterion. However, whether a nomlnated use is '' technologically and economically feasible" will be considered by the Parties. The Emernencv U s e Exemption Process Emergency Use exemptions represent a subset of Critical Use exemptions. There will be no deadline for emergency use applications as there will be for critical use applications. Emergency uses will only be granted after the phaseout and wlll be dealt with on a rolling basis. ­ To understand the retationshlp between Emergency Use exemptions and Critical Use exemptions, refer to Decision IN6 and IX/ 7 of the Montreal Protocol, where it is stated that the Secretariat and the TEAP will evaluate Emergency Use exemptions according to the Crltical U s e criterla. The Emergency Use exemption provision was developed for a situatlon where the use of methyl bromide is Imperative. includlng: ­ ­ A situation where one needs an exemption In 2005 after Critical Use'exemptions for 2005 have been granted., If a grower, who had previously used methyl bromide, switched to an alternative substance whlch became unavailable after the deadline for appfication submissions. . EPA would like stakeholder input concerning the issue of who should determine whether a u s e is considered an etnet$ ehcy, as this information is hot specified in the Protocol. Methvl Bromlde Alternatives b Information about alternatives should be available so that critical use applications: ­ ­ Discuss all relevant alternatives. Are robust and complete wlthout being overly burdensome; and 0 In developing a list of alternatives, the EPA should: ­ ­ ­ Make information available regarding the sffectlveness of alternatlves by crop and region; Recognize that field trials of alternatlves take a full year; and Acknowledge the flaws of exfstlrkg alternatives. For example, in the forestry industry. saplings on which alternatlves have been used ere produdng 20 percent less wood, leadlng to decreased photosynthetic activity and carbon sequestration. EPA's Offlce of Pesticide Programs ( OPP) and the Office of Air and Radiation ( OAR) are worklng together to identify feasible alternatives. The USDNEPA working group is creating a list of potential alternatives by looking at isues such as the efficacy and regulatory constraints of atternatives. Closinsr Statement EPA thanked everyone fbr attending the meeting and reminded attendees that the next meeting would be on March 19.2001. st 9: OO am, at the same location ( EPA, 501 3M Street, NW, Washington, D. C.). Stakeholders were encouraged to contact Amber Moreen or & been Akhtar ( also working on critical and emergency uses) with any comments, suggestions, and concerns at 202­ 564­ 9295 ( moreen. amber~. epa. aov). the facilitator encouraged everyone to contact EPA, ( all EPA email addresses are lastname. firstname~ ewa.~ lpv). especially concerning comments on the terms, " significant market disruption" and " technologically and economically feasibte". . 4 List of Attendees Jabeen Akhtar, OAWEPA Dan Botts. Florida Frult & Vegetable Association James Butler, NOAA Margriet Caswell, USDA Stanley Cichowicz, FDA Betsy David, Stratus Consulting Jim Delaney, Van Waters & Rogers Torn buafals, Trlcal, lnc. Charlie Garlow, OECNEPA Larry Glaze. FDA Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, Inc. Rachael Goodhue, UC Davis Dan Haley, Haley 8 Associates Tracy Heinanan­ Smith. Howrey & Simon Charles Herrick, Stratus Consulting Dr, Charles Hinton, Florida Strawberry Growers Association Paul HQWik, OAWEPA Amy K( imbal1, Mead Corporation Tom Land, OAWEPA Susan Lawrence, OPPTSEPA Gabriel Ludwig, Shramrn & Williams, representing Western Growers Association Matt lynch, Albemarle David McAllister, GLCC blane McConkey, OGC/ EPA Douglas McNeal, USTR Amber Moreen, OAWEPA William " Chip" Murray, American Forest 8 Paper Assoclation Phil Ross, OPPTS/ EPA Edward M. Ruckert, McDermott, Will B Emery; Crop Protection Coalition Steve Rutz, Florida Dept. of AgriGulture Jim Schaub, USDA LaUtC? h Shapiro, ICF Consulting Adam Sharp, Amerlcan Farm Bureau Federation Robert Shramrn, Shramm 8 Williams, representlng Western Growers Association Sue Stendebach, OAR/ EPA David Sullivan, Sullivan Environmental Consulting; representing Metarn­ Sodlum Task Force Bill Thomas, OAWEPA AI Tillman, Arneribrom Ken Vick. USDA Vern Walter. WAW lnc. 5 .

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.605193

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0017-0006

Supporting & Related Material

a LI Summary of Methyl Bromlde Critical Use Meeting &: nvironmental Protection Agency, Washington DC March 19,2001 In t roductlon s Sue Sfendebach, EPMOAR Sue Stendebach opened the meeting by thanklng everyone for attending second Methyl Bromide Critical Use Meeting. She requested that every participant introduce himlherself and state their affiliation. ( Please refer to the end of this document f ~ o r a list of attendees). [ Amber has the list of attendees1 After introductions, Ms. Skeridebach reminded everyone that the meeting would only last three hours. She then summarlzed the first meeting held on February 16", 2001 that resulted in a discussion of the critical use process and during which some stakeholder concerns were aired an a preltrninary basis. She exphined Mat the purpose of the present rneetlng would be as foo) lows: to further discuss important issues mentioned during the February I 6Ih meeting; to continue declaratloh and interpretation af stakeholder needs and concerns; and to provide PA with ideas regarding how to successfully complete the rulemaking. = Ms. Stendebach stressed the importance of participation In the meeting because without stakeholder input, EPA would not be aware of all stakeholder concerns. She also reminded everyone to state his or her name and aflliatlm prior to making a comment so that information mbld be accurately recorded. Ms. Stendebach mentioned that the outline for the meeting would be as follows: * quickly review the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, the Clean Air Act, and the timefine for rulemaking as discussed In the last meeting; and pose a variety of questions to stakeholders: some that originated from the last meeting and some that EPA considers to be major issues. Ms. Stendebach mentioned that David McAlJister and Tracey Heinzman­ Smith, representhg GLCG, brought slides that they wished to present. Ms. Heinzman­ Smith responded by stating that she could discuss the information contained in her slides as it fit into the meeting discussion. Review of Montreal Protocol Provlslans, Clean Air Act Language, and Rulernaklng Tirneilne Amber Moreen, EPNOAR The meeting facilitator, Ms. Amber Moreen, briefly revlewed the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, the Clean Air Act, and the proposed PA rulemaking timetine. She mentioned that the ~ rnellrte displays the need to initiate the rulemaking process quickly and gtves stakeholders an Idea of a potential internationaf review process. Ms­ Moreen stressed that PA would attempt to publish a proposed rule in the fall of 2001 and a final rulemaking by the middle of 2002. She went on to state that once aDplicatians are submitted to the United States government, the following schedule wit! be adhered to: applications WclUfd need to be revlewed and prepared far nomination to the Parties by January 2003; * parties Wou) d revbw all nominations from each government and provide EPA with a decision fate In 2003: and users would be notified at the international level in the beginning to middle of 2004. . . ­ 1 ­ Ms. Moreen noted that another appllcatlon cycle would commence in the middle of 2003, so that an applicant could re­ apply for a 2005 exemption if thelr use was not granted in the first exemptlon cycle. However, a user would not be notified as to whether or not their use was granted untll2005 due to the lengthiness of the internatlonal process. Therefore, if a user does not apply until 2003, notificatlon would not be received until closer to the phaseout date and thus, the actual planting time. Ms. Moreen ensured th8t all stakeholder qusstlons regarding this process were answered, and then went on to explain the Decisions of the Montreal Protocol and the language of the Clean Air Act. She pointed out that the last paragraph of the relevant Montreal Protocol Dsclslons Is written such that non­ Adicle 5 countries ( e. g.. United States, EU, Japan) must individually consider whether applicants have shown that the lack of methyl bromide has led to a slgnlficant market disruption. She stressed that decisions would not be made by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel ( TEAP). Questions for Stakeholders Please note that this section intends to provide an accurate summary of stakeholder responses. Although it follows the chronology of the meeting, it is not an exact transcrlpt. Responses to most comments and questions were addressed by the meeting facllitator, Ms. Amber Moreen. Other EPA personnel, including Ms. Sue Stendebach and Mr. Paul Horwitz, also offered feedback on several stakeholder comments. Ms. Moreen initiated the meeting by asking stakeholders about the type of ihformation that would be most helpful regarding a posted list of methyl bromide alternatives. She requested stakeholder input on the following questions regarding the proposed list: 1 The following comments describe the discussioh that ensued as a result of this question. Edward M. Ruckert, McDermott, Will & Emery, Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert commented on this toplc by stating that in order to streamline the application process and use applicmt and PA time most effectively, EPA should post a list of acceptable alternatives. According to Mr. Ruck&, the limited time period established for t h e application process necessitates a list of this type because such a list could prevent possible duplicatibns in the application process and could ensure that applicants are aware of all available altematives. He also mentioned that allowing industry to comment on each of the posted alternatives would provlde addltional crediblllty. Response: Ms. Moreen responded by summarizing Mr. Ruckert's comments and asking If he thought that a list of alternatives should include; What information should be included? How would the list be used in conjunction with the application process? Use; and Edward M. Ruckert, McDermott, Will & Emery, Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert responded by stating that he thought that a list should have posted scientific trials regarding esch alternative to prove the efficacy of each alternative and provide a form of substantiatlon for the proposed alternatlves. Tracey Heinzmen­ Smith, Howrey 8 Simon Ms. Heinzrnan­ Smith quoted two concepts from Decision 1x16: 1 Alternatlves adequate for applicant needs. No technologically and economically feasible alternatives; and . . ­ 2­ . Slgnificant market disruption. She said that appllcants that Use methyl bromide for uses that currently have no adequate alternatives can quickly and hastily apply for an exemption based on the idea that the lack of methyl bromide for a specific end­ use wlll lead to a significant market disruption. Ms. Heinzman­ Smith wmrnented that wlthout an initial list of acceptable alternatlves, applicants are uncertain of the baseline they are to evaluate themselves against. She argued that it would be useless to apply for an exemption stating that there are no alternatives for a specific end­ use and later discover that research has been conducted to show that alternatives do in fact exist. Response: Ms. Moreen responded by inquiring about people's opinions as to how PA should keep an up­ to­ date list of the most current research trlals on alternatives. The next set of stakeholder comments discussed ideas for how EPA can successfully accomplish this task. Edward M. Ruckert, McDerrnott, Wi// & Emery, Crop Profection Coalition Mr. Ruck& advised that researchers should report findings of all research and new technologies to EP4 as they occur or are dlscovered. David McAlkter, GLGC Mr. McAllister noted that the conversation until this point had omitted an important step in the exemption process: after a list of alternatives is developed, this list should serve as one of the inputs for developing a list of critical uses. He proposed a scheme where PA would present a list of all posslble uses of methyl bromide, and would simultaneously develop a list of alternatives. These lists, used in conjunction. could allow growers and users of methyl bromide to know exactly which uses match up wlth which technically and economically feasible alternatlves, and would therefore act as a critical use list. Future alternatives could then be submitted to add to the list, showing what uses they can replace and proving that they meet all of the criteria for a crltlcal use e% emption. Therefore. Mr. McAllister concluded. it is not necessary to have a list of alternatives that is updated monthly; rather, the list can be updated as alternatives are approved. Tracey Heinzman­ Smith, Howrey & Shon Ms­ Heinzrnan­ Smith added that this process is analogous to the process for determining viable SNAP substitutes, but is more complicated. As new ODS alternatives are commercialized under SNAP, EPA posts a running list of these alternatives, both by end­ use and by geographic region. and this list is published In the Federal Register or on a Web site so that people can find out about new alternatives as they become available. For methyl bromide, this llst should be accessible and available to all interested parties, where developers of new substitutes can add their substitute to the list and then provide EPA with relevant information, as opposed to EPA initiatlng the process. Pete [ last name, AEIiafion] Pete said that informatlon provided for this list must be substantiated and backed up with efficacy data. Response: Ms­ Moreen responded that researchers should match the list provided by EPA with existing uses to determine which uses do not have alternatives. However, this approach may be too broad from the Parties' standpoint. Two stakeholders responded to this comment. Tmcey Heinzman­ Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzman­ Smith recognized this point and argued that if something currently has no alternative, it should have the first opportunity to be considered critical, Then, it can be determined if the lack of methyl bromide for this end­ use would cause a significant market disruptton. ­ 3 ­ Pete [ last name, Affiliation] Pete reiterated his earlier comment regarding the importance of efficacy data and substantiation. Ms. Moreen responded wlth a question to Mr. Ruckert. She stated that people have Indicated that alternatives can be determined by state, but questioned the manner in which distinctions can then be made between condltlons that differ within a state, such as soil type, weather. and water table. Stated differently, if a list of alternatives Is to be developed on a state­ by­ state basts, how are specific crop, soil, and weather circumstances taken into account? The following remarks were made in an attempt to resolve this question, Edward M. Ruckert, McDermott. Will B Emery, Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert responded that the llst should be presumptlve, presenting all available tools. Tracey Heinzrnan­ Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzman­ Smith reiterated that the term " technically and economically feasible" is extremely broad. She cornmehted that most analyses thus far have focused on technical feasibility, and that the alternatives discussed would be helpful for Users. She also stressed that the Patties must understand that theoretical lab­ tested alternatives may not be " technicatty and economically feasible'' in the field. [ Unidentified Stakeholder] An unidentified stakeholder then remarked that growers would end up trying to " prove a negative." In other words, will growers approach the ga~ ernrnent with research attempts that display the efficacy of an alternatlve or will the government make alternative efficacy data available to users? Response: EPA representative, Ms. Stendebach. responded that a list pf alternatives is beihg developed, and hopefully manufacturers and distributbrs of alternatfves will inform EPA if any viable substitutes were neglected from the Ilst. Ms. Moreen then asked the group if everyone would be comfortable with a list being published on the web. The next two comments discussed the availability of a published list of potential substitutes and were responded to by a facilitator. David McAllister, GLCC Mr. McAlllster responded by saying that case studies of methyl bromide alternatlves are already provided on EPA's methyl bromide phaseout Web site. Jack @ ad nwrne, Afiliation] Jack expressed concern on relying solely on efficacy data, statlng that other limitations, such as buffer zones and product combinations, need to be taken into account as well. Response: Ms. Moreen responded that the case studies and other published efficacy data are at least good starting points. The next stakeholder requested informatioh on this subled from EPA. [ Unidentified Stekehoidet­ 1, Metham Sodlutn Task Force An unidentified stakeholder representing the Metham Sodium Task Force requested that alternative manufacturers be contacted to obtain information on the development of alternatives so that evetyone is kept aware of the most current information. Ms. Moreen stated that evidence of technical feasibility ( or lack thereof) and documentation are necessary in order to show the Parties that a technically feasible alternative does hot exist for a certain end­ use. ­ 4 ­ The following set of comments specify the requlrements for possible alternatives. David McAllister, GLCC and Tracey Heinzman­ Smith, Howrey & Simon Mr. McAllister and Ms. Heinzman­ Smith provided a list of criteria for possible alternatives, stating that the alternative must: . have efficacy data; . c * 9 Ms. Moreen asked if anyone had any additions to the list. be registered for the application ( if they are pesticides): be efflcaclous based on actual ffeld trials ( as opposed to lab tests); pose no health risks to applicators; not require protective equipment that would severely restrict applicability; be commercially available in sufficient quantities; and have an overall risk that is not greater than that of methyl bromide. Jim Saggent, [ Affiliation] Mr. Ssrgent added that the alternative must be non­ damaging to crops and any other materials that are being fumigated. David McAllister, GLCC Mr. McAIIister stated that, an expert opinion, similar to that required for an emergency registration, should be involved in the process. Bruce Helman, [ Afiliation] Mr. Helman pointed out that if an alternative is registered. it could be inferred that it is already environmeh ta Ily acceptable. Response: Ms. Moreen said that Mr. Hslman's point was a good one, and reiterated the need for economic availability and documentstion of substitutes. The next stakeholder comments discussed the need for economic availability of alternatives. David McAllister, GLCC Mr. McAIlister suggested that PA consult with other agencies, specifically USDA, because they have the right background to assist EPA with economic feasibility studies. He argued that criteria should be established specifying the maximum acceptable percent increase in treatment costs and the maximum acceptable percent decrease in profitability for any given alternative, and claimed that USDA can then use this lnformation to provide an economic analysis of available substitutes. Adam Sharp, American Farm Bureau Federatbn Mr. Sharp mentioned that he asked farmers about what economic feasibility means from their perspective, and they responded that a methyl bromide alternative or combination should control the same range of pests as methyl bromlde, while concurrently meeting industry standards. He also stated that economic feasibility criteria could be gathered by farmers based on five­ year average per acre return In yield. Response: Ms. Moreen inquired whether the farmers consulted felt comfortable documenting each of those items. Adam Sharp, American Farm Bureau federation Mr. Sharp replied that there ere B number of areas from which this information could be garnered, Tracey Heinzrnsn­ Smith, Howrey & Simon ­ 5 ­ Ms. Heinzman­ Smith said most growers or people that run warehouses keep track of their treatment costs and profitability or potential losses. She noted that this information is Important because although treatment costs apply to everyone, profitability varies on a case­ by­ case basis. Steve Godbehere, Hendrix I$ Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere added that most figures and crop budgets are publicly available through state extension services. Ms. Moreen asked if everyone was comfortable with the discussion so far, None of the attendees responded, and so a discussion began on slgnificant market disruption and documen tation. Adam Sharp, American Farm Bureau Federaikm Mr. Sharp began the discussioh by introducing the idea that a loss of methyl bromide in the US. would result in an increase himpork, especially from countrles that ar0 not effected by the phaseout, which wauld cause a signlficant regional shift in productlon. He stated that market production suffers when return per acre drops below a five­ year average, which can be based on personal farm records, hiversity studies, etc., as described above. David McAllister, GL CC Mr. McAtlister indicated that it is difficult to difff3tehfiate between significant market disruption and economic feasibility. He said that criteria are currently prioritized, where significant market disruption needs to be determined before economic feasiblllty can be assessed. He remarked that the becision does not specifically mentlon alternatives; rather, they are only a means to avoid signlficant market disruption. He provlded the example of a food processing facility asked the following question: If this is a critical use of methyl bromide. is the significant market disruption criterion determined before or after consideration of alternatives? Vem Walter, WA W, Inc. Mr. Walter mentioned that although phosphine could be a potential substltute in food plants, it corrodes equfpment. He stressed that these other effects of the alternative need to be considered. Adam Shap, American Farm Bureau Federation Mr. Sharp added that the availability of the alternative also must be considered. Tmcey Heinzman­ Smith, Uowrey & Simon Ms. Hcinzman­ Smith defined market disruptions in terms of the impact on a particular user of methyl bromide. She used turf farms a5 an example, stating that if ail turf farms were faced with not having methyl bromide available, a significant market disruption would occur Wlthih the turf industry because turf still must be produced. The market would be significantly disrupted if the criteria introduced earlier by Mr. Sharp were not met. In partlcutar, if substitute turf yields per dollar were a certain percent below the yield using methyl bromide such that less turf would be able to be produced, or such that c o s t s to produce turf got so high that they would detrimentally affect the profitability of the industry, a break polnt would eventually be reached where there would exist a significantly lower quantity of turf in the marketplace. The demand would exceed the supply and consumers would try to obtain the commodity offshore. David McAllisfer, GLCC Mr, McAllister explalned that GLCC was Iooklng at the issue from a userlenterprise perspective as opposed to looking at the issue of significant market disruption at the consumer level. He provided the following hypothetical example: If methyl bromide is unavailable for fumigation of soils for a tree nursery for International Paper, the yields per acre of seedlings will drop by 50 percent. As a result, the price of paper will increase signiflcantly in ten years. He reiterated the fact that GLCC is not referring to this type of situation: rather, they are looking at effects mere from the userknterprisa perspective. Response: Ms. Moreen asked why Mr. McAlllster thought consumer disruptlons should not be considered? Tracey Heinzman­ Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzmah­ Smith responded that consumer effects occur too far Into the future for growers and other methyl bromide users to consider. Unidentified Stakeholder, Tree Trade Assot$ ation An unidentifled stakeholder claimed that a downstream effect could occur as a result of international competition, Referring to Mr. McAllister's International Paper elample, the unidentifled stakeholder hypothesized that seedlings would then be grown on soils outslde of the US.. where growth rates are far greater than they are domestically. He concluded that a sense of economic impact should be assessed even though It is difficult to quantify, Jim C/ af, fAEIiation] A mostty inaudible comment from Mr. Clat mentioned sources of information provided by manufacturers. Jim Scheub, USDA Mr. Schaub indicated that the discussion should be focused on how to define the market, i. e., how broadly to define a commodity, lncludihg a geographic component and a time dimension­ He mentioned that the Federal Power Comrnlsslon ( FPC) and the Justice Department solved an analogous Issue by viewing disruptions at the consumer level when struggling with a competition determination for antl­ trusts [ Le,, whether a merger will have a slgnlflcant impact on a market). He concluded his comment by stating that after EPA decides how to define the market, it is then possible to determine significant market disruptions. Edward M. Ruckert, Will & Emery, Crop Protection Agency Mr. Ruckert vocalized an additional comment regarding defining a market disruption by examining consumer­ level effects. He provided the following hypothetical example: With international trade In the state It is today, if strawberries can not be grown in the US. without methyl bromide, growers in Mexico would supply the US. market with strawberries, undoing the utility of exemption. Therefore, there is little or no effect at the consumer level; EPA should focus on the industry­ level effects to define market disruptions. Lee Murphy, [ A~ Wiation] A mostly inaudible comment from Mr. Murphy mentioned a 25 percent reduction in production. Pete [ last name, Afikh'on] Pete suggested that if EPA were to develop crlteria for determining a significant market disruption based on five­ year total average production, it would be dificult to determine which five­ year period should be analyzed because of steadfly Increasing treatment costs. Adam Sharp, American Farm Bureau Federation [ cannot hear all c6mmentsJ Mr. Sharp asked Ms. Moreen whether a basellne would be best established using a five­ or ten­ year period, and stated that establishing a, baseline is difficult because EPA will have to predict future demand for the product and consider criteria other than total production. Response: Ms. Moreen asked whether the farmers Mr. Sharp interacted with express a preference for a five­ year or a ten­ year period for establishing a baseline, Adam Sharp, American Farm Bureau Federation Mr. Sharp indicated that the farmers interviewed did not express a preference regarding selecting a time period, but were concerned about shlfk In the market and analyzing present market conditions to create a baseline for future use. With regard to economlc feasiblilty and significant ­ 7 ­ market disruptions, Mr. Sharp suggested that posting a list of available alternatives would be a way to initiate research on this issue, Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentifled stakeholder agreed with Mr. Sharp's comments and added that It would be difficult to establish a baselihe for the post harvest sector because it is impossible to quantify future food contamination. Response: Ms. Moreen respohded by stating that results from tests on alternatives exist, and one could project from those results to create a baseline. She clarified the unidentified stakeholder's comment by asking if he thought that no alternatives were available on a base level. Unidentified stakeholder The unldentifled stakeholder affirmed that that was Indeed the point Re was trying to make. Response: Ms. Moreen asked the unidentified stakeholder if he would respond in a similar manner if alternatives were tested and made available for use In the post harvest use sector. Unidentified Stakeholder The Unidentified Stakeholder provided an Inaudible response to Ms. Moreen's question. Ms. Moreen changed the discussion topic SO that stakeholders would respond to Mr. Shawls comment on how PA should define the methyl bromide market. The following set of stakeholder comments relate to this discussion, Edwwrd M. Ruckert, McDermott, Will 8 Emery; Cmp Protection Coalition Prior to addressing Ms. Moreen's question on the definition of a market, Mr. Ruckert required additional clarification regarding the dlscusslon on whether or not the effectiveness of an alternative Is quantifiable. Ms. Moreen responded to Mr. Ruckert by restating the previously addressed question. Ms. Moreen explained that she was attempting to clarify the unidentified stakeholder's comment, stating that perhaps an alternative is not quantifiable if it has not been used on a large scale and long­ term results can not be projected. However. she argued that If the alternative has been tested, there should be some data avaflable to quantify the effectiveness of the alternatlve. The following comments highlight the discussion on the definition of a market and may be used in determining definitions of a significant market disruption. Tmcey Heinzman­ Smith, Howmy & Simon Ms. Heintman­ Smith addressed this topic by explaining that varlations in pest type require EPA to define a market by lndlvidual commodities limited by geographic distinctions, as opposed to determining a market just by use ( e. g., post harvest uses), She went on to state that methyl bromide is not a chemical that has broad industry­ wide uses, and that users may utilize methyl bromide for one type pest in one region that might not be applicable to a similar pest in another geographic area. Although not entirely sure that the topics are analogous, Ms. Helnzman­ Smith went on to mention that the Department of Justlce ( DoJ) Federal Power Commission ( FPC) guldellnes deflne a market using regional and geographic distinctions. Ms. Moreen posed the comment prevlously Introduced by Jim Schaub of USDA to the stakeholders to determine whether a market defined by commodity and geography would be too broad for this situation ( e­ g.. canned tomatoes versus fresh tomatoes, same commodity grown and processed in the same region). ReSpQnStS ­ 8 ­ TfaCe) r Heihzman­ Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Helnzman­ Smith responded to this statement by asking Mr. Schaub if the market would have to be defined by species ( e. g., Roma Tomatoes). Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, lnc. Mr. Godbehere informed attendees that methyl bromide is only used on fresh tomatoes, not canned tomatoes. Ms. Moreen stated that using fresh versus canned tomatoes to discuss thls topic is not an appropriate Instance. She proposed that the stakeholders consider this issue of wlth a different example, such as winter versus summer tomatoes. Jim Schaub, USOA Mr. Schaub suggested that EPA use registration definitions to define the market ( e. g., Bermuda grass). He mentloned that there exists a certain amount of substitution between the commodities ( Le,, turf farms may produce several grass varleties) and that not defining the market may lead to confusion among producers. Mr. Schaub concluded that the subject of defining market scope is critical and he did not think that it could be defihed by slating examples. He suggested that EPA think about economic prihciptes for defining a market and then rely on industry and users to apply these principles to specific commodities. Tiacey Heinzrnan­ Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzrnan­ Smith agreed with Mr. Schaub's idea that the market may have to be defined more specifically by explalning how the word " turf" is synonymous with the word "` fruit," meaning that stating that there are different types of fruit is similar to stating that there are different types of turf. Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder commented that it is important to make distinctions for the purposes of defining the market even within crops, becsuse harvesting cycles and time required to control pests are not always the same. Ms. Moreen redirected the topic of conversation by mentioning that many stakeholders had strong reactions when distinctions between the Sectlon 18 exemption process and the methyl bromide critical use exemption process was discussed at the last meeting. She went on to ask if stakeholders had any other opinions on the issue. The following discussion highlights stakeholder comments on this Issue. Adam Sharp, Americen Farm Bureau Federation Mr. Sharp stated that unlike Section 18, the methyl bromide critical use process wlll have to grant approval on a multi­ year basis. Tracey Heinzman­ Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinman­ Smith mentioned that the Section I S exemption process relates to emergency pest outbreaks and focuses on public health effects, while the critical use exemptlon process focuses more on economic and technical criterla. Response: Ms­ Moreen clarified the discussion toplc by restating that there are only a few portions of the Sectfon I 8 process that relate to this issue, and mentioned that EPA wanted feedback on whether stakeholders see distinctions between the manners in which feasible alternatives are determined through the Sectfon 18 process and the critical use exemption process. Unidentified Stakeholder An Unidentified stakeholder stated that the following three items are the main criteria used to determine whether an exemption Is granted through the Section 18 process. and asked Ms. Moreen if she believed that these same criteria applied to the critical use exemption process: ­ 9 ­ . * a Response: Ms. Moreen responded by stating that in some respects, she agreed with these criteria. Unidentified Stakeholder The unidentified stakeholder went on to suggest that all three of these criteria apply to the methyl bromide situation. and stated his agreement with Mr. Sharp regarding the need to grant exemptions on a multi­ year basis based oh the following'reasons: Will a lack of use of the product al7lOUht to substantial economlc loss? Are there feasible alternatives that are commercially available? Does the situation occur frequently? a There are not many available alterhatives; and Bureaucracy of the system would make an annual appllcation process difficult. Edward M. Ruckert, McDermott, Will & Emery; Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert inquired about EPA progress to reglster new alterhatives. Pete past name, AffllrationJ Pete suggested looking back five years to define the methyl bromide market. Response: Ms. Moreen responded to Pete's comment by stating that some people have suggested that EPA examlne a flve­ year time period to define the market. Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere argued that examining a period five years ago to define the methyl bromide market will not take into consideration the fact that methyl bromlde prices are increasing. He went on to express his concern about cornpletihg the rulemaking process in 8 timely manner in order to ensure the sustainability of the United States agricultural market. Response: In response to the previously stated comments, Ms. Moreen inquired as to whether or not Mr. Godbehere supported the measurement of 8 time period prior to five years ago for quantlfying the methyl bromide market. Steve Godhehere, Hendrix & Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere suggested that EPA examine a speciflc time frame to average the high costs in order to define the market. He once again stressed the urgency of this rulemaking by describing EI situatlon where high methyl bromlde costs had led to a decrease In the amount of acres produced. MI. Godbehere explained how there is currently no indication that planting will occur in the near future In Georgia because plastic has not yet been laid down to prepare for the upcoming season. Ms. Moreen modified the discussion topic and stated that she understood the need to extend a exemption for longer than one year, but could not understand why stakeholders suggested that exemptions be granted for three to five years and went on to ask why a two to three year exemption Is not an adequate amount of tlrne. The followlng dialogue highllghts stakeholder responses to this topic, comments on the timeframe for an exemption notification, and discusses the application process. Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder mentioned that users have to initiate the application process 18 months in advance. Response: Ms. Moreen agreed, and explained that the review process is lengthy and explained that it is set up in this manner so that nominations can be submitted to the Parties of the Montreal Protocol. She restated her question so that stakeholders would comment on the length of a granted exemption rather the length of the application process. ­ 10­ Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder claimed that an exemption granted for less thah two years would result in a perpetual application cycle, and went on to ask if the exemption renewal process would be less time consumlng, Le., approximately three months. Response: Ms. Moreen could not comment on the question posed, but did slate that users would have to apply every year if the exemptions were granted annually. This comment led to a situation where many people began talking at the same time. The disorder was curbed by a comment from an FA representative. Paul Horwitz, OAREPA Mr. Horwitz discussed the need to understand the international structure of this process. He stated that countrles will be notified as to whether or not a use Is granted at least 12 to 18 months prior to the calendar year In which the use is requlred, and hence over one year would elapse in which a farmer could consider alternatives to methyl brornlde use. He restated that the process does allow plenty of time for a user to assess his/ her pesticide use for the following year. Uflidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder described a situation that displayed the need for a multi­ year exemption. He explained that an orchard requires several years to reach to complete harvest and therefore cannot be planted if a grower is not sure that methyl bromide will be accessible throughout the rnufti­ year production cycle. David Mdllister, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation Mr. McAllister stated that it seemed unreasonable to submit applications to the PA on an annual or biannual basis unless there has been significant progress in alternatlves, or if a situation changes. He suggested that EPA should consider creatlng a permanent list of critical uses that the US. could submit to the Parties on an annual basis, rather than submlttlng the same justification each year. Mr. McAlllster stated that this perpetual list could b e updated by EPA, USDA, or someone wishing to promote a new alternative. Edward M. Ruckert, McDwmott, Will & Emery; Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert stated that there are two maln components of this situatlon that need to be analyzed. They are as follows: = Lehgth of time For an exemption grant; and Type of application process. He suggested that the exemption process should be tm to three years because reviewing applications on an annual basis is extremely resource­ intensive for EPA. He also suggested that an annual application'process is too burdensome and difficult for users, as well as resource­ intensive and tlme consuming for EPA. He agreed with Mr. McAllister by stating that users should only re­ apply for a critical use exemptlon If circumstances change, At this point, Ms. Moreen asked the stakeholders If they had any additional input regarding this subject . Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder, responding to Mr. Hotwltz's explanation of the international framework and the exemption notification period, noted that a nursery or any perennial crop requimes two years notice of pesticide use prlor to plahting. in other words. a grower needs to know if methyl bromlde Is going to be available for more than one year. Response; Ms. Moreen requested that the unldentifled stakeholder elaborate on thls toplc. ­ 11 ­ Adam Sham, American Farm Bureau federation Mr. Sharp added that another reason why applications should not be processed annually is that a crop cycle does not necessarily follow the calendar year, and growers do not always plant in the spring and harvest in the fall. He mentioned that some growers make plans more than one year In advance. Unidentified Stakeholder To elaborate on the previously mentiohed topic, the unidentified stakeholder described a typlcal grower's plantlng process and explained how pesticide knowledge is required more than one year in advance. He described a hypothetical situation where If it were the year 2003, and a grower planned to produce 100 acres of pistachios in 2005, he/ she would not know whether they would be permitted to use methyl bromide in 2005. He explatned that a grower in this situation would probably prefer to wait until recelvlng notiflcation before continuing the planning process, and if notification was issued in 2004. the grower may not be able to plant by 2005. He Stated that four to five years is an average planning period for a grower. Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder commented that walnut trees require methyl bromide for both pre­ plaht and post harvest USES. We stated that eliminating methyl bromide in either of those use categories would reduce product yield. Response: Ms, Moreen agreed with the unldentifled stakeholder in that a circumstance such as the one mentioned Is distinct and would be examined as such, and stated that a nursery could apply for an exemption in the middle of 2002 ( the earliest date possible) and would be notified in early 2004 for a use in 2005. Steve Godbehere, Hendrix B Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere clarified the situattons previously described to Ms. Moreen by explalnlng that growers are concerned about the time allotted fer a notlflcatlon because they are in contract with the nursery. He went on to explain that trees need to be fumigated immediately prior to relocatlon from the nursery to the field. Therefore, even if a nursery has access to methyl bromide, a grower is concerned that methyl bromide will not be available when it is necessary to move the trees. two to three years later. Tracey Heinztnan­ Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzrnan­ Smith mentioned that the language in the Montreal Protocol does not state that EPA needs to re­ substantiate the list of critical use exemptions annually, and that it only requires EPA to review and determine whether nominations meet the criteria. She suggested that if a substantial effort has been placed on identifying critical uses, it is approprlate to annually nomlnate the same list to avoid a perpetual cycle of applying for and nominating exemptions. At thls point in the meeting, the discussion tumed to international issues. Specifrcally, topics such as expectations for applications and the percent of total productlon reserved for critical use exemptions were discussed, Paul Horwitz, OAWEPA Mr. Horwitz provided a summary of the International point of view to date. He mentioned that initial international dis'cusslons have revealed that some countries believe that critical use exemptions represent a very small percentage ( approximately one to three percent) of total national production. He indicated that countries expressing thls viewpoint probably have not begun to explore the issue as in depth as the US. has. and that they will probably become more aware of criticaliw as the Issue is investigated further. He stressed that it is essential to notice that the language of the Montreal Protocol is designed so that there Is an Incentive for users to investigate new alternatives to methyl bromide, and exemptions will be granted to those that have displayed advances In alternative research throughout the exemption period. Mr. Howitz elaborated on this topic by stating that the best case that will be submitted to the Parties is one ­ 12­ that presents a plan to consider new alternatfves. He stated that the feasibility of an alternative is not determined in just a one­ year or a three­ year research plan for methyl bromide use; rather, results of multiple crop cycle research may be necessary to determlne efficacy. He stated that the Parties' conslderation for rnulti­ year exemption requests wlll be based an plans of action for trying to flnd alternatives in areas where there were originally none. Tracey Heinzrnan­ Smfth, llowrey 8 Simon Ms. Heinzman­ Smith contributed to the conversation by stating that If the US. could present a list of feasible alternatives and a correspohding use list to the Parties to illustrate current research, previous exemptions granted for uses that do. not have feasible alternatives could be renewed without an application process. She went on to clarify this topic by asking Mr. Horwitz if it is important to show progress in analyzlng research regarding new alternatives. Paul Horwitr; OAWEPA Mr. Horwih stated that the application process and Montreal Protocol language state that one must demonstrate that new alternatives are being exahihed. Tacey Heinzman­ Smith, Howey 8 Simah Ms. Heinzman­ Smith restated Mr. Horwltz's point that proving that one has explored other options to methyl bromide Is an important part of this process. Paul Horwitz, OAWEPA Mr. Horwitz remarked that he wanted all stakeholders to understand that the previously discussed information Is his opinion based on preliminary discusslons, and not a reflection of the US. or international position on the Issue. Matt Lynch, Albemarle Mr. Lynch suggested that it would be inapproprlate to require users to apply to EPA for exemptions annually in order to prove to the Parties that users are seeking alternatives. He mentioned that the application process for crltical use exemptions should be discussed independently of the length of a granted exemption. Edward M. Ruckerf, McDerrnott, Will t4 Emery; Cmp Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert pointed but that the methyl bromide situation can not be compared to the ban of CFCs, and asked Ms. Moreen whether EPA has considered streamlining the critlcal use process by eliminating a procedural step ( specifically, the international process). Mr. Ruckert stated that eliminating the international process could save time and money for EPA and users because EPA is a professlonal organization and decisions made by EPA do not require additional examinatlon. Paul Horwitz, OAWEPA Mr. Hohnritz responded to this comment by stating that EPA has not considered eliminating a procedural step. He went on to suggest that the purpose of the international review process is to ensure that the Montreal Protocol is implemented equally internationally and to allow alf countries to more readily access research regarding new alternatives. Edward M. Ruckert, McDermott, Will g Emery; Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert responded to this statement by presentlng the negative effects of procedural steps: Numerous steps contribute to the uncertainty in predicting sxemptioq grants; and Extra steps create an opportunity for political issues to guide policy decisions. Mr. Ruckert added that the blofoglcal nature of methyl bromide w e requires that the system run efficiently to eliminate possible production and employment losses. ­ 13­ Unidentified Stakeho/ der An unidentified stakeholder asked Mr. HDwitz whether the international cornmunlty would consider that 80 to 90 percent of U. S. methyl bromide uses are critical. Paul ~ orwitz, oaR/& a Mr. Howitz stated that the international community would probably understand that 80 to 90 percent of US. methyl bromide uses are critical once more research has been completed. Mr. Howitr went on to suggest that in the past, each time methyl bromide consumption has been reduced. many have assumed that a negative effect on industry would occur, and that 50 percent less methyl bromide use would lead to a 50 percent loss In production. He indicated that to date, this trend has not occurred, but that users will have to shift to use of alternatives in many places in order to phase out methyl bromide. Steve Godbehere, Hendrix 8 Dale, Inc­ Mr. Godbehere explained that there has not been a shift to alternatives within the tomato industry; rather, the percent of chloropicrin mixed with methyl bromide has increased to extend volume, and production has decreased significantly. [ Can not hear all comments1 Edward M. Ruckert, McDermoff, Will 8 Emery; Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert stressed that agrlbuslness Is an international issue and that the statement. " Ninety percent of our methyl bromide uses have alternatives." discredits our technlcal and problem­ solving abilities. Response: Ms. Moreen replied to Mr. Ruckert. stating that the statement is slightly mlsleadlng, but reminding stakeholders that this issue was clarified In the previous meeting. Edward M. Ruckeft, McDemott, W// & Emery; Crop Protection Coalition Mr. Ruckert suggested that the stakeholders listen to the Greenpeace representative's international perspective on this issue. Greenpeace representative [ Difficult to hear] The Greenpeace representative began his statements by explaining that there exists no doubt that a larger research effort ( Le., 8 to 9 years) would result in more feasible alternatlves. He stressed that alternatives with a greater environmental risk than that of methyl bromide are not desirable. He also stressed that declslon­ makers must adhere to buffer tone requirements. ` Tiscey Heinzman­ Smith, Howrey 4 Simon Ms. Heinzman­ Smith wanted to remind all attendees that the suggestions brought up by herself and David Mdllister do not represent just the viewpoint of Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, but also the viewpoint of a task force Cohsisting of; r Florida Fresh fruit and Vegetable Association; Crop Protection Coalltlon; and Turf, nuts. and dried fruit industry representatives. The following two stakeholder comments clarify toplcs dlscussed earlier in the meeting that were answered by Ms. Stendebach. Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder asked Ms, Moreen to clarify an issue brought up earlier in the meeting regarding commodities imported from countries such as Mexi­ that have hot yet been affected by the methyl bromlde ban. ­ 14 ­ Sue Stmdebach, QAWEPA Ms. Stendebech reassured the unidentified stakeholder that the Intention of the methyl bromide phaseout is not to relocate agricultural production offshore or to countries such as Mexico. She explained that EPA wants to be made aware of all potential competitive disabilltles. Tracey Ueinzrnan­ Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heihzrnan­ Smith wanted to clarify with EPA that market disruptions are defined by each country as opposed to at the international level. Sue Stendebach, O A E P A Ms. Stendebach pointed out that as Ms. Moreen rnentiohed earlier in the meeting, a significant market dlsruptioh is a topic that will be defined by individual countries, not by the Montreal Protocol. Pete past name, Afiiliationf To add to the conversation regarding the importance of the international crlticsl use proFess, Pete mentioned that impartial third patty verification regarding the feasibility of an alternative makes an Individual application stronger. Ms. Moreen transitioned into a new toplc by asking the stakeholders whether they thought grower groups or individuals should submit applicetions to the US. government. Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder asked Ms. Moreen why the application process should be limited to groups or individuals. Response: Ms. Moreen stressed that no decisions regarding this toplc have been made and asked the unidentified stakeholder for input on the subject. Unidentified Stakeholder An unldentifled stakeholder suggested that anyone who is involved in the situation should be able to apply, both individual growers and grower $ toups. He went on to ask whether EPA prefers group applications to increase administrative efficiency. Response: Ms. Moreen repllad to thls comment by indicating that group appllcatlons are a consideration, but Individual growers shpuld be able to apply as well. Unidentified Stakstmldef The unidentified stakeholder agreed with the previous comment that anyone should be able to apply for an exemptioh, and added that different organizatlons, such as the Farm Bureau, state departments, commodity groups, walnut ~ omrnissions. etc.. will all have different viewpoints as to who should submit applications. Paul Horwitz, OAWEPA Mr. Horwitz asked stakeholders how EPA should avoid potential doubte countlng that could result from application submittal from users and groups. Tracey Hehzmm­ Smifh, Howrey 8 Simon Ms. Heinzman­ Smith suggested that slnce there will have to be an established date to end the annual application cycle, PA could publish a list of appllcations received for each use pattern. She further suggested that users are the best people to apply for an exemption because they have the most data available regarding previously discussed criterla. Sue Stendebach, OAREPA Ms. Stendebach asked stakeholders for their feedback regardlng the followihg potential appllcatlon process: ­ 1 5 ­ e . 9 Unidentified Stakeholder A mostly Inaudible comment by ah unidentified stakeholder stressed the Importance of the appllcation process by citing an example related to the carrot industry. Pete flast name, Affiliation] Pete mentioned that stakeholders should realize that there are financial limitations in this rulemaking, and that stakeholders must allow for some trade­ offs. He compared the Section 18 process to this situation by stating that 400 to 000 appllcatlons are processed per year through Section 18, requiring a significant amount of time and resources. He indicated that there will be a learning curve for processing; the first year will be the most time consuming and resource­ intensive. Pete also stated that once EPA recognizes where critical uses exist, the appllcation processing speed will increase considerably. users apply to state agriculture departments; state agriculture departments aggregate similar applications; aggregated applications are sent to EPA. Unidentified Stakeholder An uhidentifred stakeholder agreed with Pete in that it would be fairly resource­ intensive to provide and compose the use list discussed previously, but stressed the importance of having such a list. Unidentified Stakeholder Another unldentlfled stakeholder mentloned that he arrived at the meeting late and inquired as to whether EPA planned to summarize their action items as part of the meeting agenda. Response: Ms. Moreen stated that all suggestions would be taken into consideration, that there is a February 16,2001 meetlng summary available, a summary of today's meeting would be made available, and that EPA is not ready to present specific action items. Sue Siendebach, OAREPA Ms. Stendebach added that EPA considers the following to be the current general action Items: * begin writing a regulation; = 9 create a sensible rulemaking. compile mcre reSearch, including written comments from stakeholders; and Ms. Moreen mentioned that she wanted to continue the discussion regarding stakeholder preference regarding who should apply for exemptions: a larger body or B user. The following stakeholder comment was noted by EPA representatives but did not requlre a response. Unidentified Stakeholder, Tee Trade Association An unidentified stakeholder compared this situation to that of the tree industry. He indicated that here are 38 state associations for the tree Industry and that the storm water permitting system . presents an opportunity to use group applications or apply individually through a state department of agriculture. He suggested that EPA examine this system to determine which option is more administratively effective, and stressed that each individual commodity should determine the most effective option based the comfort level that users have with various institutions. The following discusslon summarizes stakeholder comments regardin$ labeling. Pete past name, AffillaiionJ Pete reminded the stakeholders that B label must be created when granting a Section 18 bromide label. tion, and asked if stakeholders thought that companles would be willing to provide a methyl ­ 1 6 ­ , Tracey Heinzman­ Smith, Howey & Simon Ms. Heinman­ Smith suggested that producers create a separate label for criticaf uses, and that EPA should avoid d labeling system analogous to the Section I 8 process in order to limit the number of labels that would have to be Droduced. Pete tlast name, Afffllatiett] Pete stated that if labels for critical uses could not be crop­ specific, rather, they would have to be asslgned to individual growers. He illustrated thls point by presenting the followlng example: a label will have to be produced for Farmer X at Farm X for Use X so that, for instance, a user in Florida does not use methyl bromide with B Californla label. Tracey Helnzman­ Smlth, Howey B Simon Ms. Heinzman­ Smith suggested that Inspectors could deal with enforcement issues. [ Can not hear all comments] Pete past name, AMliation] Pete compared Section 18 exemptions to this sltuation and further discussed the issue surrounding enforcement. Tracey Heinzman­ Smith, Ho wrey & Simon Ms. Heinzman­ Smith stated that labeling would depend on how broad an exemption is ( Le., will labels be limited by county, state, or commodity). She also suggested that exemptions should be commodity­ specific rather than region­ specific. [ cannot hear all comments] A conversation then transpired between Pete, Ms. Heinzrnan­ Smith, and an unidentified stakeholder regarding specific criteria establlshed for Section 18 exemptions. Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder mentioned that if there are 600 applicatiorrs. it will be necessary to aggregate them at some level. Ms. Moreen steered the conversation back to the issue of the applicatlon process by stating that she requited stakeholder Input on. the subject of applications. The following dialogue highlights, this discussion. Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder asked Ms. Moreen if applications would be filed in each state and subsequently forwarded EPA, or if individuals would apply dlrectly to EPA. Response: Ms. Moreen responded by stating that the EPA has not yet determined the answer to that question and that stakeholder Input Is welcome. Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder remarked that at some point PA will probably adopt the Section 18 process because many are familiar with it. Tracey Helnzman­ Smith, Uowrey & Slmon Ms. Heinzrnan­ Smith asked Ms. Moreen the following questions regarding state agriculture departments: [ cannot hear all comments] Do state agriculture departments have expertise In thls area? Will state agriculture departments aggregate applications? Will state agrlculture departments evaluate applications. adding another layer of review7 ­ 17­ Unidentified Stakeholder An unldentlfled stakeholder mentioned that Ms. Heinzman­ Smith brought up a good point. The fOllOWihg comment was not related to the application process and was responded to by the Greenpeace representatlve. Unidenttried Stakeholder An unldentified stakeholder informed the Greenpeace representative that excessive amounts of money have been spent looking for alternatives over the past ten years 8nd asked if efforts have been Initiated by Greenpeace to assist with this research. Greenpeace Representative The Greenpeace representative stated that no such efforts have been initiated by Greenpeace. Tracey Heintman­ Smith, Howrey 8 Simon Ms. Heinkman­ Smith reverted the conversation topic back to the workings of the critical use exemption process by stating that EPA should consider creating an initial List of critical uses and alternatives, and that stakeholders could examine this list throughout the application process. She went on to state that a list of this type would provide an opportunity for users to examine the most current information. Ms. Heinzman­ Smith also suggested that the process could be more efficient If USDA could provide information and determine whether applicants have demonstrated a significant market disruption, and if EPA could provide the information and determine whether uses have technically and economically feasible alternatives. She mentioned that she had not thought about how to aggregate applications, but stated that allowing user communities to apply woutd be an efflcient method because it would limit the number of applications to be reviewed, Ms. Moreen summarized the stakeholder comments regarding the appllcation submission process as follows: It would be appropriate to incorporate state departments of agriculture into the critical use process because many stakeholders are accustomed, to working with them through the Section I 8 process; Grower groups should be allowed to submit applications because many users are comfortable with these organizations; and Growers that are not part of these organizations should also be able to apply. 9 1 Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder restated that grower groups do not represent all stakeholders. Response: Ms. Moreen asked the unidentified stakeholder if he thought that individuals that 3re not part of an association feel comfortable applying through the state department of agriculture or directly to US. EPA. Unidmtified Stakeholder The unidentified stakeholder replied that as long as users are aware of the requlrsd documentation, it does not matter what governmental body is involved in the process. David McAllister, Great Lakes Chemical Corporetion Mr. McAHister suggested that the subrnlsslon process be an open process worded in such a way that joint submissions from groups or various organizations are encouraged. He stated that from a practical standpoht. individuals would probably prefer to submit an application with a group in order to ltmit the amount of work that must be completed by the individual. An open appllcatibh system such as this would limit the total number of applicatlons. Once again, Ms. Moreen steered the conversation back to the issue of the appllcation process and reminded the stakeholders that there still must be a method to prevent counting requests for a ­ 18­ use more than once. She mentioned that Ms. Heinzman­ Smith had suggested that EPA distribute some type of notlce tt, users, but if there is a deadline for submitting an appllcatlon it might be too late to ensure that Users are aware of all submltted applications. Tl` acey Heinzman­ Smith, Howrey 8 Simon Ms. Heinzrnan­ Smith suggested that PA post applicatlons on the Internet as they are received so that applicants can verify that a request has not already been submitted. Sue Stendebach, OAWEPA Ms. Stendebach reminded stakeholders that there could be confidential business information ( CEI) issues that would not allow PA to post such Information on the Internet. David McAtlister, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation Mr. McAllister mentioned that if appllcatlons are commodity­ and region­ specific, EPA could probably determine if there Is an overlap in requests. and that only ambiguous applications would allow the posslblllty for double counting. Unidentified Stakeholder, Tree Trade Association An unidentified stakeholder described the submlsslon process for a storm water permit to Ms. Moreen. He m8ntlOned that wheh a group application is racelved, the names of individuals within the group are also submitted, and those people whose names are not in the group submit applications individually­ He added that a process of this type presents a business opportunlty for associations to entice new members. Matt Lynch, Albemarle Mr. Lynch reminded the meeting attendees that the system should be Open so that users that prefer to apply as individuals are not forc& to become involved with an association. Paul Homilz, OAWEPA Mr. Honnritz mentioned that there probably would not be a limit on the number of exemptions granted because the Montreal Protocol language states that: " This paragraph will apply save to the extent that the Parties decide to permit the level of production or consumption that is necessary to satisfy uses agreed by them to be critical uses" He also stated that In the past, the same language has been applied to limit the actual tonnage of methyl bromide exempted, and if a grower group requires 4,000 tons and individual farmers growing the same crop claim to requlre an aggregate 4,000 tons, the concern about double counting arises if there is not much use in the entire industry. Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere mentioned that the Economic Research Service ( ERS) could help to ensure that double counting does not occur. Paul Horwitz, OAWEPA Mr. Horwitr questioned whether ERS would know how many tons of methyl bromide would be needed. Tracey ffejnzman­ Smjth, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzman­ Smith interrupted Mr. Iiorwitz and indicated that the Perties must recognfze that it is dimcult to predld quantities of methyl bromide because many manufacturers produce it, a5 opposed to only a few companies producing CFC­ 12 for metered dose inhalers @ e­, CFC­ 12 producers know how much will be sold next year and can predict the exact tonnage needed). She Went on to remark that it would not be possible to determine a detailed estimate for methyl bromide because weather conditions and pests can not be predicted. She asked Ms. Moreen if the government is aware of this situation. ­ 1 9 ­ . Response: Ms. Moreen responded by stating that the government is aware of this situstion and suggested that it may be possible to submlt a range of the possible volume needed so that PA can determlne the adequate amount for each use. Unidentified Stakeholder An unldentified stakeholder mentioned that the methyl bromide application process should b e analogous to the Sectlon 18 application process. The following two statements relate to the proposed list of alternatives. Vern Wai'fer, WA W, InC. Mr. Walter indicated that a proposed list of alternatives should contain the advantages and limitations of each alternative. He requested that 8111 Thomas discuss the progress of this proposed list, and inquired about the posslbllity of posting the list on the Internet. Bill Thomas, OAWEPA Dr. Thomas mentioned that he was trying not to comment because he wanted to listen to stakeholder input. and that he has been working to create a list since 1992 with an interagency EPNUSDA Working Group created specifically to analyze potential alternatives. He indicated that the alternatives identified thus far cah be separated into three different " piles:" = He went oh to indicate that he did not want to comment any further because h e is involved with other groups such a5 OPP, USDA, ARS, ERS, and APHIS. Effective alternatives that are unavailable for various reasons { e. g., regulatory hurdles, buffer zone requirements, labeling issues, cost­ effectiveness, etc.); Alternatives that are already in use; and Experimentally effective alternatlves that ate not s; ornmercially avallable. Ms. Moreen changed the subject to discuss the emergency use application process and whether stakeholders thought that applications should be submitted to state departments of agriculture. There was no response regardihg this issue, so Ms. Moreen assumed that stakeholders wanted the emergehcy use application process to function identically to the critical use process. She asked stakeholders which governmental body should assess emergency uses. Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, lnc. Mr. Godbehere proposed that APHIS, USDA, and state departments of agrlculture are all qualified to assess emergency use exemptions. Susan O'Took and Several Unidentified Stakeholders Ms. O'Toole initiated a conversation discussing the differences between quarantlne and preshiprnent ( QPS) exemptions, critical use exemptions, and emetgency exemptions. Ms. Moreen resolved this discussion by explaining the maln differences between the exemption types. . Sue Stendebach, OAWEPA Ms. Stendebach added to Ms. Moreen's explanation by stating that preshipment exemptions are used for export products, quarantlne exemptions are used for controlling pests between states, and emergency exemptions are used for heatth threats. The fOlbWihg stakeholder comment was noted by EPA representatives but did not require a response. ­ 2 0 ­ . Dsvld McAllister, Great takes Chemical Corporatlon Mr. McAllister stated that any emergency application would require some validation by a regulatory agency. Ms. Moreen remarked that she did not have any other specific questions and opened the meeting up to any other suggestions or comments. The following three comments were responded to by a facilltator or an PA representative, Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder asked Ms. Moreen whether Section 18 exemptions will be applicable after the phaseout. Response: Ms. Moreen stated that methyl bromide use will be phased out through the Clean Air Act as of 2005, and mentioned that a user that has been $ ranted a Section 18 exemption will have to apply for an extension through the critical use process, posslbly in conjunction with a Section 18 exemption. Sue Stendebach, OARLEPA Ms. Stehdebach mentioned that EPA would work closely with OPP to determine what would be considered an emergency use, and that all emergency situations would probably be considered under the critical use and emergency exemptlon process. David McAlIister, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation Mr. Mdlister asked Ms. Moreen to clarlfqr whether the Glean Air Act would regulate production as opposed to use, as is the case for FlFRA regulations. Unidentified Stakehdder An unidentified stakeholder asked if OAR would review Section 18 labels. Sue Stendebach, OARlEPA Ms. Stendebach replied to the stakeholder questions by stating that OAR would work with OPP, but that it was OPP's responsibility to review Section 18 labels. She also said that Section 18 exemptions would stili be applicable despite the fact that a methyl bromide phaseout had occurred. David McAllister, Great Lakes Chemical Corporatlon Mr. McAlllster suggested that the Section 18 process is unnecessary for methyl bromide because uses can apply for an emergency use exemption under the critical use exemption process, and asked Ms. Moreen what wlll happen to pre­ existing methyl bromide Section 18 exemptions after the phaseout. Paul Uotwitz, OAWEPA Mr. Horwib indicated that stakeholders need to discuss how to implement exemptions once they are granted. The following stakeholder comment was noted by EPA representatives, but many people began to tdk at the same time, making it difficult to hear the response. Matt Lynch, Albemarle Mr. Lynch asked Ms. Moreen whether it is possible to have an emergency use In the future that would hot be subject to the Section 18 process. [ Amber cah you provide a response?] The followlng stakeholder comment was noted by EPA representatives but did hot require a response. ­ 21 ­ Greenpeace Representative A Greenpeace representative remarked that EPA should publlclte the dialogue between OAR and OPP so that all stakeholders are aware of progress, plans, and options as decisions ate made. The following question was responded to by an unldantlfied stakeholder. Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder required clarification regarding the relationship between methyl bromide critical use exemptions and Section 18 emergency exemptions. Unidentified Stakeholder Another unidentified stakeholder explained that Section 18 and the critical use exemption process are separate statutes, and that it is not necessary to look for similarities within each to make the critical use exemption process more efficient. He went on to mention that Clean Air Act requirements would not take precedence over FIFRA requirements. The following series of questions and responses highlight the dialogue related to publiclzlng a list of alternatives. Steve Godbehere, Hendrix 8 Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere agreed with the Greenpeace representa tive and suggested that EPA publicize alternatlves as they are identified so that users can start preparing for the phaseout. Btll Thomas, OAWEPA Dr­ Thomas remarked that the list will be made available In the next several months, as CBI issues are resolved. Tracey Heinzman­ Smith, Howrey & Simon Ms. Heinzrnan­ Smith suggested that EPNOAR should publlcite the alternatives that are already commercially available, while continuing to resolve CBI issues. BM Thomas, OAWEPA Dr. Thomas stated that it is critical to consider all possible alternatives in this situation. Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere suggested that a list of available alternatives should be posted on the Internet. We advised that the list should be updated as more information is discovered so that growers could comment on it and send feedback to EPA. EN Thomas. OAWEPA Dr. Thomas indicated that the Interagency working group has been working to resolve this issue for 3 to 4 years at the same prior$ level as establishing the rulemaking for the critical use exemption process. He then introduced Ken Vick, the USOA head of the interagency working group. He added that PA has spoken to growers in diffeteht states and has brought growers to Washington D. C. to create a realistic list of available alternatives. Tracey Heinzman­ Smith, Howrey tk Simon MS. Heinman­ Smith Indicated that, as mentioned previously, users must have a baseline to which to compare themselves so that the application process is not extremely difficult, time consuming, and resource­ Intensive, and to avoid the need to reapply if all available alternatives are not known­ Sue Stendebach, OAWEPA Ms. Stendebach indlcated that 8 list will be made available. ­ 22­ . I Tracey Heinzmen­ Smith, Homey & Simon Ms. Heinzman­ Smith asked Dr. Thomas if the list will be made available prior to t h e proposed rulemaking in August. Bill Thomas, OAWEPA Dr. Thomas stated that the llst will be made available around the same time as proposed rule. around the end of the summer ( July or August 2001 ). Ken Vick, USDA Mr. Vick stated that the following reasons contributed to the delay in posting a potential list of alternatives; * Research an alternatives included footnotes by varlous studies with regional disparities; and Growers made subjective and sometlmas contradictory judgements about chemicals. Bill Thomas, OAREPA Dr. Thomas asked stakeholders if they would be comfortable with an internet posting of the potential list of alternatives. Steve Godbehere, Hendrix & Dale, / ne. Mr. Godbehere stated that if users were made aware of the posting, the Internet would be an appropriate place to display the Information­ Bill Thomas, OAWEPA Dr. Thomas responded to Mr. Godbehere by asklng how EPA should make users aware of the availability of the list. Steve Godbehem, Hendrix & Dale, Inc. Mr. Godbehere suggested that EPA use an extenslon service, which operates by extracting information from local growers. Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder asked Ms. Moreen about the length of time designated to the emergency use notification process. Response: Ms. Moreen responded that the process would not he time consuming and that notification would probably be received one to two days beforehand. She went on to indicate that after an emergency use is granted, a critical use review would be completed at the international level to advise parties if the proposed use can qualify as an emergency in the future. Unidentified Stakeholder An unidentified stakeholder asked Ms. Moreen whether the application process would involve a public comment perlod after applications are submitted. Response: Ms. Moreen replied that a public comment period is a possibility and asked stakeholders If there were any mote comments or suggestions. Paul Hofwitz, OAR/ EPA Mr. Horwitz stressed that the following comment is important but is his own Opinion and not necessarily the position of the US. government. He began his comment by reiterating the importance for users to submit any field research data so that applicants can display both historic efforts and future efforts to try alternatives. He also mentioned that a robust plan will suppot? multlple­ year requests, and that the applicatlon package will probably request information and to the degree possible, money that has been spent, different alternatives studied, and case studles that show specific results. ­ 23 ­ . Closing Statement Ms. Moreen thanked everyone for attending the meeting and encouraged stakeholders to contact EPA with any additional comments or special circumstances. She asked all attendees to take a business card and the February 16,2001 Crltical USR Meeting Summary, and reminded everyohe to sign the participant list before departing. ­ 2 4 ­ .

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.628906

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0084-0132

Supporting & Related Material

LYONDELL Gail B. Kelly Manager, Solvents Development 3801 West Chester Pike Newtown Square, PA 19073 Telephone: 61 0­ 3596443 Fax: 610­ 359­ 3155 E­ mail: gail. kelly@ lyondell. com August 27,2001 Terry J. Keating, Ph. D. AAAS Environmental Science Fellow EPA Office of Air and Radiation Ariel Rios North 5442 ( MC6 103A) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, N W Washington DC 20460 Dear Dr. Keating: In response to your request, Lyondell is providing a copy ( attached) of our submittal to the California Air Resources Board, summarizing the toxicological data for tertiary­ butyl acetate ( TBAc). As explained in that submittal, we believe the existing data indicate that TBAc is of a low order of toxicity and would not present significant health or environmental concerns from its use as a solvent. On the other hand, use of TBAc could provide a health benefit to the extent it replaces use of solvents that are Clean Air Act hazardous air pollutants or that have hijjher photochemical reactivity and so contribute to ozone formation. We hope this information is helpful to you. Please feel free to call, write, or email me with any questions. Sincerely, W Gail B. Kelly Attachment Lyondell Chemical Company

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.660540

regulations

EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0272-0003

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.683924

regulations

EPA-HQ-OEI-2003-0001-0001

Rule

Advanced Notice of proposed rulemaking and recordkeeping and delayed effective date of recordkeeping provisions in the electronic signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000

12746 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 people. The small entities identified ( approximately 3 charter fisherman and 1 tug operator) do not represent a substantial number of entities that would be affected by this proposed rule. Most vessels that must pass Franklin Street bridge are pleasure craft. According to LaPorte County Highway Dept., the charter fisherman can pass Franklin Street in the closed position once all lowerable appurtenances on their vessels are adjusted. Otherwise, the scheduled openings would still satisfy the reasonable needs for these few vessels. The 12­ hour advance notice requirement during winter months is a standard practice on the Great Lakes and still provides for bridge openings with advance notice from vessel operators. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U. S. C 605( b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment ( see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.). Federalism The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and determined that this rule does not have federalism implications under that Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( 2 U. S. C. 1531 1538) governs the issuance of federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a state, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the federal government having first provided the funds to pay those unfunded mandate costs. This proposed rule will not impose an unfunded mandate. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3( a) and 3( b)( 2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. Environment The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2 1, paragraph 34( g) of Commandant Instruction M16475. lC, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule changes a drawbridge regulation which has been found not to have a significant effect on the environment. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is not required. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to revise Part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 117 DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U. S. C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05 1( g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102 587, 106 Stat. 5039. 2. Revise § 117.401 to read as follows: § 117.401 Trail Creek. ( a) The draw of the Franklin Street bridge, mile 0.5 at Michigan City, shall be operated as follows: ( 1) From March 16 through November 30, the draw shall open on signal; except from 6: 15 a. m. to 11: 15 p. m., Monday through Sunday, the draw need open only from three minutes before to three minutes after the quarter­ hour and three­ quarter hour. ( 2) From December 1 through March 15, the draw shall open on signal if at least 12­ hours advance notice is provided prior to intended time of passage. ( b) The draw of the Amtrak bridge, mile 0.9 at Michigan City, shall open on signal; except, from December 1 through March 15, the bridge shall open on signal if at least 12­ hours advance notice is provided prior to intended time of passage. ( c) Public vessels of the United States, state or local vessels used for public safety, vessels in distress, and vessels seeking shelter from severe weather shall be passed through the draws of each bridge as soon as possible. Dated: February 5, 2001. James D. Hull, Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District. [ FR Doc. 01 4884 Filed 2 27 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 4910 15 U ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 51, 60, 63, 70, 123, 142, 145, 162, 233, 257, 258, 271, 281, 403, 501, 745 and 763 [ FRL 6949 6] RIN 2025 AA10 Public Information: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping and Delayed Effective Date of Recordkeeping Provisions in the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking ( ANPRM). SUMMARY: EPA announces its intent to develop a rule to establish performance standards to assure accuracy, record integrity, and accessibility of electronic reports and records applying generally to all recordkeeping requirements contained in Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This action delays until June 1, 2001 the effective date of certain provisions in the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000 that may affect certain federal environmental recordkeeping requirements. DATES: In order to be considered, comments on this ANPRM must be received on or before March 30, 2001. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 14: 28 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 28FEP1. SGM pfrm08 PsN: 28FEP1 12747 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules Please direct all correspondence to the addresses shown below. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted in triplicate to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center ( Mail Code 2201A), Docket Number EC 2000 007 ( Attn: E­ SIGN ANPRM), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20460. No facsimiles ( faxes) will be accepted. Comments in an electronic format should also reference docket number EC 2000 07, ( Attn: E­ SIGN ANPRM), and should be addressed to the following Internet address: docket. oeca@ epa. gov. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII, WordPerfect 5.1/ 6.1/ 8 format file and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Schwarz ( 2823), Office of Environmental Information, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, ( 202) 260 2710, schwarz. david@ epa. gov, or Evi Huffer ( 2823), Office of Environmental Information, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20460, ( 202) 260 8791, huffer. evi@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act of 2000, 15 U. S. C. 7001 to 7031 ( hereinafter `` ESign enacted on June 30, 2000, provides that, with respect to any transaction in or affecting interstate commerce, no contract, signature, or record relating to such a transaction shall be denied legal effect solely because it is in electronic form. Similarly, E­ Sign provides that such a document may not be denied legal effect solely because an electronic signature or record was used in its formation. Under E­ Sign, terms of existing statutes or agency rules containing paper­ based requirements that might otherwise deny effect to electronic signatures and records in consumer, commercial or business transactions between two or more parties are superseded. While ESign does not generally affect reporting under federal regulations or records of those reports, E­ Sign does potentially supersede a requirement that a record be kept on paper if that record is not retained principally for governmental purposes, but is maintained primarily for consumer, commercial or business purposes. E­ Sign does, however, preserve the authority of federal and State agencies to set technology­ neutral standards and formats for the retention of any such electronic records. Today, EPA announces its intent to develop rules governing the use of electronic records to satisfy any recordkeeping requirements contained in Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, including any recordkeeping requirements potentially affected by E­ Sign. With respect to record retention requirements imposed by federal statute, regulation, or other rule of law, E­ Sign takes effect on March 1, 2001 unless a federal regulatory agency has announced, proposed, or initiated, but not completed, rulemaking to establish performance standards to assure accuracy, record integrity, and accessibility of electronic reports and records. If a federal agency announces, proposes, or initiates such a rulemaking on or before March 1, 2001, the effective date of E­ Sign is delayed until June 1, 2001, with respect to such records. Today's ANPRM announces EPA's intent to develop a rule applying generally to all recordkeeping requirements contained in Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations and, accordingly, to the extent E­ Sign affects any such requirement, E­ Sign will take effect on June 1, 2001, instead of March 1, 2001. In order to satisfy the mandates of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act ( GPEA) of 1998, public law 105 277, http:// ec. fed. gove/ gpedoc. htm, EPA is currently developing the Cross­ Media Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule ( CROMERRR). This rule would govern the use of electronic records and recordkeeping to satisfy any reporting or recordkeeping requirement contained in Chapter I of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA may also choose to develop a rule in addition to CROMERRR that would apply to the subset of those recordkeeping requirements that are affected by E­ Sign. Such a rule would establish interim performance standards to assure accuracy, record integrity, and accessibility of this smaller universe of electronic records until EPA is able to finalize the CROMERR rule of general applicability. EPA solicits comment on whether it should develop such an interim rule. EPA also solicits comment on what class or classes of records should be subject to any such interim rule. Dated: February 23, 2001. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. [ FR Doc. 01 4972 Filed 2 27 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 42 CFR Part 36 Cancellation of the Meeting of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Joint Tribal and Federal Self­ Governance AGENCY: Indian Health Service, HHS. ACTION: Notice of Meeting Cancellation. SUMMARY: On February 13, 2001, the Indian Health Service published a notice in the Federal Register announcing two meetings of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Joint Tribal and Federal Self Governance ( 66 FR 10182, February 13, 2001). The first meeting, scheduled for February 27 28 in Washington, DC, is cancelled. The second meeting, scheduled for March 15 16 in San Diego, CA, will be held as planned at the Clarion Hotel Bay View, 660 K Street, San Diego, CA 92101, from 8: 00 a. m. 5: 00 p. m. each day. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Williams, Director, Office of Tribal Self­ Governance, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 5A 55, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone 301 443 7821. ( This is not a toll­ free number.) Dated: February 22, 2001. Michael H. Trujillo, Assistant Surgeon General, Director. [ FR Doc. 01 4967 Filed 2 26 01; 12: 37 pm] BILLING CODE 4160 16 M FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [ DA 01 390, MM Docket No. 01 46, RM 10046] Digital Television Broadcast Service; Temple, TX AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Channel 6, Inc., licensee of station KCEN TV, NTSC channel 6, Temple, Texas, requesting the substitution of DTV channel 9 for station KCEN TV's assigned DTV channel 50. DTV Channel 9 can be allotted to Temple, Texas, in compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of Section 73.625( a) at reference coordinates ( 31 16 24 N. and 97 13 14 W.). As requested, we propose to allot VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 14: 28 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 28FEP1. SGM pfrm08 PsN: 28FEP1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.797913

regulations

EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0146-0002

Supporting & Related Material

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES TOXIC SUBSTANCES TOXIC SUBSTANCES TOXIC SUBSTANCES 22­ April­ 2002 MEMORANDUM: SUBJECT: Tebuthiuron. Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment. HED Chapter for the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision (TRED). Chemical No. 105501. DP Barcode D274580. FROM: Paula A. Deschamp, M. S., Risk Assessor Reregistration Branch 2 Health Effects Division (7509C) THRU: Alan Nielsen, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 2 Health Effects Division (7509C) TO: Wilhelmena Livingston, Chemical Review Manager Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C) Attached is HED's Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment for the Tebuthiuron Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision (TRED). This document addresses tolerances subject to reassessment in accordance with Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). The FQPA requires EPA to re­ evaluate existing tolerances to ensure that children and other sensitive subpopulations are protected from pesticide risks. Because FQPA addresses only non­ occupational (residential) risk concerns for food­ use pesticides with established tolerances or exemptions, risks to workers are not addressed in this document. The human health risk findings summarized in this assessment incorporate disciplinary chapters and other supporting documentation as follows: TRED for Tebuthiuron. M. Corbin (11/ 28/ 01; D279066) Addendum to TRED Drinking Water Assessment for Tebuthiuron. M. Corbin (2/ 22/ 02; D279066) Product Chemistry Chapter for the TRED. K. Dockter (11/ 15/ 01; D277104) Residue Chemistry Chapter for the TRED. S. Piper (04/ 09/ 02; D277103) Acute and Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessments for the TRED. S. Piper (04/ 03/ 02; D281821) Toxicology Chapter for the TRED. R. Fricke (3/ 20/ 02; D277101; TXR 0050572) 2 Third Report of the HIARC Committee. R. Fricke (4/ 16/ 02; TXR 0050672) Report of the FQPA Safety Factor Committee. Carol Christensen (2/ 12/ 02; TXR 0050466) The Outcome of the HED MARC Meeting (2/ 25/ 02; TXR 0050409) RDI: Team (04/ 03/ 02), BRSrSci: Nielsen (04/ 22/ 02), RARC (04/ 03/ 02) P. Deschamp 812D: CM# 2: (703) 305­ 6227: 7509C: RRB2 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................... 1 2.0 PHYSICAL/ CHEMICAL PROPERTIES CHARACTERIZATION ................. 4 2.1 Chemical Structure and Identification of Active Ingredient ................. 4 2.2 Physical Properties .................................................. 4 3.0 HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION ............................................ 4 3.1 Hazard Profile ...................................................... 4 3.2 FQPA Considerations .............................................. 10 3.3 Dose Response Assessment .......................................... 10 3.4 Endocrine Disruption ............................................... 13 4.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT AND CHARACTERIZATION ...................... 14 4.1 Summary of Registered Uses ......................................... 14 4.2 Dietary Exposure/ Risk Pathway ...................................... 15 4.2.1 Residue Profile .......................................... 15 4.2.2 Dietary Exposure ........................................ 19 4.2.2.1 Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis .......................... 20 4.2.2.2 Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis ........................ 20 4.2.2.3 Cancer Dietary Exposure/ Risk ............................ 21 4.3 Water Exposure/ Risk Pathway ....................................... 21 4.4 Residential Exposure/ Risk Pathway ................................... 23 4.4.1 Other Non­ Occupational Exposure .......................... 23 5.0 AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENTS AND RISK CHARACTERIZATIONS ....... 24 5.1 Acute Risk ........................................................ 24 5.1.1 Aggregate Acute Risk Assessment ........................... 24 5.1.2 Acute DWLOC Calculations ................................ 24 5.2 Short­ and Intermediate­ Term Risk ................................... 25 5.3 Chronic Risk ...................................................... 25 5.3.1 Aggregate Chronic Risk Assessment ......................... 25 5.3.2 Chronic DWLOC Calculations .............................. 25 6.0 CUMULATIVE ............................................................ 26 7.0 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE .............................................. 27 8.0 DATA NEEDS/ LABEL REQUIREMENTS .................................... 28 1 Tebuthiuron (PC Code 105501) Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment HED Chapter for the Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision (TRED) 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following human health risk assessment has been prepared by the Health Effects Division (HED) for Phase 1 (Registrant Error Correction) of the tolerance reassessment eligibility decision (TRED) process for tebuthiuron. The Tebuthiuron Reregistration Standard Guidance Document was issued 6/ 94. Tebuthiuron is a non­ selective substituted urea herbicide. The mechanism of herbicidal action is the inhibition of photosynthesis. Unlike other substituted ureas such as fluometuron, diuron, and linuron, tebuthiuron contains a dimethyl thiadiazole moiety and does not degrade or metabolize to 3,4­ dichloroaniline. Tebuthiuron controls broadleaf and grassy weeds and woody plants. Use sites include pastureland/ rangeland, non­ crop industrial areas such as highways, fence rows, firebreaks, utility rights­ of­ ways, railroad rights­ of­ ways, and clearings for wildlife habitat. Pastureland/ rangeland in TX, OK and NM is the primary use site. End­ use formulations include granular, pelleted/ tablets, and wettable powder products which are applied using ground and aerial equipment. The only source of dietary (food) exposure is the consumption of secondary residues in meat and milk from livestock fed tebuthiuron­ treated grass forage and hay. Tolerances in meat and milk are established at 2 ppm and in grass forage and hay at 10 ppm for residues of tebuthiuron and its metabolites containing the dimethyl thiadiazole moiety. There are no registered residential uses. Hazard Profile, Dose/ Response Analysis, and FQPA Considerations The toxicology database for tebuthiuron is not complete, but provides sufficient information to adequately identify hazards for risk assessment purposes. The acute toxicity studies indicate that tebuthiuron is more toxic for oral (Category II) exposure than for either dermal (Category IV) or inhalation (Category III) exposure. Tebuthiuron is not an eye or skin irritant and not a skin sensitizer. In a 21­ day dermal toxicity study in rabbits, no dermal or systemic toxicity was observed at the limit dose of 1000 mg/ kg/ day. In subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in the rat the most consistent toxicological effect was decreased body weight; however, histopathological changes in the pancreas were also observed. In subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in the dog, anorexia, decreased body weight, clinical chemistry effects, and increased organ weights were observed. There was no qualitative/ quantitative evidence of increased susceptibility in rat developmental and reproduction studies; however susceptibility could not as assessed in the rabbit. The classification of tebuthiuron as a Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, was reevaluated by HIARC. At the doses tested, neither the rat nor mouse showed any treatment­ related increase in the incidence of neoplasms; however, the HIARC concluded that the dose levels were too low to assess the carcinogenic potential of tebuthiuron. Tebuthiuron was not mutagenic in bacteria, but was weakly positive for gene mutations in cultured mouse lymphoma sells. The effect in mammalian cells was, however, confined to non­ activated test conditions. There was also some 2 evidence of a clastogenic response at cytotoxic doses both with and without S9 activation. Since an acceptable in vivo bone marrow cytogenetic assay is not available, final conclusions regarding the mutagenic potential of tebuthiuron can not be made at this time. HED has requested new carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice and an in vivo mammalian bone marrow chromosomal aberration test as confirmatory data. A dose level of 25 mg/ kg/ day was selected for acute dietary risk assessment based on increased post­ implantation loss and fetal/ litter resorptions observed at 50 mg/ kg/ day in the rabbit developmental study. A dose level of 14 mg/ kg/ day was selected for chronic dietary risk assessment based on decreased body weight and feed consumption observed at 30 mg/ kg/ day in F1 females in a 2­ generation rat reproduction study. An uncertainty factor (UF) of 100 was applied to all doses selected for risk assessment purposes to account for interspecies extrapolation (10x) and intraspecies variability (10x). The FQPA Safety Factor Committee recommended that the FQPA Safety Factor be reduced to 3x when assessing acute dietary exposure to females 13­ 50 years old because there is a data gap for the susceptibility of fetuses following in utero exposure to tebuthiuron. The Committee also recommended that the safety factor be removed (1x) when assessing chronic dietary exposure to the general U. S. population and all population subgroups. Exposure and Risk Contributions from the Food Pathway HED did not identify any risk concerns from exposure to tebuthiuron in food. The acute and chronic dietary risk estimates associated with the use of tebuthiuron do not exceed HED's level of concern (!100%) for any population subgroup. A Tier 2 deterministic chronic dietary assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM™) which incorporates consumption data from USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), 1989­ 1992. Inputs to the dietary analysis included anticipated residues (ARs) from field trials and livestock feeding studies. Maximum and weighted average estimates of percent crop treated were incorporated into the acute and chronic assessments, respectively. The calculated chronic dietary exposure (residue x consumption) was compared to a chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) of 0.14 mg/ kg/ day, which reflects a FQPA factor of 1x for the general U. S. population and all population subgroups. The chronic dietary exposure estimate for the general U. S. population and all subgroups was <1% of the cPAD. The acute dietary exposure was compared to an acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) of 0.083 mg/ kg/ day. The acute dietary risk estimates associated with the use of tebuthiuron do not exceed HED's level of concern for females 13­ 50 years old. The acute dietary risk estimate for this population subgroup is <1% of the aPAD. Exposure and Risk Contributions from the Water Pathway HED did not identify any acute or chronic risk concerns from exposure to tebuthiuron in drinking water. Tebuthiuron and its dimethyl thiadiazole­ containing degradate (Compound 104) are persistent and mobile. The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) Tier II (PRZM/ EXAMS) surface water modeling for residues of tebuthiuron and its degradate 104 using the index reservoir with the percent cropped area, predicts the 1 in 10 year peak (acute) 3 concentration of tebuthiuron is not likely to exceed 15.5 !g/ L. The 1 in 10 year annual average concentration (non­ cancer chronic) of tebuthiuron is not likely to exceed 4.3 !g/ L. The SCIGROW predicted concentration of tebuthiuron and its degradate 104 in ground water is not expected to exceed 245 µg/ L. Aggregate Risk Assessments HED did not identify any aggregate risk concerns. The aggregate acute and aggregate chronic dietary risk estimates include exposure to residues of tebuthiuron in food and water. No short­, intermediate­ or long­ term residential use scenarios were identified. Acute dietary (food) exposure is <1% of the aPAD for females 13­ 50. Chronic dietary (food) exposure is <1% of the chronic PAD for the general U. S. population and all population subgroups. The estimated acute and chronic EECs in ground and surface water are less than the drinking water levels of comparison indicating that acute and chronic aggregate exposures to tebuthiuron do not exceed HED's level of concern. Data Gaps and Uncertainties Toxicology data gaps include a developmental toxicity study in rabbit, as well as the chronic feeding/ carcinogenicity study in the rat and oncogenicity study in the mouse; all of these studies were found to be unacceptable. Although tebuthiuron was not mutagenic in bacteria, it was weakly positive for gene mutations in cultured mouse lymphoma cells, but only under non­ activated test conditions. An in vivo bone marrow cytogenetic assay is needed to fully evaluate the mutagenic potential of tebuthiuron. Further, a 28­ day inhalation study in the rat is required to characterize the effects of tebuthiuron via the inhalation route, and the requirement for a developmental neurotoxicity study is being held in reserve, pending submission of the rabbit developmental toxicity study. The NOAEL of 14 mg/ kg/ day from the two­ generation reproduction study used for derivation of the chronic RfD is the lowest NOAEL in the database. In other long­ term toxicity studies, doses of 50 mg/ kg/ day (1­ year dog) and 80 mg/ kg/ day (2­ year rat) were identified as LOAELs; a LOAEL was not established in the 78­ week mouse oncogenicity study at the highest dose tested (240 mg/ kg/ day). Based on this weight­ of­ evidence, the HIARC inferred that a repeat study in rats at higher dose would provide hazard characterization and evaluate the carcinogenic potential of this pesticide, but would not yield a dose that is lower than the dose that is used for derivation of the RfD. The chronic RfD is adequate to protect any adverse toxicity effects following exposure to tebuthiuron. Although there are some uncertainties regarding the carcinogenic potential of tebuthiuron, HED has elected not to quantify cancer risk at this time because the dose levels used in the available carcinogenicity studies were sufficient to decrease any cancer risk concerns. HED has requested new carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice and an in vivo mammalian bone marrow chromosomal aberration test as confirmatory data. 4 N N S N CH 3 CH 3 C H 3 O NH 2 OH 2.0 PHYSICAL/ CHEMICAL PROPERTIES CHARACTERIZATION 2.1 Chemical Structure and Identification of Active Ingredient Chemical Name: N­[ 5­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N, N'­ dimethylurea Common Name: Tebuthiuron PC Code Number: 105501 CAS Registry No.: 34014­ 18­ 1 Chemical Class: Phenylurea Chemical Type: Herbicide Trade Names: Spike Mode of Action: Photosynthetic inhibitor which causes disruption of cell membranes Empirical formula: C9H16N4OS Molecular weight: 228.3 2.2 Physical Properties Tebuthiuron is a solid at room temperature with a low vapor pressure; thus, any losses due to volatilization/ sublimation are expected to be minimal. Preliminary analysis data indicate there are no impurities of toxicological concern in tebuthiuron technical material. A detailed list of the physical properties of tebuthiuron technical is provided below: Color: off­ white Physical state: crystalline solid Odor: pungent MP: 161.5­ 164C Bulk Density: 0. 579 g/ cc Water solubility: 2. 5 mg/ mL @25C Vapor Pressure: 2 x 10 ­6 mm Hg @ 25C log Pow: 1. 79 Stability: Stable for 3 yrs at normal temperatures. 3.0 HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION 3.1 Hazard Profile The toxicology database for tebuthiuron is not complete, but provides sufficient information to adequately identify hazards for risk assessment purposes. Toxicology data gaps include a developmental toxicity study in rabbit, as well as the chronic feeding/ carcinogenicity study in the rat and oncogenicity study in the mouse; all of these studies were found to be unacceptable. Although 5 tebuthiuron was not mutagenic in bacteria, it was weakly positive for gene mutations in cultured mouse lymphoma cells, but only under non­ activated test conditions. An in vivo bone marrow cytogenetic assay is needed to evaluate the mutagenic potential of tebuthiuron. A 28­ day inhalation study in the rat is required to characterize the effects of tebuthiuron via the inhalation route. Further, the requirement for a developmental neurotoxicity study is being held in reserve, pending submission of the rabbit developmental toxicity study. The acute toxicity studies indicate that tebuthiuron, technical, is more toxic for oral (Toxicity Category II) exposure than for either dermal (Toxicity Category IV) or inhalation (Toxicity Category III). Tebuthiuron is not an eye or skin irritant and not a skin sensitizer. In the 21­ day dermal toxicity study in rabbits, no dermal or systemic toxicity was observed at 1000 mg/ kg/ day (limit dose). Although the most consistent toxicological effect was decreased body weight, histopathological changes in the pancreas were observed in both the subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in the rat. Pancreatic acinar cells of both sexes showed vacuolation, which was described as generally slight or affecting only a few cells; males also had increased relative spleen and prostate gland weights. In a rat developmental study, however, pancreatic tissue appeared normal. Subchronic and chronic toxicity studies were available for the dog. In a subchronic study, anorexia, with resulting weight loss, and clinical chemistry effects (increased blood urea nitrogen and alkaline phosphatase) were observed at 50 mg/ kg/ day. In a chronic (1­ year) dog study, clinical signs of toxicity (emesis anorexia, and diarrhea ), decreased body weight, increased alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (males only), increased absolute and relative liver weights, and increased relative kidney (females only) and thyroid (males only) weights. Results from the rat developmental and reproductive toxicity studies indicated that there was no evidence (qualitative or quantitative) for increased susceptibility following in utero and/ or pre­/ post­ natal exposure. The rabbit developmental toxicity study was found to be unacceptable; susceptibility can not be evaluated in rabbits. At the doses tested, neither the rat nor mouse showed any treatment­ related increase in the incidence of neoplasms. However, the HIARC (TXR No. 0050672, April 16, 2002) concluded that the dose levels were too low to assess the carcinogenic potential of tebuthiuron. Tebuthiuron was not mutagenic in bacteria, but was weakly positive for gene mutations in cultured mouse lymphoma cells. The effect in mammalian cells was, however, confined to non­ activated test conditions. There was also some evidence of a clastogenic response at cytotoxic doses both with and without S9­ activation. Since an acceptable in vivo bone marrow cytogenetic assay is not available, final conclusions regarding the mutagenic potential of tebuthiuron can not be made at this time. In a rat metabolism study with 14 C­ tebuthiuron, absorption was complete; excretion was rapid in both sexes, but was delayed during the first 12 hours post­ dose, indicating saturation of biotransformation or excretion. At termination, no significant amounts of residual radioactivity remained in any tissue examined, but the skin showed the highest amounts relative to other tissues. Six metabolites of tebuthiuron were identified. The major urinary metabolites were identified as hydroxylated tebuthiuron metabolites. A summary of the findings from acute toxicity tests is presented in Table 1 and a summary of the findings from the subchronic, chronic, mutagenicity and other toxicity studies is presented in Table 6 2. Table 1. Acute Toxicity of Tebuthiuron Technical Guideline No. Study Type MRID No. Results Toxicity Category 870.1100 Acute Oral (Rat) 40583901 LD50 =477.5 mg/ kg (!! ) 387.5 mg/ kg ("" ) II 870.1200 Acute Dermal (Rabbit) 40583902 LD50 => 5000 mg/ kg (!! and "" )IV 870.1300 Acute Inhalation (Rat) 00155730 LC50 = 3.696 mg/ L III 870.2400 Primary Eye Irritation 40583903 Slight irritation IV 870.2500 Primary Skin Irritation 40583902 Non­ irritating IV 870.2600 Dermal Sensitization 40583904 Non­ sensitizer – 7 Table 2. Subchronic, Chronic, and Other Toxicity Table Guideline No./ Study Type MRID No. (year)/ Classification /Doses Results 870.3100 90­ Day oral toxicity­ rat 00020662 (1972) Acceptable/ Guideline 0, 20, 50, 125 mg/ kg/ day NOAEL = 50 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 125 mg/ kg/ day, based on decreased body weight, increased relative liver, kidney, gonads, spleen (males only), and prostate and slight vacuolization of pancreatic acinar cells. 870.3150 90­ Day oral toxicity­ dog 00020663 (1972) Acceptable/ Guideline 0, 12.5, 25, 50 mg/ kg/ day NOAEL = 25 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 50 mg/ kg/ day, based on decrease in body weight and increased alkaline phosphatase activity. 870.3200 21/ 28­ Day dermal toxicity­ rabbit 00149733 (1985) 00160796 (1986) Acceptable/ Guideline 0, 1000 mg/ kg/ day NOAEL = 1000 mg/ kg/ day (limit dose) 870.4100 [83­ 1( b)] 1­ Year Feeding Study Dog 00146801 (1985) Acceptable/ Guideline 0, 12.5, 25, 50 mg/ kg/ day NOAEL= 25 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 50 mg/ kg/ day based on clinical signs, decreased body wt, increased ALT and ALP (males only), increased absolute and relative livers and relative thyroid wt, (males only) wt, and increased absolute liver wt. 870.4200 [83­ 2 (b)] Oncogenicity Study Mouse 00020717 (1986) Unacceptable/ Guideline 0, 60, 120, 240 mg/ kg/ day NOAEL= 240 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = Not achieved Histopathology: None observed at doses tested, doses not high enough to assess carcinogenicity. 870.4300 [83­ 5( a)] Combined Chronic Toxicity/ Carcinogenicity Study Rat 00020714 (1976) 00098190 (1981) 40870101 (1988) Unacceptable/ Guideline 0, 20, 40, 80 mg/ kg/ day NOAEL = 40 mg/ kg/ day, females 80 mg/ kg/ day males LOAEL = 80 mg/ kg/ day, based on decreased terminal body weight in females; not established in males Histopathology: None observed at doses tested, doses not high enough to assess carcinogenicity. 870.3700 [83­ 3( a)] Developmental Toxicity Study ­ Rat 00020803 (1972) 40485801 (1972) Acceptable/ Guideline 0, 37, 72, 110 mg/ kg/ day Maternal Systemic NOAEL= 72 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 110 mg/ kg/ day) based on decreased body weight gains and food consumption. Developmental NOAEL = 110 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = not established 870.3700 [83­ 3( b)] Developmental Toxicity ­ Rabbit 00020644 (1975) 41122401 (1989) Unacceptable/ Guideline 0, 10, or 25mg/ kg/ day Maternal Systemic NOAEL= 25 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = not established Developmental NOAEL = 25 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = not established Table 2. Subchronic, Chronic, and Other Toxicity Table Guideline No./ Study Type MRID No. (year)/ Classification /Doses Results 8 870.3700 [83­ 3( b)] Developmental Toxicity ­ Rabbit (Range­ finding) 40776301 (1988) 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 100 mg/ kg/ day Mated rabbits (4/ group). Three animals in the 100 mg/ kg/ day group died or were killed moribund on GD 8­ 10. The percentage of early resorptions in the 25, 50, and 100 mg/ kg/ day groups was 68.8, 66.7 and 100%, respectively. 870.3800 [83­ 4] 2­ Generation Reproduction ­ Rat 00090108 (1981) Acceptable/ Guideline !! 0, 7, 14, and 26 mg/ kg/ day "" 7, 14, and 30 mg/ kg/ day, Systemic NOAEL= 14 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day, based on deceased in body weight and weight gain in F1 females. Parental effect levels were not established for adult male rats in this study. Reproductive NOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = not established Offspring NOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day LOAEL = not established 870.5100 Bacterial reverse gene mutation assay MRID 00141691 (1984) Acceptable/ Guideline There was no increase in mutant frequency in tested bacterial strains exposed up to the limit dose (5000 !g/ plate) with or without S9 activation. 870.5100 Bacterial reverse gene mutation assay MRID 00141690 (1984) Acceptable/ Non­ Guideline There was no increase in mutant frequency in any S. typhimurium or E. coli tested strain exposed to tebuthiuron (98.0%,) with or without metabolic activation. There was no evidence of induced mutant colonies over background in tested S. typhimurium strains and E. coli strains with or without S9 activation. 870.5300 In vitro mammalian cell gene mutation MRID 00145041 (1984) Acceptable/ Guideline In a mammalian cell gene mutation assay in vitro, cultures of mouse lymphoma were exposed to Tebuthiuron (98.0%) technical at concentrations limited by cytotoxicity. Mutations were not induced at any concentration with activation. Tebuthiuron was considered weakly mutagenic but only in the absence of metabolic activation. No evidence of an increased mutant frequency was observed in the presence of metabolic activation. 870.5550 Unscheduled DNA synthesis in mammalian cell culture MRID 40750901 Acceptable/ Guideline MRID 40750901 (1988) Acceptable/ Guideline In an unscheduled DNA synthesis assay, primary rat hepatocyte cultures were exposed to Tebuthiuron (99.1% ) to the limit of cytotoxicity ( !900 !g/ mL). UDS activity was evaluated at concentrations up to 800 !g/ mL and there was no evidence of induction of UDS. There was no evidence that unscheduled DNA synthesis, as determined by radioactive tracer procedures [nuclear silver grain counts] was induced. 870.5375 In vitro mammalian cell chromosome aberration MRID 41134101 (1989) Acceptable/ Guideline In a mammalian chromosome aberration assay, Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cell cultures were exposed to Tebuthiuron (99.08%) at concen trations limited by cytotoxicity. A significant increase in the percent of cells with aberrations was noted in nonactivated and activated cultures at cytotoxic doses. The predominant types of aberrations were chromosome and chromatid breaks. No significant increases were observed at lower concentrations; however, rare complex aberrations, such as triradials, quadriradials and complex rearrangements were noted, providing further support for clastogenicity. Positive control values were acceptable. There was evidence of an increase in structural chromosomal aberrations over background in the presence and absence of metabolic activation at cytotoxic doses. Table 2. Subchronic, Chronic, and Other Toxicity Table Guideline No./ Study Type MRID No. (year)/ Classification /Doses Results 9 870.5915 In vivo sister chromatid exchange MRID 40750902 (1988) Acceptable/ Guideline In an in vivo cytogenetic assay measuring sister chromatid exchange (SCE) frequency in Chinese hamster bone marrow cells female Chinese hamsters (3/ group) were administered single oral doses of tebuthiuron (99.1%, Lot No. 729AS7) in 10% aqueous acacia at 3000, 4000, or 5000 mg/ kg. Tebuthiuron was tested up to cytotoxic concentrations. Hypoactivity was noted in all treatment groups and bone marrow cytotoxicity (as evidenced by an increase in the percent division metaphases) was observed at 5000 mg/ kg. There was no increase in the number of cells containing SCEs compared to controls at any concentration of tebuthiuron tested. Cyclophosphamide (50 mg/ kg) and vehicle control values were acceptable. There was no evidence of an increase in SCEs over background. 870.7485 (85­ 1) Metabolism Study ­ Rat 42711701 (1993) 43129701 (1994) Acceptable/ Guideline 10 or 100 mg/ kg, 1 day 10 mg/ kg/ day for 14 days Terminal distribution data showed no significant amounts of residual radioactivity in any tissue examined, but the skin showed the highest amounts relative to other tissues. Excretion was rapid at both the low and high dose levels in both sexes, but was delayed during the first 12 hours post­ dose, indicating saturation of biotransformation or excretion. Six metabolites of tebuthiuron were identified. The major metabolite in 0­ 24 hour urine of male (58.3%) and female (62.1%) rats was identified as hydroxylated tebuthiuron metabolites (109­ OH and /or 104­ OH). The second most abundant metabolite was identified as metabolite 106 of tebuthiuron. This comprised between 9­ 15% of the administered dose in 0­ 24 hour urine of low dose rats, and between 1­ 10% of the administered dose in high dose rats. Two other metabolites identified, 104/ 109 and 103­ OH, comprised between 2­ 10% of the administered dose in male and female 0­ 24 hour urine. Feces contained minor amounts of 104­ OH and 109­ OH, accounting for an average of 3.5% of the administered dose. 10 3.2 FQPA Considerations The HED FQPA Safety Factor Committee met on February 4, 2002 to evaluate the hazard and exposure data for tebuthiuron. The Committee recommended that the FQPA safety factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of August 3, 1996) be reduced to 3x when assessing the risk posed by this chemical for the following reasons: " there is no indication of quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility of rats to in utero exposure; " there is no indication of quantitative or qualitative increased susceptibility of rat offspring seen in the two­ generation reproductive toxicity study; " the dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessments will not underestimate the potential exposures for infants and children; and " there is a data gap for a developmental toxicity study in the rabbit. The reduced FQPA safety factor of 3x is required when assessing acute dietary exposure to females 13­ 50. This is because there is a data gap for assessing susceptibility of fetuses following in utero exposure to tebuthiuron. When assessing chronic dietary exposure to the general population, the FQPA safety factor will be removed (1x). This is because there was no susceptibility identified in the 2­ generation rat reproduction study (a long­ term study). 3.3 Dose Response Assessment On December 13, 2001, January 17, 2002, and February 12, 2002 the Health Effects Division (HED) Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee (HIARC) reviewed the toxicology database of tebuthiuron and selected the doses and toxicological endpoints summarized in Table 3 for use in risk assessments. Also included in this table is the FQPA safety factor selected by the FQPA Safety Factor Committee on February 4, 2002. This table is followed by rationales for the selection of endpoints and doses. 11 aRfD FQPA SF aPAD= cRfD FQPA SF cPAD= Table 3. Summary of Toxicological Dose and Endpoints for Tebuthiuron for Use in Human Risk Assessment Exposure Scenario Dose Used in Risk Assessment, UF 1 FQPA SF and Endpoint for Risk Assessment Study and Toxicological Effects Acute Dietary females 13­ 50 years of age NOAEL = 25 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100 Acute RfD = 0.25 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF 2 =3 = 0.083 mg/ kg/ day Developmental Toxicity Study Rabbit NOAEL of 25 mg/ kg/ day. LOAEL not established A range­ finding study showed increased early resorptions at 50 mg/ kg/ day Acute Dietary general population including infants and children N/ A N/ A No appropriate effects attributed to a single exposure was identified. Chronic Dietary all populations NOAEL= 14 mg/ kg/ day UF = 100 Chronic RfD = 0.14 mg/ kg/ day FQPA SF 3 = 1 = 0.14 mg/ kg/ day Two­ generation reproduction study in the rat LOAEL = 30 mg/ kg/ day, based on decreased body weight and feed consumption in F1 females Toxicological endpoints for occupational/ residential exposure risk assessments were not selected since tebuthiuron is scheduled for a Tolerance Reassessment Eligibility Decision (TRED) 1 UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level, PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic) RfD = reference dose. 2 Because there is a data gap for assessing susceptibility of fetuses following in utero exposure a FQPA safety factor of 3x will be used. 3 Because there was no susceptibility identified in the 2­ generation rat reproduction study (a long­ term study) the FQPA safety factor will be removed (1x). 12 Acute Reference Dose (RfD) Females 13­ 50 years old The HIARC considered the data of the main study and the range­ finding study to establish this endpoint. In the main study, no maternal or developmental toxicity was seen at the highest dose; the NOAEL was 25 mg/ kg/ day (HDT). In the range­ finding study, early resorptions were observed at 25 (69%), 50 (67%), and 100 (100%) mg/ kg/ day. Although the range­ finding study indicates that 25 mg/ kg/ day is an effect level, this dose (25 mg/ kg/ day) was selected for risk assessment since there was no dose response in the observed early resorptions and because there was greater confidence in the results of the main study where no toxicity was seen at this dose (25 mg/ kg/ day) and thus was deemed to be an appropriate dose for risk assessment. In addition, the selection of the 25 mg/ kg/ day dose for risk assessment is supported by the NOAEL of 50 mg/ kg/ day in a rabbit developmental range­ finding study with a structurally related urea (UC 77179). This chemical had a toxicity profile similar to that of tebuthiuron. At 200 mg/ kg/ day UC 77179 decreased body weight gain, lethality and early resorption were observed. Acute Reference Dose (RfD) General U. S. Population An appropriate end point attributable to a single­ dose was not available in the database. The slight decrease (7%) in body weight gain seen on gestation day 16 in the rabbit study is not attributable to a single dose and no maternal toxicity was seen in the rabbit study. It should be noted that HED considers the finding of a lower acute RfD than the chronic RfD to be an artifact of the available data. The lower acute RfD is due to the use of an additional 3x uncertainty factor for the acute assessment (due to the lack of an acceptable rabbit developmental study). HED considered the results from the chronic study with those of the acute studies and determined that the cPAD at the higher dose level is adequately protective of females 13­ 50 for both the chronic toxic effect (decreased body weight and feed consumption) and the acute toxic effect (increased early resorptions). Chronic Reference Dose (RfD) The HIARC noted that the chronic toxicity/ carcinogenicity study in rats is unacceptable since at the doses tested (0, 20, 40 or 80 mg/ kg/ day) no treatment­ related effects were seen for mortality, clinical signs or clinical pathology. Treatment had no effects on absolute body weight or body weight gains in males and there were minimal (15% reduction) changes in absolute body weights in females at termination. There were no effects on neoplastic and non­ neoplastic lesions in either sex. Because of the lack of systemic toxicity, the HIARC determined that the doses tested were inadequate to assess the chronic toxicity or the carcinogenic potential of tebuthiuron. The NOAEL of 14 mg/ kg/ day from the two­ generation reproduction study used for derivation of the chronic RfD is the lowest NOAEL in the database. In the 1­ year chronic study in dog, the NOAEL was 25 mg/ kg/ day and the LOAEL was 50 mg/ kg/ day. In the 78­ week carcinogenicity study in mice, the NOAEL was 240 mg/ kg/ day (HDT). The HIARC inferred that a repeat study in rats at higher dose would provide hazard characterization and evaluate the carcinogenic potential of this pesticide, but would not yield a dose that is lower than the dose that is used for derivation of the RfD. The chronic RfD is adequate to protect any adverse toxicity effects following exposure to tebuthiuron. The Committee therefore concluded that an additional uncertainty factor (for data gap) is not needed. 13 Classification of Carcinogenic Potential The classification of tebuthiuron as a Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, was reevaluated by HIARC. At the doses tested, neither the rat nor mouse showed any treatment­ related increase in the incidence of neoplasms; however, the HIARC concluded that the dose levels were too low to assess the carcinogenic potential of tebuthiuron. While there is evidence that other registered substituted urea compounds are mutagenic and show carcinogenic potential, a conclusive SAR analogy between these compounds and tebuthiuron cannot be drawn because tebuthiuron contains a thiadiazole moiety and the other substituted ureas do not. An unregistered sulfonamide compound (UC77179), shown to induce thyroid adenomas in rats, also bears some structural similarities to tebuthiuron. However, comparison of tebuthiuron and UC77179 genotoxicity data does not support a strong SAR analogy. Compound UC77179 caused gene mutation is an Ames assay, produced chromosomal damage in cultured Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells, and was negative in other mutagenicity tests. Tebuthiuron was not mutagenic in bacteria, but was weakly positive for gene mutations in cultured mouse lymphoma cells. There was also some evidence of a clastogenic response at cytotoxic doses both with and without S9 activation. Although there are some uncertainties regarding the carcinogenic potential of tebuthiuron, HED has elected not to quantify cancer risk at this time because the dose levels used in the available carcinogenicity studies were sufficient to decrease any cancer risk concerns. HED has requested new carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice and an in vivo mammalian bone marrow chromosomal aberration test as confirmatory data. 3.4 Endocrine Disruption EPA is required under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances (including all pesticide active and other ingredients) "may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may designate." Following the recommendations of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC), EPA determined that there was scientific bases for including, as part of the program, the androgen and thyroid hormone systems, in addition to the estrogen hormone system. EPA also adopted EDSTAC's recommendation that the Program include evaluations of potential effects in wildlife. For pesticide chemicals, EPA will use FIFRA and, to the extent that effects in wildlife may help determine whether a substance may have an effect in humans, FFDCA authority to require the wildlife evaluations. As the science develops and resources allow, screening of additional hormone systems may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). In the available toxicity studies on tebuthiuron, there was no evidence of endocrine disruptor effects. When the appropriate screening and/ or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's EDSP have been developed, tebuthiuron may be subjected to additional screening and/ or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption. 14 4.0 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT AND CHARACTERIZATION 4.1 Summary of Registered Uses Tebuthiuron is a non­ selective substituted urea herbicide that provides long­ term control of annual and perennial grasses, herbaceous plants and woody brush. Use sites include pastureland/ rangeland, non­ crop industrial areas such as highways, fence rows firebreaks, utility rights­ of­ ways, railroad rights­ of­ ways, and clearings for wildlife habitat; there is no agricultural crop use of tebuthiuron except for range and pasture land uses. The primary use site is pastureland/ rangeland in TX, OK and NM. Based on a search of OPP's REFS conducted on 22­ March­ 2002, there are eight active Section 3 registrations for end­ use products containing tebuthiuron. End­ use formulations include granular, pelleted/ tablets, and wettable powder products which are applied using ground and aerial equipment. In a SMART meeting on 2­ May­ 2001, Dow AgroSciences expressed their intention to support all currently registered uses and products of tebuthiuron. A summary of the currently registered enduse products and use sites is given in the table below: Company EPA Reg. No. Formulation Class % ai Use Sites Rainbow Technology Corp. 13283­ 18 Granular 2 Industrial areas (outdoor) Nonag rights­ of­ way/ fencerows/ hedgerows 13283­ 21 Granular 1 Industrial areas (outdoor) Nonag rights­ of­ way/ fencerows/ hedgerows SSI Maxim Company, Inc. 34913­ 10 Granular 5 Drainage systems Nonag uncultivated areas/ soils 34913­ 15 Granular 1 Nonag uncultivated areas/ soils 34913­ 16 Granular 2 Nonag uncultivated areas/ soils Dow AgroSciences LLC 62719­ 107 Wettable Powder 80 Drainage systems Nonag uncultivated areas/ soils 62719­ 121 Pelleted/ Tableted 20 Pasture/ rangeland Nonag uncultivated areas/ soils 62719­ 122 Pelleted/ Tableted 40 Pasture/ rangeland Nonag uncultivated areas/ soils 15 The 20% and 40% P/ T formulations are registered for a single broadcast application to rangeland and forage grasses by aerial or ground equipment at 0.5­ 4.00 lb ai/ A. Tebuthiuron may be applied anytime but the recommended timing of application is prior to the resumption of active seasonal growth in the spring or before expected seasonal rainfall. The maximum recommended rate is 4.0 lb ai/ A for areas receiving >20 inches average annual rainfall, or 2.0 lb ai/ A for areas receiving <20 inches average annual rainfall. Application to ditches used to transport irrigation or potable water is prohibited. Treated grasses may not be cut for hay for livestock feed for one year after treatment. 4.2 Dietary Exposure/ Risk Pathway A refined acute and chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted for tebuthiuron registered for foliar application to pastures and rangeland (secondary transfer to livestock commodities). Anticipated residues from livestock feeding studies, residue field trials, and percent crop treated data were utilized to estimate the dietary exposure to tebuthiuron in the diets of the U. S. Population (chronic) and females 13­ 50 years old (acute only). 4.2.1 Residue Profile Tolerances for residues of tebuthiuron have been established for grasses and animal commodities [40 CFR §180.390]. These tolerances are expressed in terms of the combined residues of N­[ 5 1,1diemthylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N, N'­ dimethylurea and its metabolites containing the dimethylethyl thiadiazole moiety. No Codex MRLs have been established or proposed for residues of tebuthiuron. Therefore, issues of compatibility with respect to U. S. tolerances and Codex MRLs do not exist. For dietary risk assessment, the Metabolism Committee concluded that the residue of concern in plants are the parent compound and its metabolites 103, 103( OH), 104, and 109. The residue of concern in livestock commodities (fat, meat, kidney, and liver) are tebuthiuron and its metabolites 104, 106, 108, and 109; the terminal residues of concern in milk are tebuthiuron and metabolites 104, 104( OH), 106, 109, and 109( OH). MARC revisited N. Dodd's memo, "Nature of the Residue in Milk and Bovine Tissues," dated 6/ 22/ 89 and determined the parent compound and its metabolites 103 (OH), 104, and 109 should also be included in the risk assessment (3/ 28/ 02; MARC members C. Olinger, L. Cheng, R. Loranger and D. Nixon). GLN 860.1300: Nature of the Residue­ Plants The qualitative nature of the residue in grasses is adequately understood. The registrant (1976; MRID 00020756) submitted a "revised" metabolism study in which a [ 14 C] tebuthiuron solution (labeled in the 5­ position of the thiadiazole ring; specific activity of 16.9 uCi/ mg) was applied to the surface of the soil in which 10­ week old tall fescue (0.374 lb ai/ A), little bluestem and indiangrass (0.75 lb ai/ A.) were grown. The residues of concern are the parent compound and its metabolites 103 (OH), 104, and 109 (N. Dodd, 12/ 10/ 87). 16 Tebuthiuron was the most abundant 14 C­ residue recovered in the organosoluble fraction of the grass extract. Other metabolites identified in the organosoluble fraction from all three grass species were 103( OH), 104, and 109. Approximately 39­ 86% of the total 14 C­ activity of all grasses was identified from the organosoluble fraction. The metabolites which were recovered and identified by acid hydrolysis of the aqueous fraction were 103( OH), 104, and l04( 0H). The predominant conjugate in little bluestem was 103( OH) while 104 was the major conjugate in indiangrass. One additional metabolite, isopropyl 103, was found in the hydrolysates of the aqueous fraction of little bluestem. Based on the 14 C­ residues identified in the organosoluble and aqueous fractions, approximately 81­ 89, 58­ 70, and 78­ 80% of the total 14 C­ activity found in tall fescue, little bluestem, and indiangrass, respectively, was identified. In summary, two major metabolic pathways are involved: N­ demethylation of tebuthiuron to form 104 and alkyl hydroxylation of the dimethylethyl side chain to form 103( OH). The molecular structures of the metabolites of concern are presented in Table 4. GLN 860.1300: Nature of the Residue­ Animals The qualitative nature of the residue in milk and ruminant tissues is adequately understood. The terminal residues of concern in fat, meat, kidney, and liver are tebuthiuron and its metabolites 104, 106, 108, and 109; the terminal residues of concern in milk are tebuthiuron and metabolites 104, 104 (OH), 106, 109, and A [109 (OH)] (N. Dodd, MRIDs 40985001 and 40985002, 6/ 22/ 89). A poultry metabolism study is not required since grasses are not considered to be poultry feed items. A metabolism study was conducted on one cow dosed by capsule containing [ 14 C] tebuthiuron labeled in the 5­ position of the thiadiazole ring at a calculated feeding level of 50 ppm. Doses were administered every 12 hours (morning and evening) for 3 consecutive days. The cow was sacrificed 12 hours after the final dose. The percentage of the total radioactivity which was identified was 82.7 percent in fat, 87.2 percent in lean, 83.2 percent in liver, and 91.0 percent in kidney. The predominant residues in milk (days 1, 2, and 3) as a percentage of TRR were metabolites 104 (21%), 106 (21­ 26%), 104( OH) (10­ 16%), 109 (10­ 12%), and 109 (OH) (8­ 12%). Parent tebuthiuron was present at about 1% of the TRR. 17 N N S N CH 3 CH 3 C H 3 O N H CH 3 OH N N S NH 2 CH 3 C H 3 C H 3 N N S N CH 3 CH 3 C H 3 C H 3 O NH 2 N N S N CH 3 CH 3 C H 3 C H 3 O N H OH N N S N CH 3 CH 3 C H 3 O NH 2 OH N N S N CH 3 CH 3 C H 3 O N H OH OH N N S N H CH 3 C H 3 C H 3 O NH 2 Table 4. The chemical structures of the metabolites of concern of tebuthiuron. Structure Metabolite: Chemical name Structure Metabolite: Chemical name 103 (OH): N­[ 5­( 2­ hydroxy­ 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N, N dimethylurea 108: 2­ dimethylethyl­ 5­ amino­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazole 104: N­[ 5­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol 2­ yl]­ N­ methylurea 109: N­[ 5­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol 2­ yl]­ N'­ hydroxymethyl­ N­ methylurea 104 (OH): N­[ 5­( 2­ hydroxy­ 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N methylurea A [109 (OH)]: N­[ 5­( 2­ hydroxy­ 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N hydroxymethyl­ N­ methylurea 106: N­[ 5­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol 2­ yl] urea 18 GLN 860.1340: Residue Analytical Methods ­ Plants and Animals An adequate method is available for the enforcement of plant commodity tolerances. A GLC method with flame photometric detection is designated as Method II in PAM Vol. II. Tebuthiuron and metabolites 104 and 109 are thermally degraded on the GLC column and are determined as 5­ (1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ N­ methyl­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ amine; metabolite 103 (OH) is determined as 5­( 2­ hydroxy­ 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ N­ methyl­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ amine. The stated detection limits are 0.1 ppm for tebuthiuron and metabolites 104 and 109, and 0.2 ppm for metabolite 103 (OH). A revised enforcement method for milk, to include hydrolysis steps and the determination of metabolites 104 (OH) and A [109 (OH)], and a revised enforcement method for animal tissues, to include hydrolysis steps and the determination of metabolite 108, have been submitted. GLN 860.1480: Magnitude of the Residue in Meat, Milk, Poultry and Eggs The reregistration requirements for data depicting magnitude of the residue in milk, eggs, and livestock tissues are fulfilled and the data demonstrate a transfer of tebuthiuron residues to animal tissue (meat, meat by­ products, etc.). An acceptable ruminant feeding study (S. Funk, D217379, 12/ 05/ 95) has been submitted. The results of the ruminant feeding study conducted at a nominal 45 ppm tebuthiuron feeding level (1.5x) for 28 days show that the existing tolerances for milk and meat are inadequate and that they should be revised. The tolerances for meat and fat may be lowered, but the tolerances for milk and meat byproducts must be increased. For details, refer to Appendix A Table 1: Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Tebuthiuron. No poultry of swine feed items are associated with the registered uses on grass; therefore, there is no reasonable expectation of detectable residues of tebuthiuron and its metabolites in poultry, swine, and eggs resulting from the use patterns being considered for reregistration. These uses for poultry, swine, and eggs can be classified under Category 3 (no reasonable expectation of finite residues) of 40 CFR§ 180.6( a). GLN 860.1500: Magnitude of the Residue in Plants All data requirements for the magnitude of the residue in plants have been evaluated and deemed acceptable. GLN 860.1520: Processed Food/ Feed No processed food/ feed studies were submitted by the registrant and none are required to support the existing use pattern. GLNs 860.1850/ 1900: Confined/ Field Rotational Crops Grasses in rangeland are not rotated. Pastures on the other hand can vary from permanent (> 8 years), short term (2­ 4 years), long term (5­ 8 years), as well as temporary (< 1 year). A rotational pasture is one used for a few seasons and then plowed and planted to another crop. 19 The Quantitative Usage Analysis for Tebuthiuron indicates that the states with the most acres treated are in the Southwest U. S. (TX, OK, NM, and AZ). The grassland areas covered by these states include the Southern Plains and the Southwest Grasslands. These grassland areas are predominately rangeland that contains perennial native or introduced grasses, that have been invaded by woody perennial weedy shrubs which are very difficult to control. Pastures are mostly perennial grasses or legumes; however, we do not know if there are any significant pasture acreage planted to annual forages in this region. Therefore, confined field rotational crop studies will be conditionally required unless the registrant can provide information that pastureland in this area is either insignificant in acreage or is predominantly perennial grasses that are not rotated annually. 4.2.2 Dietary Exposure Tebuthiuron acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM™) software Version 7.73, which incorporates consumption data from USDA's Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII), 1989­ 1992. The 1989­ 92 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 10,000 individuals over three consecutive days, and therefore represent more than 30,000 unique "person days" of data. Foods "as consumed" (e. g., apple pie) are linked to raw agricultural commodities and their food forms (e. g., apples­ cooked/ canned or wheat­ flour) by recipe translation files internal to the DEEM software. Consumption data are averaged for the entire U. S. population and within population subgroups for chronic exposure assessment, but are retained as individual consumption events for acute exposure assessment. For chronic exposure and risk assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or food­ form (e. g., orange or orange­ juice) on the commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/ food form. The resulting residue consumption estimate for each food/ food form is summed with the residue consumption estimates for all other food/ food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total estimated exposure. Exposure estimates are expressed in mg/ kg body weight/ day and as a percent of the cPAD. This procedure is performed for each population subgroup. For acute exposure assessments, individual one­ day food consumption data are used on an individual­ by­ individual basis. The reported consumption amounts of each food item can be multiplied by a residue point estimate and summed to obtain a total daily pesticide exposure for a deterministic (Tier 1 or Tier 2) exposure assessment, or "matched" in multiple random pairings with residue values and then summed in a probabilistic (Tier 3/ 4) assessment. The resulting distribution of exposures is expressed as a percentage of the aPAD on both a user (i. e., those who reported eating relevant commodities/ food forms) and a per­ capita (i. e., those who reported eating the relevant commodities as well as those who did not) basis. In accordance with HED policy, per capita exposure and risk are reported for all tiers of analysis. However, for tiers 1 and 2, significant differences in user vs. per capita exposure and risk are identified and noted in the risk assessment. HED notes that there is a degree of uncertainty in extrapolating exposures for certain population 20 subgroups which may not be sufficiently represented in the consumption surveys (i. e., nursing infants). Therefore, risks estimated for these subpopulations were included in representative populations having sufficient numbers of survey respondents (i. e., all infants or females 13­ 50 years old). Thus, the population subgroups listed in Table 5 include those subgroups having sufficient numbers of survey respondents in the CSFII food consumption survey. 4.2.2.1 Acute Dietary Exposure Analysis A Tier 2 acute dietary exposure assessment was conducted for females 13­ 50 years old using anticipated residues for meat and milk commodities which incorporated an estimated maximum 2% CT for rangeland/ pastureland (2/ 28/ 02; S. Smearman, BEAD). No acute dietary endpoint was selected by the HIARC for the general U. S. population, including infants and children. Therefore, an acute dietary exposure assessment was not performed for these population subgroups. The acute dietary exposure estimates are below HED's level of concern (!100% aPAD) at the 95 th exposure percentile for females 13­ 50 years old (< 1% of the aPAD). 4.2.2.2 Chronic Dietary Exposure Analysis A Tier 2 chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted for the general U. S. population and all population subgroups (including infants and children) using anticipated residues for meat and milk commodities which incorporated an average weighted 1% CT for rangeland/ pastureland provided by BEAD. The chronic dietary exposure estimates are below HED's level of concern (!100% cPAD) for the general U. S. population (< 1% of the cPAD) and all population subgroups. 21 Table 5. Summary of Results from Acute and Chronic DEEM ™ Analyses of Tebuthiuron. Population Subgroup Acute Dietary 1 Chronic Dietary 2 Cancer Risk or MOE Dietary Exposure (mg/ kg/ day) % aPAD Dietary Exposure (mg/ kg/ day) % cPAD U. S. Population (total) NA 3 0.000023 <1 NA All Infants (< 1 year) 0. 000036 <1 Children 1­ 6 years 0. 000083 <1 Children 7­ 12 years 0. 000043 <1 Females 13­ 50 0.000078 <1 0.000013 <1 Males 13­ 19 NA 0.000025 <1 Males 20+ years 0. 000012 <1 Seniors 55+ 0.000012 <1 1. Acute dietary endpoint applies to females 13­ 50 years old only. No acute dietary endpoint was chosen by the HIARC for the general U. S. population (including infants and children). 2. Chronic dietary endpoint applies to general U. S. population and all population subgroups. 3. NA ­ Not Applicable. 4.2.2.3 Cancer Dietary Exposure/ Risk The classification of tebuthiuron as a Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity, was reevaluated by HIARC. At the doses tested, neither the rat nor mouse showed any treatment­ related increase in the incidence of neoplasms; however, the HIARC concluded that the dose levels were too low to assess the carcinogenic potential of tebuthiuron. Although there are some uncertainties regarding the carcinogenic potential of tebuthiuron, HED has elected not to quantify cancer risk at this time because the dose levels used in the available carcinogenicity studies were sufficient to decrease any cancer risk concerns. HED has requested new carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice and an in vivo mammalian bone marrow chromosomal aberration test as confirmatory data. 4.3 Water Exposure/ Risk Pathway The Agency currently lacks sufficient water­ related exposure data from monitoring to complete a quantitative drinking water exposure analysis and risk assessment for tebuthiuron. Therefore, the Agency is presently relying on computer­ generated estimated environmental concentrations (EECs). PRZM/ EXAMS is used to generate EECs for surface water and SCI­ GROW (an empirical model based upon actual monitoring data collected for a number of pesticides that serve as benchmarks) predicts EECs in ground water. These models take into account the use patterns and the environmental profile of a pesticide, but do not include consideration of the impact that processing raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the 22 source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a screen for determining whether pesticide residues (and metabolites) in water are not of concern. EFED (M. Corbin, 28­ November­ 2001) provided a drinking water assessment for residues of tebuthiuron and its degradate104 that included analysis of surface and ground water monitoring data and PRZM/ EXAMS (Tier II) and SCI­ GROW modeling results. There is no Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) or Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) established by the Agency's Office of Water for tebuthiuron. Environmental Profile: The environmental fate database is essentially complete for parent tebuthiuron. Degradate 104 was the only tebuthiuron degradate of toxicological concern detected in the available environmental fate studies; degradate 104 was found at 6.9% of applied parent and rising by the end of the aerobic soil metabolism study. Based on the available data, the parent and degradate 104 are persistent and mobile. The quickest observed route of tebuthiuron degradation in laboratory studies was soil photolysis (half­ life 39.7 days.) Tebuthiuron is stable in laboratory studies to hydrolysis, aqueous photolysis, and aerobic aquatic metabolism. Tebuthiuron was also stable during a 9­ month aerobic soil metabolism study, with a calculated half­ life of 35.4 months. Soil partition coefficients (Kd) from adsorption/ desorption studies were 0.11, 0.62, 0.82 and 1.82, indicating that Tebuthiuron is very mobile over a range of soil types. The corresponding Koc values relating to these studies ranged from 31 to 151, with a median of 76 l/ kg. The soil adsorption of Tebuthiuron appears to be related to the amount of organic carbon in the soil. MARC Decision: The HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC) concluded that the parent compound tebuthiuron and its degradate 104 should be included in the drinking water risk assessment. Although, MARC expressed concern about the toxicity of other metabolites of tebuthiuron, the Committee did not recommend including them in a drinking water risk assessment because they are not likely to be present in drinking water. Available data indicate that the parent and degradate 104 are persistent and mobile in the environment. Tebuthiuron is frequently detected in ground and surface water monitoring studies. The degradate 104 was detected in a retrospective ground water monitoring study and was a major degradate in a terrestrial field dissipation study accounting for up to 23% of the mass applied. The degradate 104 was also found in aerobic soil metabolism and soil photolysis studies comprising close to 7% of the mass applied. In addition, due to the structural similarity of degradate 104 to tebuthiuron (104 lacks an N­ methyl group) and lack of toxicity information on degradate 104, MARC assumes that it has similar toxicity to the parent. Estimated Environmental Concentrations: Tier II (PRZM/ EXAMS) surface water modeling for residues of tebuthiuron and its degradate 104 using the index reservoir with the percent cropped area, predicts the 1 in 10 year peak (acute) concentration of tebuthiuron is not likely to exceed 15.5 !g/ L. The 1 in 10 year annual average concentration (non­ cancer chronic) of tebuthiuron is not likely to exceed 4.3 !g/ L. The SCIGROW predicted concentration of tebuthiuron in ground water is not expected to exceed 245 µg/ L. Assumptions/ Uncertainties for Water Exposure Pathway: 23 A cumulative residue approach was employed to provide conservative estimated concentrations in drinking water for tebuthiuron and its degradation products. In this approach, the fate parameters necessary for Tier II modeling are estimated from the total residue data in the available environmental fate studies. For tebuthiuron, total residue data were evaluated for the aerobic soil metabolism half life, aqueous photolysis half­ life, aerobic aquatic half life, anaerobic soil metabolism half life, and hydrolysis half lives. Degradate 104 was used as a reference degradate because it was the degradate detected at the highest concentration in the environmental fate studies, is expected to be a highly mobile tebuthiuron residue in soil and aquatic environments based on its chemical structure and the fact that it was the only degradate detected in a Small Scale Retrospective Monitoring study. Surface water concentrations of tebuthiuron were modeled using the PRZM/ EXAMS (Tier II) programs for pasture/ rangeland using EFED's standard scenario for alfalfa in Texas. The alfalfa scenario was chosen because its hydrologic and agronomic practices are expected to approximate those of pasture/ rangeland. Groundwater concentrations were modeled using the SCI­ GROW program. 4.4 Residential Exposure/ Risk Pathway An assessment of residential exposure/ risk was not conducted because the registered use sites are limited to pastureland/ rangeland, non­ crop areas, railroad/ utility rights­ of­ way. 4.4.1 Other Non­ Occupational Exposure Spray drift is always a potential source of exposure to residents nearby to spraying operations. This is particularly the case with aerial application, but, to a lesser extent, could also be a potential source of exposure from groundboom application methods. The Agency has been working with the Spray Drift Task Force, EPA Regional Offices and State Lead Agencies for pesticide regulation and other parties to develop the best spray drift management practices. The Agency is now requiring interim mitigation measures for aerial applications that must be placed on product labels/ labeling. The Agency has completed its evaluation of the new data base submitted by the Spray Drift Task Force, a membership of U. S. pesticide registrants, and is developing a policy on how to appropriately apply the data and the AgDRIFT computer model to its risk assessments for pesticides applied by air, orchard airblast and ground hydraulic methods. After the policy is in place, the Agency may impose further refinements in spray drift management practices to reduce off­ target drift and risks associated with aerial as well as other application types where appropriate. 5.0 AGGREGATE RISK ASSESSMENTS AND RISK CHARACTERIZATIONS An aggregate exposure risk assessment was performed for acute and chronic dietary (food + drinking water) exposures. Since HED does not have ground and surface water monitoring data to calculate a quantitative aggregate exposure, DWLOCs were calculated. A DWLOC is a theoretical upper limit on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a 24 pesticide in food, drinking water, and through residential uses. A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, body weights, and pesticide uses. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. HED uses DWLOCs in the risk assessment process to assess potential concern for exposure associated with pesticides in drinking water. DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. To calculate the chronic DWLOCs, the chronic dietary exposure estimates from food (from DEEM ™ ) were subtracted from the cPAD value to obtain the allowable average exposure to tebuthiuron in drinking water. DWLOCs were then calculated using the standard body weights and drinking water consumption figures: 70kg/ 2L (adult male and U. S. Population), 60 kg/ 2L (adult female), and 10kg/ 1L (infant & children). DWLOCs are compared to EECs for a pesticide in surface water and ground water. If the DWLOCs are greater than the EECs, HED concludes with reasonable certainty that estimates of aggregate risks are below HED's level of concern. 5.1 Acute Risk 5.1.1 Aggregate Acute Risk Assessment Acute aggregate risk estimates for tebuthiuron do not exceed HED's level of concern. This acute aggregate risk assessment addresses potential exposure from the combined residues of tebuthiuron and its metabolites containing the dimethylethyl thiadiazole moiety in food and residues of tebuthiuron and degradate 104 in drinking water (both surface and ground water). 5.1.2 Acute DWLOC Calculations As shown in Table 6 below, EFED's EECs are less than the Agency's back calculated DWLOC values for tebuthiuron and its degradate 104. Table 6. Acute DWLOC Calculations Population Subgroup Acute Scenario aPAD mg/ kg/ day Acute Food Exp mg/ kg/ day Max Acute Water Exp mg/ kg/ day 1 Ground Water EEC (ppb ) 2 Surface Water EEC (ppb) 2 Acute DWLOC (µg/ L) 3 Females 13­ 50 0.083 0.000078 0.082922 245 15.1 2500 1 Maximum Acute Water Exposure (mg/ kg/ day) = [aPAD (mg/ kg/ day) ­ acute food exposure (mg/ kg/ day)] 2 Texas­ grown alfalfa was selected to represent pasture/ rangeland as the scenario with the highest runoff potential. 3 Acute DWLOC( µg/ L) = [maximum acute water exposure (mg/ kg/ day) x body weight (kg)] [water consumption (L) x 10 ­3 mg/ µg] 25 5.2 Short­ and Intermediate­ Term Risk The are no currently registered residential uses for tebuthiuron. Therefore, aggregate short­ and intermediate­ term risk assessments were not conducted. 5.3 Chronic Risk 5.3.1 Aggregate Chronic Risk Assessment Chronic aggregate risk estimates do not exceed HED's level of concern. The aggregate chronic dietary risk estimates include exposure to residues of tebuthiuron and its metabolites containing the dimethylethyl thiadiazole moiety in food and residues of tebuthiuron and degradate 104 in drinking water (both surface and ground water). No chronic residential use scenarios were identified. Exposure (food only) to residues of tebuthiuron, based on a Tier 3 refinement using average residues from livestock feeding studies and percent of crop treated data, represent less than 1% of the chronic PAD for the general U. S. population and all population subgroups. 5.3.2 Chronic DWLOC Calculations The EECs generated by EFED are less than HED's calculated chronic DWLOCs for chronic exposure to tebuthiuron. The EEC values used for comparison to the DWLOC are 4.31 (surface water) and 245 ppb (ground water). These estimated environmental concentrations are less than 1400 ppb which is HED's lowest drinking water level of comparison for exposure to tebuthiuron in drinking water as a contribution to aggregate chronic dietary risk. Based on the available information, HED concludes with reasonable certainty that no harm to any population will result from aggregate chronic dietary exposure to tebuthiuron. Details are presented in Table 7. Table 7. Chronic DWLOC Calculations Population Subgroup Chronic Scenario cPAD mg/ kg/ day Chronic Food Exp mg/ kg/ day Max Chronic Water Exp mg/ kg/ day 1 Ground Water EEC (ppb ) 2 Surface Water EEC (ppb) 2 Chronic DWLOC (µg/ L) 3 U. S. Population 0. 14 0. 000023 0.139977 245 4.31 4900 All Infants (< 1yr) 0.14 0.000036 0.139964 245 4.31 1400 Children 1­ 6 years 0. 14 0. 000083 0.139917 245 4.31 1400 Children 7­ 12 yrs 0. 14 0. 000043 0.139957 245 4.31 1400 Females 13+ 0.14 0.000013 0.139987 245 4.31 4200 Males 13­ 19 years 0. 14 0. 000025 0.139975 245 4.31 4900 Males 20+ years 0. 14 0. 000012 0.139988 245 4.31 4900 Table 7. Chronic DWLOC Calculations Population Subgroup Chronic Scenario cPAD mg/ kg/ day Chronic Food Exp mg/ kg/ day Max Chronic Water Exp mg/ kg/ day 1 Ground Water EEC (ppb ) 2 Surface Water EEC (ppb) 2 Chronic DWLOC (µg/ L) 3 26 Seniors 55+ years 0. 14 0. 000012 0.139988 245 4.31 4900 1 Maximum Chronic Water Exposure (mg/ kg/ day) = [cPAD (mg/ kg/ day) ­ chronic food exposure (mg/ kg/ day)] 2 Texas­ grown alfalfa was selected to represent pasture/ rangeland as the scenario with the highest runoff potential. 3 Chronic DWLOC( µg/ L) = [maximum chronic water exposure (mg/ kg/ day) x body weight (kg)] [water consumption (L) x 10 ­3 mg/ µg] 6.0 CUMULATIVE The Food Quality Protection Act (1996) stipulates that when determining the safety of a pesticide chemical, EPA shall base its assessment of the risk posed by the chemical on, among other things, available information concerning the cumulative effects to human health that may result from dietary, residential, or other non­ occupational exposure to other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. The reason for consideration of other substances is due to the possibility that low­ level exposures to multiple chemical substances that cause a common toxic effect by a common mechanism could lead to the same adverse health effect as would a higher level of exposure to any of the other substances individually. A person exposed to a pesticide at a level that is considered safe may in fact experience harm if that person is also exposed to other substances that cause a common toxic effect by a mechanism common with that of the subject pesticide, even if the individual exposure levels to the other substances are also considered safe. HED did not perform a cumulative risk assessment as part of this tolerance reassessment review for tebuthiuron because HED has not yet initiated a review to determine if there are any other chemical substances that have a mechanism of toxicity common with that of tebuthiuron. For purposes of this tolerance reassessment review, EPA has assumed that tebuthiuron does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. On this basis, the registrant must submit, upon EPA's request and according to a schedule determined by the Agency, such information as the Agency directs to be submitted in order to evaluate issues related to whether tebuthiuron shares a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substance and, if so, whether any tolerances for tebuthiuron need to be modified or revoked. If HED identifies other substances that share a common mechanism of toxicity with tebuthiuron, HED will perform aggregate exposure assessments on each chemical, and will begin to conduct a cumulative risk assessment. HED has recently developed a framework that it proposes to use for conducting cumulative risk assessments on substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. This guidance was issued for public comment on January 16, 2002 (67 FR 2210­ 2214) and is available from the OPP Website 27 at: http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ trac/ science/ cumulative_ guidance. pdf In the guidance, it is stated that a cumulative risk assessment of substances that cause a common toxic effect by a common mechanism will not be conducted until an aggregate exposure assessment of each substance has been completed. Before undertaking a cumulative risk assessment, HED will follow procedures for identifying chemicals that have a common mechanism of toxicity as set forth in the "Guidance for Identifying Pesticide Chemicals and Other Substances that Have a Common Mechanism of Toxicity" (64 FR 5795­ 5796, February 5, 1999). 7.0 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE Because FQPA addresses only non­ occupational (residential) risk concerns, risks to occupational workers are not addressed in this document. 28 8.0 DATA NEEDS/ LABEL REQUIREMENTS Toxicology OPPTS 870.3465: 28­ Day inhalation toxicity study OPPTS 870.3700b: Developmental Toxicity (non­ rodent) OPPTS 870.4100a: Chronic Toxicity (Rodent) OPPTS 870.4200a: Oncogenicity (Rat) OPPTS 870.4200b: Oncogenicity (Mouse) OPPTS 870.4300: Chronic/ Oncogenicity OPPTS 870.5385: Mutagenicity­ Mammalian bone marrow chromosomal aberration test OPPTS 870.6300: Developmental Neurotoxicity (held in reserve pending submission of a rabbit developmental toxicity study) Residue Chemistry OPPTS 860.1340 Residue Analytical Methods: Enforcement methods for milk and animal tissues have been proposed; independent laboratory validation is required. OPPTS 860.1850 Rotational Crops (Confined): The confined rotational crop studies are required unless the registrant can provide information that pastureland in TX, OK, and NM is either insignificant in acreage or is predominantly perennial grasses that are not rotated annually. OPPTS 860.1100 Directions for Use: The current labels indicate that treated grasses may not be cut for hay for livestock feed for one year after treatment. The Agency considers restrictions against the grazing of treated rangeland to be impractical. Removal of this label restriction is required. cc: P. Deschamp (RRB2), R. Fricke (RRB2), K. Dockter (RRB2), S. Piper (CEB) RDI: Team (04/ 03/ 02), A. Nielsen (04/ 22/ 02), RARC (04/ 03/ 02) P. Deschamp 812D: CM# 2: (703) 305­ 6227: 7509C: RRB2 29 Appendix A Table 1: Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Tebuthiuron Commodity Current Tolerance (ppm) Tolerance Reassessment (ppm) Correct Commodity Definition Cattle, fat 2 1 Cattle, mbyp 2 5 Cattle, meat 2 1 Goats, fat 2 1 Goats, mbyp 2 5 Goats, meat 2 1 Grass, hay 20 10 Grass, rangeland, forage 20 10 Grass, forage Horses, fat 2 1 Horses, mbyp 2 5 Horses, meat 2 1 Milk 0. 3 0. 8 Sheep, fat 2 1 Sheep, mbyp 2 5 Sheep, meat 2 1 HED recommends that the 40 CFR tolerance expression under §180.390 be modified as follows: § 180.390 Tebuthiuron; tolerances for residues (a) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide tebuthiuron (N­[ 5­ (1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl­ N, N'­ dimethylurea) and its metabolites N­[ 5­( 2­ hydroxy­ 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N, N'­ dimethylurea, N­[ 5­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N­ methylurea, and N­[ 5­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N'­ hydroxymethyl­ N­ methylurea in or on the following agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Grass, hay 10 Grass, forage 10 (b) Tolerances are established for the combined residues of the herbicide tebuthiuron (N­[ 5­ (1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl­ N, N'­ dimethylurea) and its metabolites N­[ 5­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N­ methylurea, –[ 5­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl] urea, 2­ dimethylethyl­ 5­ amino­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazole, and N­[ 5­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N'­ hydroxymethyl­ N­ methylurea in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: 30 Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 1 Cattle, mbyp 5 Cattle, meat 1 Goats, fat 1 Goats, mbyp 5 Goats, meat 1 Horses, fat 1 Horses, mbyp 5 Horses, meat 1 Sheep, fat 1 Sheep, mbyp 5 Sheep, meat 1 (c) A tolerance is established for the combined residues of the herbicide tebuthiuron (N­[ 5­ (1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl­ N, N'­ dimethylurea) and its metabolites N­[ 5­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N­ methylurea, N­[ 5­( 2­ hydroxy­ 1,1­ dimethylethyl) 1,3,4 thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N­ methylurea, N­[ 5­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl] urea, N 5­( 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N'­ hydroxymethyl­ N­ dimethylurea, and N­[ 5­ (2­ hydroxy­ 1,1­ dimethylethyl)­ 1,3,4­ thiadiazol­ 2­ yl]­ N'­ hydroxymethyl­ N­ methylurea in or on the following raw agricultural commodity: Commodity Parts per million Milk 0. 8

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.832225

regulations

EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0032-0712

Supporting & Related Material

Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Page 1 of 14 1.0 FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS 1.1 Industry Profile Food service establishments include facilities in SIC codes 5812, Eating Places, and 5813, Drinking Places. The 1987 SIC Code Manual defines these SIC codes as follows: SIC Code 5812: Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of prepared food and drinks for on­ premise or immediate consumption. Caterers and industrial and institutional food service establishments are also included in this industry. Establishments in which sales of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises exceed sales of prepared food and nonalcoholic beverages are classified in Drinking Places ( SIC 5813). SIC Code 5813: Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic drinks such as beer, ale, wine, and liquor for consumption on the premises. The sale of food frequently accounts for a substantial portion of the receipts of these establishments. Meals may or may not be served. Table 1­ 1. Census Data ( Available for 1997 Only) SIC Code NAICS Code Number of Facilities in 1997 5812: Eating Places 423,082 711110: Dinner theaters 184 722110: Full­ service restaurants 191,245 722211: Limited­ service restaurants 174,104 722212: Cafeterias 4,172 722213: Snack & nonalcoholic beverage bars 27,908 722213: Ice cream & soft serve shops 9,753 722213: Frozen yogurt shops 1,582 722213: Bagel shops 3,926 722213: Coffee shops 6,843 722213: Other snack & nonalcoholic beverage bars 5,804 722310: Foodservice contractors 18,991 722320: Caterers 6,478 5813: Drinking places 722410: Drinking places ( alcoholic beverages) 52,825 Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Page 2 of 14 ( alcoholic beverages) Source: 1997 U. S. Census. Table 1­ 2 shows 2000 TRI and PCS data available for food service establishments. No establishments reported to TRI in 2000. Of the approximately 470,000 food service establishments in the U. S. ( 1997 U. S. Census), only 57 report discharges to PCS ( all minor dischargers). Based on 470,000 total establishments and only 57 direct dischargers, the vast majority of food establishments discharge indirectly. Table 1­ 2. Facility Counts SIC Code Number of Facilities Reporting to 2000 TRI Number of Facilities Reporting to PCS 2000 Direct Indirect Both No Discharge Reported Direct ( Minors) 5812 0 0 0 0 54 5813 0 0 0 0 3 Source: TRIReleases2000 and PCSLoads2000 databases. 1.2 Wastewater Characteristics 1.2.1 Wastewater Quantity Food establishments use water for food preparation ( washing, cooking, drinking water, ice, sinks), clean up ( dishwashing, floor, and rack washing), sanitation ( toilets), and landscaping ( irrigation, parking lot spraying, etc). Table 1­ 3 summarizes the wastewater flow data available from PCS. No wastewater flow data are available for TRI. Table 1­ 3. Wastewater Flow Data From PCS 2000 SIC Flow, MGY 5812 ( 54 Establishments Reporting) Max 91,440 Min 0.000000360 Median 0.805 5813 ( 3 Establishments Reporting) Max 0.205 Min 0.144 Median 0.162 Source: PCSLoads2000. Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Page 3 of 14 To gain additional information on discharge volumes, EPA examined some Environmental Engineering textbooks. Table 1­ 4 summarizes the wastewater flow data from the applicable textbooks examined. Table 1­ 4. Typical Wastewater Flow Rates from Food Service Establishments Type of Establishment Wastewater Flow Range ( gal/ day per unit) Unit Textbook Source Restaurant 2 ­ 4 Meals Metcalf & Eddy Restaurant, kitchen waste only 2.5 ­ 3 Persons Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering Restaurant, kitchen and toilet waste 7 ­ 10 Persons The Agri­ Food Trade Service web page ( http:// atn­ riae. agr. ca/ info/ us­ e. htm) reports that 80% of Americans get at least one meal per month from a food service establishment ( mostly takeout). Based on a U. S. population of 260 million people, Americans eat close to 7 million meals per day from food service establishments. Using an average wastewater flow range of 3 gallons per day per meal ( Metcalf & Eddy), the food service industry generates 21 MGD of wastewater, not including toilet waste. Food establishments are usually defined either as small volume ( operating less than 16 hours a day) or large volume ( includes most fast­ food restaurants). One 1990 Massachusetts case study of a large volume steak house estimated that the restaurant used 13 million gallons of water annually, including toilets ( Massachusetts Water Resources Authority). The study notes that the restaurant was new and used state­ of­ the art equipment ( such as water­ efficient dishwashers). It served approximately 40,000 meals per week, or approximately 5,000 per day. The case study noted that it used a " minimal" volume of water compared with older, less efficient restaurants. Based on the Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering estimate of 7 to 10 gallons per day per person, the steak house would generate 13 to 18 million gallons of wastewater per day, which corresponds to the case study findings. Table 1­ 5 below summarizes relevant steak house data. Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Page 4 of 14 Table 1­ 5. Wastewater Flow for a Massachusetts Steak House Wastewater Source Estimated 1990 Volume ( million gallons/ year) Toilets ( 19) 3.12 Dishwasher 1.045 Wash sinks 0.153 Rack Washing 0.147 Glass Washer 0.065 Source: Non­ Domestic Water Audit Report, A Steak House in Massachusetts. Prepared by B& M Technological Services, Inc. for Massachusetts Water Resources Authority. March 1990. 1.2.2 Wastewater Quality During this study, EPA could not locate a readily available source of discharge data for food service establishments that discharge to POTWs. No TRI data are available regarding pollutants in treated wastewater from food service establishments. The 2000 PCS database contains discharge data from 57 food service facilities that are minor direct dischargers. This information represents 0.01 percent ( less than 1 percent) of the industry, as there are 470,000 food service establishments in the U. S. ( 1997 U. S. Census). In addition, because these facilities are direct dischargers, the information may or may not be representative of indirect discharging facilities ( particularly for conventional pollutants and/ or treatment chemicals such as chlorine). Nevertheless, the data provide some indication of the level and types of pollutants that may be present in discharges from food service establishments. Table 1­ 7 lists these facilities and their respective TWPE, where applicable. Table 1­ 8 lists all pollutants reported by these 57 facilities, ranked by TWPE. Table 1­ 7. List of Facilities in PCSLoads2000 SIC Name City State Total TWPE 5812 Hartman James Williams­ Houston Houston TX 9.0 5812 Tesi/ Discovery Bay Marina Pass Christian MS 2.857 5812 Grandma's Home Cooking Rensselaer IN 0.906 5812 Marti's Place­ bomars River Ldg Hebron IN 0.082 5813 Sand Trap Bar & Lounge Alexandria KY 0.074 Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Table 1­ 7. List of Facilities in PCSLoads2000 SIC Name City State Total TWPE Page 5 of 14 5812 Huber Family Restaurant Borden IN 0.073 5812 Colorado Café Wtp Watchung NJ 0.070 5812 Giovannis Pizza South Williamson KY 0.068 5812 Tall Tales Fish Camp Mayo SC 0.607 5812 Gardenbrook Party Center Cortland OH 0.006 5812 Cynthiana Dairy Queen Inc Cynthiana KY 0.054 5812 Happy Daze Dairy Bar Nesbit MS 0.527 5812 KY Fried Chicken Owensboro KY 0.051 5812 Simpson Property Louisville KY 0.049 5812 Cadron Creek Catfish House Bee Branch AR 0.043 5812 Beef House Restaurant Covington IN 0.359 5812 Burnaugh Enterprises Catlettsburg KY 0.322 5812 O'Brien's Pizza Pub Hot Springs Village AR 0.003 5812 McDonald's Restaurants of in Cambridge City IN 0.029 5812 Delta Inc. Leavenworth IN 0.027 5812 Riverview Restaurant Hawesville KY 0.216 5812 Fast Market Jericho AR 0.213 5812 Bananas on the River Winchester KY 0.002 5812 Village Inn Restaurant Burgin KY 0.019 5812 Toor Car & Truck Plaza Wadsworth IL 0.181 5812 Stuckey's Pecan Shoppe # 083 Coosawhatchie SC 0.159 5812 Long John Silvers Anchors Inc Owensboro KY 0.015 5812 Smith House Restaurant Owenton KY 0.013 5812 McDonalds Restaurant Owensboro KY 0.012 5812 Pilot Travel Center No. 362 Fortville IN 0.120 5812 Paws Inc. Wwtp Albany IN 0.011 5812 Catfish Kitchen Restaurant Draffenville KY 0.011 5813 Camp Springs Tavern Melbourne KY 0.001 5812 Otter Creek Park Vine Grove KY 0.001 5813 Ebbie's Mini Mart Beckmeyer IL 0.000 Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Table 1­ 7. List of Facilities in PCSLoads2000 SIC Name City State Total TWPE Page 6 of 14 5812 Best Inn Missoula MT 0 5812 Brown Derby Roadhouse Ontario OH 0 5812 Fireplace Restaurant & Lounge Gurnee IL 0 5812 Golden Isles Marina St. Simons Island GA 0 5812 Halfway Restaurant Southington OH 0 5812 I­ 74 Auto/ truck Plaza Oakwood IL 0 5812 Keller Oil Raccoon Super K Centralia IL 0 5812 Lakeview Steak House Greer SC 0 5812 Mac's General Inv Llc­ dba Tin El Dorado AR 0 5812 McDonalds # 11963' s Wwtp Mt. Comfort IN 0 5812 McDonald's Restaurant Rensselaer IN 0 5812 New Jersey Turnpike Authority Salem NJ 0 5812 Old South Mountain Inn Boonsboro MD 0 5812 Pilot Travel Center # 361 Greenfield IN 0 5812 Restaurant Service LLC Houston TX 0 5812 Shamrock Restaurant Thurmont MD 0 5812 Stuckey's Restaurant Centerville IN 0 5812 The Islands Restaurant Walton KY 0 5812 Thresco Inc Crestwood KY 0 5812 Track's Inn Cortland OH 0 5812 Twin Cedars Restaurant Louisville KY 0 5812 Waunee Farms Restaurant Kewanee IL 0 Source: PCSLoads2000. Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Page 7 of 14 Table 1­ 8. List of Pollutants Reported from Facilities in PCSLoads2000 SIC Pollutant Reported TWPE per Year Pounds per Year # of Facilities 5812 Total Residual Chlorine 14 29 20 5812 Ammonia as Nitrogen 1.9 1,055 39 5812 Chloroform 0.00016 0.077 2 5812 Benzene & Ethylbenzene & Toluene & Xylene ( BTEX) 1 0.000033 0.0044 1 5812 Xylenes ( Mixed Isomers) 1 0.000013 0.0031 1 5812 Toluene1 0.0000071 0.0013 1 5812 BOD, 5­ day NA 14,417 55 5812 Total Suspended Solids NA 8,560 55 5812 Oil & Grease NA 781 14 5812 Phosphorus, Total ( As P) NA 16 2 5813 Nitrogen, Kjeldahl Total ( As N) NA 9 1 5813 Oxygen, Dissolved ( DO) NA NA 41 1 Some of the facilities in Table 2­ 7 appear to be gas stations, and the BTEX pollutant loads in Table 2­ 8 most likely result from gas station­ related operations. The facility reporting BTEX, for example, is the Ebbie's Mini Mart in Beckmeyer, IL. NA indicates that the parameters do not have TWFs assigned and, in the case of DO, pounds per year are not a representative measure. The information in Tables 1­ 7 and 1­ 8 indicates that for the facilities reporting to PCS, toxic discharges are low, with less than 1 TWPE per facility. Also, the 1 TWPE per facility average includes loads from facilities that appear to be gas stations. EPA also collected data about discharges to POTWs through inquiries to EPA Region pretreatment coordinators and Internet queries. These data sources show that fats, oil, and grease ( FOG) are the predominant pollutant of concern for food establishments. Oil and grease, which are lighter than water, float and can accumulate on the top and sides of sewer pipes, eventually causing clogs and sewer back ups. In particular, FOG discharges from food service establishments have been linked to sewer blockages and storm sewer overflows ( SSOs). 1.3 On­ Site Wastewater Treatment/ Pretreatment Most food establishments pretreat their wastewater through grease traps prior to discharge to a POTW. The http:// www. p2pays. com web site provides guidance on proper design of grease separation devices. The main design parameters for grease traps are time, temperature, turbulence, and tankage ( storage capacity). Food service establishments that install grease traps collect FOG which must be recovered from grease traps. Some localities require trap cleaning at Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Page 8 of 14 least monthly. See the attached excerpts from the www. p2pays. com FOG Guidance Manual for illustrations of typical grease separation devices. 1.4 Local limits on FOG Many localities have established ordinances that tighten up FOG control programs to reduce blockages. Some require restaurants to install grease traps and require periodic grease clean out. Some also set pretreatment limits for FOG or oil and grease as hexane­ extractable material ( HEM)( of which FOG is a component). Table 1­ 6 lists the pretreatment requirements for select localities in North Carolina, which were available on the Internet. Some local ordinances also require certain size and/ or pumping requirements. Localities have successfully controlled FOG problems with FOG control programs, limits, and/ or grease trap requirements ( P2 Pays web site). Table 1­ 6. Pretreatment Standards for Oil and Grease as HEM for Certain Localities Locality Limit ( mg/ L) Asheville, NC 150 Raleigh, NC 300 Statesville, NC 200 Wilmington, NC 200 Wilson 200 Source: http:// www. p2pays. org. 1.5 Multimedia Environmental Releases 1.5.1 Volatilization Prior to Reaching POTW Based on information collected for this review, food service establishments do not generate significant amounts of volatile pollutants in wastewater ( p2pays and PCS 2000). 1.5.2 Solid Wastes Food service establishments generate solid waste, mostly leftover food and cuttings from food preparation. Food waste can present vector problems for trash storage. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality provides the following guidance on reducing solid waste: Control inventory ( minimize outdated food); Buy in bulk to reduce container waste but consider what food will spoil; Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Page 9 of 14 Collect and send used FOG to a renderer; and Maintain grease traps and grease interceptors. Food service establishments do not usually generate enough hazardous waste to be considered a RCRA generator. Hazardous waste accumulation is usually limited to caustics/ acids for cleaning and pesticides/ insecticides for pest management. 1.6 Industry Trends Many on­ line documents from various states and localities provide lists of BMPs and pollution prevention methods. Most of these focus on recycling water where possible and using water­ efficient equipment for dishwashers, closed­ loop condensers on refrigerators, lowflush toilets, etc. Most BMPs focus on minimizing water usage and food­ waste generation. The FranchiseHandbook. com web site provides economic statistics on food service establishments, including that the industry grew 2.9% in 1999. 1.7 References 1997 U. S. Census. Available online at: http:// www. census. gov. Agri­ Food Trade Service web page. http:// atn­ riae. agr. ca/ info/ us­ e. htm accessed on October 18, 2004. Corbitt, Robert A. Standard Handbook of Environmental Engineering. 2nd Edition. McGraw­ Hill, 1999. East Bay Municipal Utility District web page. http:// www. ebmud. com/ wastewater/ industrial_&_ commercial_ permits_&_ fees/ wastewater_ rates/ default. htm accessed on October 19, 2004. E­ mail from Matthew Gluckman, U. S. EPA Region 5, to Jan Matuszko, U. S. EPA. October 18, 2004. E­ mail from Lee Bohme, U. S. EPA Region 6, to Carey Johnston, U. S. EPA. November 1 and 2, 2004. E­ mail from Stephen Copeland, U. S. EPA Region 3, to Jan Pickrel, U. S. EPA. October 26, 2004. FranchiseHandbook. com web site. http:// www. franchise1. com/ articles/ article. asp? articleid= 57 accessed on October 19, 2004. Draft, 4/ 12/ 05; subject to change Page 10 of 14 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, as prepared by B& M Technological Services, Inc. Non­ Domestic Water Audit Report, A Steak House in Massachusetts. March 1990. P2pays. org web site. http:// www. p2pays. org accessed on October 18, 2004. Tchobanoglous, George/ Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. 2nd Edition. Irwin/ McGraw Hill, 1991. Page 11 of 14 Attachments: Excerpts from the P2Pays. com WebSite Manual, Considerations for the Management of FOG Discharge To Sanitary Sewer Systems Page 12 of 14 Source: P2Pays. com Web Site Manual, Considerations for the Management of FOG Discharge To Sanitary Sewer Systems Page 13 of 14 Source: P2Pays. com Web Site Manual, Considerations for the Management of FOG Discharge To Sanitary Sewer Systems Page 14 of 14 Example Grease Separation Device Designed to Eliminate Hydraulic Jump Source: P2Pays. com WebSite Manual, Considerations for the Management of FOG Discharge To Sanitary Sewer Systems

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.972764

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0003-0011

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:34.998511

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0017-0001

Rule

Revision of the Definition of Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Unit; Addition of the Definition of Residential Lead-Based Paint Waste, Direct Final Rule

53535 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 18 AAC 50.410. Emission Fees ( effective 1/ 18/ 97) 18 AAC 50.420. Billing Procedures ( effective 1/ 18/ 97) Article 9. General Provisions 18 AAC 50.910. Establishing Level of Actual Emissions ( effective 1/ 18/ 97) 18 AAC 50.990. Definitions ( effective 1/ 18/ 97) * * * * * [ FR Doc. 01 26684 Filed 10 22 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258 [ FRL 7076 4] RIN 2050 AE86 Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices and Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: Disposal of Residential Lead­ Based Paint Waste AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: In order to help accelerate the pace of lead­ based paint removal from residences, and thereby reduce exposure to children and adults from the health risks associated with lead, EPA is taking direct final action to revise the definition of `` municipal solid waste landfill unit'' in both the Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices and the Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. EPA is also adding two new definitions for `` construction and demolition ( C& D) landfill'' and `` residential lead­ based paint waste.'' This rule will expressly allow residential lead­ based paint waste to be disposed of in construction and demolition landfills by clearly stating that a construction and demolition landfill accepting residential lead­ based paint waste, and no other household waste, is not a municipal solid waste landfill unit. Today's action does not prevent a municipal solid waste landfill unit from continuing to receive residential lead­ based paint waste. DATES: This rule is effective on January 22, 2002 unless EPA receives adverse comment by November 23, 2001. If we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing docket number F 2001 LBPP FFFFF to: ( 1) if using regular US Postal Service mail: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste ( 5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters ( EPA, HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460 0002, or ( 2) if using special delivery, such as overnight express service: RCRA Docket Information Center ( RIC), Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Internet to: rcra­ docket@ epa. gov. Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the docket number F 2001 LBPP FFFFF and must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not submit electronically any confidential business information ( CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste ( 5305W), U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460 0002. You can view supporting materials for this rule in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Information Center ( RIC). The RIC is located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, and is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. The Docket Identification Number for this notice is F 2001 LBPF FFFFF. To review docket materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling ( 703) 603 9230. You may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $ 0.15/ page. The index and some supporting materials are available electronically. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on accessing them. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at ( 800) 424 9346 or TDD ( 800) 553 7672 ( hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call ( 703) 412 9810 or TDD ( 703) 412 3323. For information on specific aspects of this rule, contact Sue Nogas, Office of Solid Waste ( mail code 5306W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; ( 703) 308 7251, nogas. sue@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The index to the rule docket and some supporting materials are available on the Internet. You can find these materials at http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ non­ hw/ muncpl/ landfill/ pb­ paint. htm. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. The rule expressly allows another environmentally safe waste disposal option ( i. e., C& D landfills) for residential LBP waste, an option that may be less expensive than MSWLFs in certain areas of the U. S. For that reason, EPA believes this rule may hasten the pace with which LBP hazards are removed from homes, thus reducing the risk of lead poisoning in children. However, in the `` Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to revise the definition of municipal solid waste landfill unit and add the definitions of construction and demolition landfill and residential leadbased paint waste. We are publishing the proposal to give the public the opportunity to comment on today's action, although we do not expect to receive comments. This rule will be effective on January 22, 2002 without further notice unless we receive adverse comment by November 23, 2001. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Affected Entities: You may be potentially affected by this direct final rule if you generate residential leadbased paint ( LBP) waste as a result of LBP activities ( including abatement, rehabilitation, renovation and remodeling) in homes, residences, and other households. By `` households,'' we mean single and multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day­ use recreation areas. Affected categories and entities would include: VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 26 Oct 22, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23OCR1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 23OCR1 53536 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2001 / Rules and Regulations Category Examples of affected entities Individuals and firms who generate residential LBP waste ..... Contractors and do­ it­ yourselfers who generate and dispose of residential LBP waste as a result of abatement, rehabilitation, renovation and remodeling activities in homes, residences, and other households. Construction and demolition waste disposal firms. .................. Owners or operators of construction and demolition landfills that accept residential LBP waste for disposal. This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware of that could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could also be affected. ( Please see Sections X. A. and X. B. of this preamble for further discussion of affected entities. Also, in the docket for today's rule, see `` Economic Analysis of EPA's Direct Final Rule Amending 40 CFR parts 257 and 258.'') If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Acronyms Acronym Definition CDC ..... Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. C& D ..... Construction and Demolition. CFR ...... Code of Federal Regulations. EA ........ Economic Analysis. EPA ...... Environmental Protection Agency. FR ........ Federal Register. HUD ..... U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. IQ ......... Intelligence Quotient. LBP ...... Lead­ Based Paint. MSWLF Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. OMB ..... Office of Management and Budget. OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. RCRA ... Resource Conservation Recovery Act. RIC ....... RCRA Docket Information Center. TC ........ Toxicity Characteristic. TSCA ... Toxic Substances Control Act. USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency. Outline I. Legal Authority II. Why are Lead and Lead­ Based Paint A Concern? III. Congressional Response to Lead Hazards: Title X IV. RCRA as a Barrier to Cost­ Effective LBP Abatements, and Stakeholders' Requests for Regulatory Relief from EPA V. EPA's Implementation of Title X and Response to Stakeholders' Requests A. 1998 Proposed Rules 1. TSCA Proposal 2. RCRA Proposal B. Contractor­ Generated Residential Lead­ Based Paint Memorandum VI. What Does Today's Rule Do? A. Revision to the Definition of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Unit B. Addition of Construction and Demolition Landfill Definition C. Addition of Residential Lead­ Based Paint Waste Definition VII. Analytic Basis for Today's Rule VIII. Other Applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Requirements IX. How do States and Tribes Implement this Rule? X. How does this Rule Comply with Applicable Statutes and Executive Orders? A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Paperwork Reduction Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice Strategy J. Congressional Review Act K. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects I. Legal Authority EPA is promulgating this rule pursuant to section 1008( a)( 3), 2002( a), 4004( a) and 4010( c) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), 42 U. S. C. 6907( a), 6912( a), 6944( a), 6949a( c). We are also correcting a typographical error in the existing statement of authority in part 257 by amending the citation to 42 U. S. C. 6949( c) to read `` 6949a( c).'' II. Why Are Lead and Lead­ Based Paint a Concern? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC) have estimated that approximately 900,000 children, or about 4.4% of children under the age of 6 years old, may have unacceptably high levels of lead in their blood. ( See: `` Update: Blood Lead Levels United States, 1991 1994.'' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 46, No. 7, February 21, 1997. CDC, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.) Children are more susceptible than adults to the toxic effects of lead because their nervous systems are still developing and their bodies more readily absorb lead once exposed to it. ( For a fuller discussion of this issue, see 66 FR 1206 1240, January 5, 2001). The most common sources of residential lead exposure include contaminated dust and paint chips from deteriorated lead­ based paint ( LBP) in older homes, activities that disturb LBP ( such as abatement, deleading, home renovation and remodeling), lead­ contaminated drinking water, and lead­ contaminated soil around homes and play areas. It is estimated that approximately 38 million homes in the United States contain interior LBP. ( See `` Economic Analysis of EPA's Direct Final Rule Amending 40 CFR parts 257 and 258,'' p. 31. III. Congressional Response to Lead Hazards: Title X In response to this health threat, Congress enacted the Residential Lead­ Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 ( hereinafter referred to as Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, or as Title X). Among other provisions, Title X amended the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) and directed the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to develop and finalize standards governing: ( 1) The training and certification of individuals engaged in LBP activities; ( 2) the accreditation of training programs; and ( 3) the process by which LBP activities are conducted by certified individuals. Congress also directed EPA to identify by regulation LBP hazards, lead­ contaminated dust, and lead­ contaminated soil. As a result of the enactment of Title X, there is an increasing effort to reduce the hazards posed by LBP ( especially to children) in residential housing and other buildings. IV. RCRA as a Barrier to Cost­ Effective LBP Abatements, and Stakeholders' Requests for Regulatory Relief From EPA The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) was enacted in 1976 to address management of solid waste, including industrial and municipal wastes. Subtitle C of RCRA governs the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. A solid waste is a `` hazardous waste'' if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR part 261, subpart C ( toxicity, ignitability, VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 26 Oct 22, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23OCR1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 23OCR1 53537 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2001 / Rules and Regulations corrosivity, and reactivity) or if it is listed as a hazardous waste in part 261 subpart D. Subtitle D of RCRA addresses the management of nonhazardous solid waste ( including municipal and nonmunicipal waste). Subtitle D was amended in 1984 to address two classes of hazardous wastes exempt from Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements: conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG) waste and household hazardous waste. Household waste is defined in 40 CFR 258.2 as `` any solid waste ( including garbage, trash, and sanitary waste in septic tanks) derived from households ( including single and multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day­ use recreation areas).'' Household waste is excluded from RCRA hazardous waste regulations at 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 1). Abatements, renovations, and remodeling activities in housing units with LBP can generate large quantities of residential LBP waste. In cases where the waste exhibits the toxicity characteristic for lead, the waste would be classified as a hazardous waste subject to the comprehensive `` cradle to grave'' hazardous waste management regulations of RCRA Subtitle C, unless they qualify for an exemption. Lead abatement contractors and public housing agencies argued that the application of these hazardous waste rules to residential LBP waste poses a barrier to the cost­ effective abatement of lead hazards. EPA and HUD met to review the disposal requirements for lead­ based paint waste and to consider regulatory relief from the applicability of RCRA Subtitle C to waste generated from residential LBP activities. Additionally, several States and advocacy groups ( such as the Alliance to End Childhood Lead Poisoning) expressed concern that the RCRA requirements were considerably reducing the number of residential LBP abatements by imposing significant waste disposal costs. They argued that the benefits of handling lead­ based paint waste as a hazardous waste were outweighed by the potential risk to children resulting from the disincentive the RCRA regulations created for leadbased paint abatement. They requested that EPA consider ways to minimize management and disposal costs and provide an appropriate regulatory framework that would both accelerate the pace of lead abatements ( by lowering costs) and ensure that waste from such activities be managed and disposed of reliably, effectively, and in a manner which protects human health and the environment. They further contended that any regulatory relief that would avoid the cost of managing LBP waste as a hazardous waste would allow public housing authorities to use cost savings to perform additional abatements, thus reducing current and future exposure of children to residential lead­ based paint. V. EPA's Implementation of Title X and Response to Stakeholders' Requests A. 1998 Proposed Rules In order to facilitate efforts to address lead­ based paint hazards to children and respond to stakeholders' requests for regulatory relief, EPA analyzed waste characterization, laboratory leachate, and the risk and cost of disposal for lead­ based paint debris. Based on those analyses, EPA published two proposals on December 18, 1998 the TSCA Proposed Rule (`` Management and Disposal of Lead­ Based Paint Debris''), and the RCRA Proposed Rule (`` Temporary Suspension of Toxicity Characteristic Rule for Specified Lead­ Based Paint Debris''). The Agency believed that these rules, if finalized, would help reduce the costs associated with the management and disposal of LBP debris, increasing the number of LBP abatements, while continuing to protect human health and the environment. 1. TSCA Proposal (`` Management and Disposal of Lead­ Based Paint Debris'') Under the mandate of Title X of TSCA, we proposed new TSCA management and disposal standards for LBP debris generated by contractors from pre­ 1978 homes and public and commercial buildings ( 63 FR 70190 70233, December 18, 1998.) These standards would allow the disposal of contractor­ generated LBP debris in a variety of facilities, including construction and demolition ( C& D) landfills. EPA based the C& D landfill disposal option on the results of the groundwater risk analysis performed to support the proposal. The results showed that the potential impact to groundwater resources from the disposal of LBP debris in C& D landfills would be negligible. ( For further details, see `` USEPA. June 1998, Groundwater Pathway Analysis for Lead­ Based Paint ( LBP) Architectural Debris; Background Document'' in the docket for today's rule. Also, see Section VII of this preamble.) The TSCA proposal has not been finalized. The preamble to the proposed TSCA rule also clarified that the RCRA Subtitle C household waste exclusion in 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 1) applies to residential LBP waste generated by do­ ityourselfers in their homes ( see 63 FR 70241 70242). This clarification remains in place. 2. RCRA Proposal (`` Temporary Suspension of Toxicity Characteristic Rule for Specified Lead­ Based Paint Debris'') In 1998, EPA proposed to temporarily suspend the applicability of the Toxicity Characteristic ( TC) rule to contractorgenerated LBP debris that would be subject to the TSCA management and disposal standards cited above. The Agency proposed this suspension in order to avoid duplication with other statutes implemented by EPA as mandated under RCRA Section 1006( b)( 1). B. Contractor­ Generated Residential Lead­ Based Paint Memorandum On July 31, 2000, EPA issued a memorandum clarifying the regulatory status of waste generated as a result of LBP activities ( including abatement, renovation and remodeling, and rehabilitation) in homes and other residences. Specifically, the memorandum clarified that contractors can manage residential LBP waste as household waste and thus are not subject to RCRA Subtitle C requirements. This means contractors can dispose residential LBP waste as household waste in municipal solid waste landfills or municipal solid waste combustors, according to State and local requirements. Dumping and open burning of residential LBP waste are not allowed. ( See RCRA Sections 1008 and 4004.) By interpreting residential LBP waste as a household waste under 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 1), the July 2000 memorandum could be construed as allowing land disposal of LBP waste only in municipal solid waste landfill units complying with the requirements of 40 CFR part 258. This is because a `` municipal solid waste landfill unit'' is defined in 40 CFR 258.2 as receiving `` household waste.'' Therefore, under section 258.2, a C& D landfill that receives residential LBP waste could be deemed to be receiving household waste and may need to comply with EPA's Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria found in 40 CFR part 258. Today's rule is designed to expressly state that C& D landfills can receive residential LBP waste without becoming subject to the requirements for a MSWLF in part 258. Please note that the memorandum does not affect the regulatory status of nonresidential LBP waste, such as that generated during the abatement or VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 26 Oct 22, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23OCR1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 23OCR1 53538 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2001 / Rules and Regulations renovation and remodeling of a commercial building. In addition, the memorandum does not cover residential demolition and deconstruction. EPA does not consider demolition and deconstruction waste to be household waste, since it is not similar to those wastes generated by a consumer in the home in the course of daily living. ( For more information visit, http:// www. epa. gov/ lead/ hhwmemojuly00fnl pdf for a direct link to the memorandum. See `` Regulatory Status of Waste Generated by Contractors and Residents from Lead­ Based Paint Activities Conducted in Households'' by visiting http:// www. epa. gov/ lead/ fslbp. htm, or call the RCRA Hotline at 1 800 424 9346.) The Agency evaluated if and how to finalize the 1998 RCRA and TSCA proposals. EPA decided to use alternative policy and regulatory vehicles ( i. e., the July 31, 2000 policy memorandum and today's rule) in order to expeditiously accomplish some of the same goals of the 1998 proposals for certain key noncontroversial aspects. The Agency has no further plan to finalize the 1998 RCRA proposal. VI. What Does Today's Rule Do? A. Revision to the Definition of a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Unit Today's rule expressly allows construction and demolition landfills to receive residential lead­ based paint waste, by adding a statement to the definition of MSWLF unit. The definition of MSWLF unit in 40 CFR 257.2 and 258.2 is amended by inserting at the end of the definition, the sentence, `` A construction and demolition landfill that receives residential lead­ based paint waste and does not receive any other household waste is not a MSWLF unit.'' As previously explained, the existing definition of a MSWLF unit includes language which states that a disposal unit `` that receives household waste'' is a municipal solid waste landfill unit. This language can be construed to prohibit the disposal of any household waste into a facility that is not designed and operated in conformance with 40 CFR part 258 regulations. Today, we are amending the definition of MSWLF unit, in order to distinguish residential lead­ based paint waste, which has been determined to be a household waste, from other types of household waste, for purposes of disposal. The amended definition will now read, `` Municipal solid waste landfill ( MSWLF) unit means a discrete area of land or an excavation that receives household waste, and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined in this section. A MSWLF unit also may continue to receive other types of RCRA Subtitle D wastes, such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, and industrial solid waste. Such a landfill may be publicly or privately­ owned. A MSWLF unit may be a new MSWLF unit, an existing MSWLF unit or a lateral expansion. A construction and demolition landfill that receives residential lead­ based paint waste and does not receive any other household waste is not a MSWLF unit.'' It is important to understand that today's change to the definition of a municipal solid waste landfill unit does not in any way affect these disposal units. This change is being made simply to distinguish residential lead­ based paint waste from other household wastes. Today's amendment does not alter what a MSWLF can or cannot receive. MSWLFs can continue to receive residential LBP waste as household waste. Today's rule expressly provides that an additional land­ based waste disposal option exists for residential LBP waste. Furthermore, this rule in no way affects or changes the operation and design requirements for municipal solid waste landfills or any other MSWLF criteria. B. Addition of Construction and Demolition Landfill Definition As stated above, the revised definition of `` municipal solid waste landfill unit'' allows a subset of household waste residential LBP waste to be disposed of in construction and demolition landfills as well as MSWLF units. Today's rule will also add a definition of a construction and demolition landfill in order to expressly allow only C& D landfills, and no other types of land disposal units that meet the criteria of 40 CFR part 257 to receive this subset of household waste. Based on a groundwater risk analysis used to support the TSCA proposal, we believe that the disposal of residential LBP debris in C& D landfills is appropriate and would not pose adverse health risks to residents living near C& D landfills. ( For more information, see Section VII of this preamble.) A C& D landfill will be defined in 40 CFR part 257 as follows: `` Construction and demolition ( C& D) landfill means a solid waste disposal facility subject to the requirements of subparts A or B of this part that receives construction and demolition waste and does not receive hazardous waste ( defined in § 261.3 of this chapter) other than conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste ( defined in § 261.5 of this chapter), or industrial solid waste ( defined in § 258.2 of this chapter). A C& D landfill typically receives any one or more of the following types of solid wastes: roadwork material, excavated material, demolition waste, construction/ renovation waste, and site clearance waste.'' A parallel definition is also being added to 40 CFR part 258. EPA proposed a similar definition of C& D landfill in the TSCA proposal, and received no germane comments on the definition during the public comment period. C. Addition of Residential Lead­ Based Paint Waste Definition Today's rule adds a definition of `` residential lead­ based paint waste'' in order to clarify the scope of the waste stream addressed by today's rule. This definition of residential lead­ based paint waste states: `` Residential leadbased paint waste means waste generated as a result of lead­ based paint activities ( including abatement, rehabilitation, renovation and remodeling) in homes and other residences. The term residential leadbased paint waste includes, but is not limited to, lead­ based paint debris, chips, dust, and sludges.'' Not included in the residential LBP waste definition are residential LBP demolition and deconstruction waste, and LBP waste from nonresidential structures such as public and commercial buildings, warehouses, bridges, water towers, and transmission towers. In drafting this definition, we included these particular LBP activities because they are those limited to residences and that could pose lead hazards to occupants, especially to children. We included these particular waste types ( i. e., debris, chips, dust, and sludges) because they are those that are typically generated during the named LBP activities. VII. Analytic Basis for Today's Rule The technical basis for today's rule is the analytical data and groundwater risk analysis used to support the 1998 TSCA proposal. ( See `` USEPA. June 1998, Groundwater Pathway Analysis for Lead­ Based Paint ( LBP) Architectural Debris; Background Document'' in the docket for today's rule.) Based on that data and analysis, EPA is concluding that residential LBP waste is not hazardous household waste when disposed of in C& D landfills. What follows is a discussion of that data and analysis and how they support today's rule. In the groundwater risk analysis used to support the 1998 TSCA proposal, we VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 26 Oct 22, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23OCR1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 23OCR1 53539 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 1 All comments and data received in response to the 1998 TSCA proposal may be accessed via Docket Control OPPTS 62160, located in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, Rm. NE B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center telephone number is 202 260 7099. For a summary of the comments, especially those related to the groundwater risk analysis, see `` Summary of Comments on: Management and Disposal of Lead­ Based Paint Debris; Proposed Rule, and Temporary Suspension of Toxicity Characteristic Rule for Specified Lead­ Based Paint Debris; Proposed Rule'' in the docket for today's rule. assumed that all lead­ based paint from the entire pre­ 1978 U. S. housing stock would be disposed of in C& D landfills, and that the LBP would be removed from housing while it was still attached to architectural ( i. e., building) components that are removed during LBP activities. Examples of architectural components are doors, window frames, moldings, painted plaster boards, concrete, and bricks. We assumed that the components would be removed with intact LBP because we believed that component removal, if cost­ effective, would be preferred over paint scraping and other paint removal options, since the latter pose worker and occupant exposure concerns. This assumption was necessary due to the lack of data indicating what portion of pre­ 1978 housing would undergo paint removal vs. component removal and what types and quantities of LBP waste are generated at what frequency from various residential LBP activities. Also, in the groundwater analysis, we used the term `` LBP debris'' to refer to architectural components with intact LBP. To estimate lead loading from residential LBP debris in C& D landfills around the country, we relied upon the 1990 Report to Congress prepared by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( HUD). The Report estimated total quantities of building components from pre­ 1978 homes in the U. S. From the amount of painted surfaces per housing unit reported in the HUD Report, we estimated the total quantities of building materials with LBP that would be disposed of in the landfills. Then, in our groundwater risk analysis, we used leachate data, calculated the potential lead concentration in groundwater, and estimated risks from the disposal of LBP debris in C& D landfills. We also assumed that all of the lead from the LBP debris ( which in this analysis meant the equivalent of all of the lead in all of the lead­ based paint from the entire pre­ 1978 U. S. housing stock) would eventually end up in the leachate. The lead concentration in C& D landfill leachate varied depending on the landfill size. These lead concentrations served as inputs to the groundwater modeling we conducted to simulate the subsurface movement of landfill leachate and the resultant potential contamination of groundwater with lead. The results from this analysis show that the lead concentration in groundwater would potentially exceed the drinking water action level of 0.015 mg/ L for lead in less than 1% of the receptor wells in the vicinity of C& D landfills receiving LBP debris during the first 2,000 years after disposal. During the first 10,000 years after disposal of LBP debris, the drinking water action level would be exceeded in fewer than 5% of the receptor wells. Based on these groundwater modeling results and the general geochemical behavior of lead in a subsurface environment, the Agency concluded that, on a national scale, the disposal of LBP debris in C& D landfills would, in general, be protective of human health and the environment at the 95th percentile protection level. This level of protectiveness is at the high end ( i. e., most protective) of the levels that the Agency has used in regulating hazardous wastes under the RCRA program. ( See 63 FR 70203, December 18, 1998.) When deciding whether to regulate industrial solid wastes as hazardous wastes, the Agency has considered a 90th percentile or higher level as the appropriate protection level and so has not regulated wastes satisfying this level of protection as hazardous wastes. Thus, in the 1998 TSCA proposal, we concluded that the disposal of LBP debris in C& D landfills is appropriate and would not pose adverse health risks to residents living near C& D landfills. Note that the Agency received many public comments addressing various aspects of the groundwater risk analysis. The comments were generally supportive of the proposed provision to allow LBP debris to be disposed of in C& D landfills and provided no data supporting a contrary decision. 1 EPA believes that the technical basis for the 1998 TSCA proposal, as discussed above, also supports today's rule. This is because our groundwater risk analysis assumed that the total mass of lead­ based paint from pre­ 1978 U. S. housing was disposed of in C& D landfills, and that all of the lead from that lead­ based paint ended up in the C& D landfill leachate. Hence, it was irrelevant to the results of the analysis whether or not the LBP entered the C& D landfills by being attached to architectural components ( i. e., as LBP debris), or rather did so in the form of other types of LBP waste, such as chips, dusts, and sludges. In conclusion, we have determined that residential LBP waste from abatement, rehabilitation, renovation and remodeling activities does not pose a substantial hazard to human health and the environment when disposed of in C& D landfills. The disposal of residential LBP waste in C& D landfills is therefore an appropriate and legal disposal option. VIII. Other Applicable Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Requirements Today's rule will not alter the authority of State, local and Tribal governments to regulate LBP waste more stringently than does EPA. The generators of residential LBP waste should contact State environmental agencies to determine if there are additional or more stringent disposal requirements for residential LBP waste. Also, generators should comply with applicable HUD and/ or TSCA regulations when addressing residential LBP hazards. IX. How Do States and Tribes Implement This Rule? Because today's rule is less stringent than existing federal criteria, States are not required to amend permit programs which have been determined to be adequate under 40 CFR part 239. States have the option to amend statutory or regulatory definitions pursuant to today's direct final rule. If a state chooses to amend its permit program pursuant to today's action, the State must notify the Regional Administrator of the modification as provided by 40 CFR 239.12. Today's amendments are directly applicable to landfills in States without an approved permit program under Part 239 and in Indian Country. We also encourage Tribes to adopt today's amendments into their programs in order to promote lead­ based paint abatement activities in homes and other residences in Indian Country. X. How Does This Rule Comply With Applicable Statutes and Executive Orders? A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must determine whether a regulatory action is significant and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the other provisions of the Executive Order. The Order defines a significant regulatory action as one that is likely to result in VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 26 Oct 22, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23OCR1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 23OCR1 53540 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2001 / Rules and Regulations a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or rights and obligations or recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in Executive Order 12866. It has been determined that this rule is not a `` significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review. EPA has performed a full economic analysis, `` Economic Analysis of EPA's Direct Final Rule Amending 40 CFR Part 257 and 258,'' which is available in the docket for today's rule. The EA concludes that this rule will impose no additional costs to parties, but may result in cost savings and incremental public health benefits. The rule authorizes the disposal of residential LBP waste in C& D landfills, where previously, under the July 31, 2000 policy memorandum, disposal was authorized only in MSWLFs. As a result, EPA believes that, in those parts of the country where it is cheaper to transport and dispose of residential LBP waste in C& D landfills compared to MSWLFs, some residential LBP waste will be diverted from MSWLFs to C& D landfills. Where this occurs, generators will benefit from lower waste management and disposal costs. EPA assumes that only residential LBP waste generators in the Midwest, Northeast, and South regions will shift disposal from MSWLFs to C& D landfills, based on an analysis of the relative costs of MSWLF and C& D landfill disposal by region. EPA further assumes that the percentage of residential LBP waste that is affected is proportional to the share of these three regions in the number of housing units with LBP, which is 84.4 percent. Under these assumptions, an estimated 0.87 million tons of residential LBP waste will be diverted from MSWLFs to C& D landfills annually. This represents 0.73 percent of the total volume of all waste disposed of in MSWLFs annually. This shift in disposal would save residential LBP waste generators in the Midwest, Northeast, and South regions up to an estimated $ 16.76 million annually. The savings accruing to generators of residential LBP abatement waste is estimated at $ 0.79 million per year, while the savings accruing to generators of residential renovation and remodeling waste is $ 15.98 million per year. EPA estimates that of the $ 0.79 million in savings that could accrue to generators of residential LBP abatement waste, an estimated 39.7 percent, or $ 0.31 million, will be generated annually in the public housing sector. EPA assumes that in the public sector, any savings in residential LBP waste management and disposal costs will be used to conduct additional LBP abatements. Given an average cost for LBP abatement in public housing units of $ 3,650, the $ 0.31 million in annual savings would fund an additional 86 abatements each year. This ensuing increase in LBP abatement projects would result in a more rapid reduction in the potential for exposure to the hazards of LBP, especially for children. These hazards include decreased intelligence ( i. e., lower IQ), behavioral problems, reduced physical stature and growth, and impaired hearing. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ( SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) A small business that meets the Small Business Administration size standards established for industries as described in the North American Industry Classification System ( see http:// www. sba. gov/ size/ NAICS­ coverpage html; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and ( 3) a small organization that is any not­ for­ profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This direct final rule will not impose any new requirements on small entities. The rule will provide an additional non­ mandatory option for the disposal of residential LBP waste. C. Paperwork Reduction Act Today's rule is in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. This rule does not require the collection of information from the States, Federal Agencies, or industry. Therefore, we do not need to prepare an Information Collection Request. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Pub. L. 104 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost­ benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, Section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost­ effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under Section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's rule contains no Federal mandates ( under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 26 Oct 22, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23OCR1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 23OCR1 53541 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2001 / Rules and Regulations State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This rule imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA. E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. As explained in Section IX of this preamble, none of today's revisions are more stringent or broaden the scope of the existing Federal requirements. Therefore, States are not required to adopt the revision to the definition of MSWLF unit nor the additional definitions of construction and demolition ( C& D) landfill and residential lead­ based paint waste in today's rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled `` Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.'' This direct final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's rule expressly provides an additional option for disposal of certain waste applicable in Indian Country, but does not create any mandate on Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' applies to any rule that: ( 1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. However, this rule will affect decisions involving the environmental health or safety risks to children. It will benefit children by allowing environmentally protective disposal of residential lead­ based paint waste in C& D landfills, which is less costly than disposal in MSWLFs in certain areas of the U. S., therefore reducing the cost of lead abatements. Reducing the cost of LBP abatements will also reduce the amount of time needed to complete abatements in public housing. Lower abatement costs may increase the amount of private homes undergoing abatements. By reducing costs associated with the disposal of LBP waste, the Agency believes that the number of abatements may marginally increase, thus resulting in a reduction of the number of children exposed to LBP. H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Pub L. No. 104 113, 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( for example, materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. Today's rule does not involve technical standards, voluntary or otherwise. Therefore, the NTTAA does not apply to today's rule. I. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice Strategy Under Executive Order 12898, `` Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations,'' as well as through EPA's April 1995, `` Environmental Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda Report,'' and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities. Today's rule is not expected to negatively impact any community, and therefore is not expected to cause any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low­ income communities versus non­ minority or affluent communities. On the contrary, since the rule will reduce the cost of performing LBP abatements in certain regions of the U. S., EPA assumes that the savings will afford public housing authorities, in particular, the opportunity to conduct additional abatements of LBP hazards in affected housing units. Tenants of public housing units are possibly more likely to be minority and lower­ income households, and the rule should have the effect of providing a differential benefit to such populations. J. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 26 Oct 22, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23OCR1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 23OCR1 53542 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 23, 2001 / Rules and Regulations that, before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2). This rule will be effective [ January 22, 2002]. K. Executive Order 13211: Energy Effects This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, `` Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' ( 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 257 Environmental protection, Waste treatment and disposal. 40 CFR Part 258 Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control. Dated: September 28, 2001. Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator. For reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 257 [ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 257 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6907( a)( 3), 6912( a)( 1), 6944( a), and 6949a( c); 33 U. S. C. 1345( d) and ( e). 2. Section 257.2 is amended: a. By adding in alphabetical order the definitions for `` Construction and demolition ( C& D) landfill'' and `` Residential lead­ based paint waste''. b. By revising the definition of `` Municipal solid waste landfill ( MSWLF) unit''. The revision and additions read as follows: § 257.2 Definitions. * * * * * Construction and demolition ( C& D) landfill means a solid waste disposal facility subject to the requirements of subparts A or B of this part that receives construction and demolition waste and does not receive hazardous waste ( defined in § 261.3 of this chapter) other than conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste ( defined in § 261.5 of this chapter), or industrial solid waste ( defined in § 258.2 of this chapter). A C& D landfill typically receives any one or more of the following types of solid wastes: roadwork material, excavated material, demolition waste, construction/ renovation waste, and site clearance waste. * * * * * Municipal solid waste landfill ( MSWLF) unit means a discrete area of land or an excavation that receives household waste, and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined in this section. A MSWLF unit also may receive other types of RCRA Subtitle D wastes, such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, and industrial solid waste. Such a landfill may be publicly or privately owned. A MSWLF unit may be a new MSWLF unit, an existing MSWLF unit or a lateral expansion. A construction and demolition landfill that receives residential lead­ based paint waste and does not receive any other household waste is not a MSWLF unit. * * * * * Residential lead­ based paint waste means waste generated as a result of lead­ based paint activities ( including abatement, rehabilitation, renovation and remodeling) in homes and other residences. The term residential leadbased paint waste includes, but is not limited to, lead­ based paint debris, chips, dust, and sludges. * * * * * PART 258 [ AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 258 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1345( d) and ( e); 42 U. S. C. 6902( a), 6907, 6912( a), 6944, 6945( c) and 6949a( c). 2. Section 258.2 is amended: a. By adding in alphabetical order the definitions for `` Construction and demolition ( C& D) landfill'' and `` Residential lead­ based paint waste''. b. By revising the definition of `` Municipal solid waste landfill ( MSWLF) unit'' . The revision and additions read as follows: § 258.2 Definitions. * * * * * Construction and demolition ( C& D) landfill means a solid waste disposal facility subject to the requirements of part 257, subparts A or B of this chapter that receives construction and demolition waste and does not receive hazardous waste ( defined in § 261.3 of this chapter) other than conditionally exempt small quantity generator waste, ( defined in § 261.5 of this chapter), or industrial solid waste ( defined in this section). A C& D landfill typically receives any one or more of the following types of solid wastes: roadwork material, excavated material, demolition waste, construction/ renovation waste, and site clearance waste. * * * * * Municipal solid waste landfill ( MSWLF) unit means a discrete area of land or an excavation that receives household waste, and that is not a land application unit, surface impoundment, injection well, or waste pile, as those terms are defined under § 257.2 of this chapter. A MSWLF unit also may receive other types of RCRA Subtitle D wastes, such as commercial solid waste, nonhazardous sludge, and industrial solid waste. Such a landfill may be publicly or privately owned. A MSWLF unit may be a new MSWLF unit, an existing MSWLF unit or a lateral expansion. A construction and demolition landfill that receives residential lead­ based paint waste and does not receive any other household waste is not a MSWLF unit. * * * * * Residential lead­ based paint waste means waste generated as a result of lead­ based paint activities ( including abatement, rehabilitation, renovation and remodeling) in homes and other residences. The term residential leadbased paint waste includes, but is not limited to, lead­ based paint debris, chips, dust, and sludges. * * * * * [ FR Doc. 01 26094 Filed 10 22 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Coast Guard 46 CFR Part 126 [ USCG 2001 10164] RIN 2115 AG17 Alternate Compliance Program; Incorporation of Offshore Supply Vessels AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 26 Oct 22, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 23OCR1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 23OCR1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:35.052243

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0022-0782

Proposed Rule

FEDERAL REGISTER: 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 RE

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< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55684 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 148, 261, 268, 271, and 302 [SWH± FRL± 6864± 5] RIN 2050± AE49 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 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to amend the regulations for hazardous waste management under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by listing as hazardous three wastes generated from inorganic chemical manufacturing processes. We also propose not to list as hazardous various other process wastes. This action proposes to add the toxic constituents found in the wastes to the list of constituents that serves as the basis for classifying wastes as hazardous, and to establish treatment standards for the wastes. The effect of this proposed regulation would be to subject the wastes to stringent management and treatment standards under Subtitle C of RCRA. Additionally, this action proposes to designate the wastes proposed for listing as hazardous substances subject to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and to adjust the onepound statutory reportable quantities (RQs) for some of these substances. DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this proposed rule until November 13, 2000. Comments postmarked after this date will be marked `` late'' and may not be considered. Any person may request a public hearing on this proposal by filing a request with Mr. David Bussard by September 28, 2000. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on this proposed rule, you must send an original and two copies of the comments referencing docket number F± 2000± ICMP± FFFFF to: RCRA Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to RCRA Information Center, Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. You also may submit comments electronically by sending electronic mail through the Internet to: rcradocket@ epamail. epa. gov. You should identify comments in electronic format with the docket number F± 2000± ICMP± FFFFF. You must submit all electronic comments as an ASCII (text) file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Address requests for a hearing to Mr. David Bussard at: Office of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Identification Division (5304W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460, (703) 308± 8880. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA/ Superfund Hotline at (800) 424± 9346 or TDD (800) 553± 7672 (hearing impaired). In the Washington, D. C., metropolitan area, call (703) 920± 9810 or TDD (703) 412± 3323. For specific aspects of the rule, contact Ms. Gwen DiPietro, Office of Solid Waste (5304W), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C., 20460. [E­ mail addressee and telephone number: dipietro. gwen@ epa. gov (703± 308± 8285).] For technical information on the CERCLA aspects of this rule, contact Ms. Lynn Beasley, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Analytical Operations and Data Quality Center (5204G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460, [E­ mail address and telephone number: beasley. lynn@ epa. gov (703± 603± 9086).] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you do not submit comments electronically, we ask you to voluntarily submit one additional copy of your comments on labeled personal computer diskettes in ASCII (text) format or a word processing format that can be converted to ASCII (text). It is essential to specify on the disk label the word processing software and version/ edition as well as your name. This will allow us to convert the comments into one of the word processing formats we utilize. Please use mailing envelopes designed to physically protect the submitted diskettes. We emphasize that submission of comments on diskettes is not mandatory nor will it result in any advantage or disadvantage to any commenter. You should not submit electronically any confidential business information (CBI). You must submit an original and two copies of CBI under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460. Any CBI data should be specifically and clearly marked. In addition, please submit a non­ CBI version of your comments for inclusion in the public record. Supporting documents in the docket for this proposal are also available in electronic format on the Internet: <http:/ /www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ id/ inorchem/ pr2000. htm>. We will keep the official record for this action in paper form. Accordingly, we will transfer all comments received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record, which also will include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is the paper record maintained at the RCRA Information Center, also referred to as the Docket. Our responses to comments, whether the comments are written or electronic, will be in a notice in the Federal Register or in a response to comments document placed in the official record for this rulemaking. We will not immediately reply to commenters electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be corrupted in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as discussed above. You may view public comments and supporting materials in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling 703± 603± 9230. You may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/ page. Customer Service How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking on This Proposed Rule? In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We invite you to provide your comments on all data, assumptions and methodologies used to support our proposal, your views on options we have proposed, your ideas on new approaches we have not considered, any new data you may have, your views on how this rule may affect you, and other relevant information. Your comments must be submitted by the deadline in this proposal. Your VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55685 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below: · Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide a summary of the reasoning you used to arrive at your conclusions. Provide examples to illustrate your views wherever possible. · Provide solid technical data to support your views. · If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. · Tell us which parts of this proposal you support, as well as which parts you disagree with. · Offer specific alternatives. · Reference your comments to specific sections of the proposal by using section titles or page numbers of the preamble or the regulatory citations. · Clearly label any CBI submitted as part of your comments. · Include your name, date, and docket number with your comments. Contents of This Proposed Rule I. Overview A. Who Potentially Will be Affected by this Proposed Rule? B. Why Does this Rule Read Differently from Other Listing Rules? C. What are the Statutory Authorities for this Proposed Rule? II. Background A. How Does EPA Define a Hazardous Waste? B. How Does EPA Regulate RCRA Hazardous Wastes? C. What is the Consent Decree Schedule for and Scope of this Proposal? III. Approach Used in this Proposed Listing A. Summary of Today's Action B. What Wastes Associated with the 14 Sectors Are Outside the Scope of the Consent Decree? 1. Mineral processing wastes exempt under the `` Bevill'' exemptions 2. Residuals used or reused in different industrial processes 3. Debris and other nonprocess wastes C. What Information Did EPA Collect and Use? 1. The RCRA Section 3007 Survey 2. Field work: site visits, sampling and analysis 3. Other sources D. How Did EPA Evaluate Wastes for Listing Determinations? 1. Listing policy 2. Characteristic hazardous waste 3. Evaluations of particular units and pathways of release 4. Evaluation of Secondary Materials E. Description of Risk Assessment Approaches 1. What risk thresholds were used? 2. What leaching procedures were used? 3. How were wastes screened to determine if further assessment was needed? 4. How was the groundwater pathway evaluated? 5. How was the surface water pathway evaluated? 6. What are the limitations and uncertainties of the assessment? F. Sector­ specific Listing Determination Rationales 1. Antimony oxide 2. Barium carbonate 3. Boric acid 4. Cadmium pigments 5. Inorganic hydrogen cyanide 6. Phenyl mercuric acetate 7. Phosphoric acid from the dry process 8. Phosphorus pentasulfide 9. Phosphorus trichloride 10. Potassium dichromate 11. Sodium chlorate 12. Sodium dichromate 13. Sodium phosphate from wet process phosphoric acid 14. Titanium dioxide G. What is the Status of Landfill Leachate from Previously Disposed Wastes? IV. Proposed Treatment Standards Under RCRA's Land Disposal Restrictions A. What are EPA's Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)? B. What are the treatment standards for K176 (baghouse filters from production of antimony oxide) C. What standards are the treatment standards for K177 (slag from the production of antimony oxide that is disposed of or speculatively accumulated)? D. What are the treatment standards for K178 (nonwastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide by the chloride­ ilmenite process)? E. What Other LDR Provisions Are Proposed to Apply? 1. Debris 2. Soil 3. Underground Injection Wells that can be found in the administrative record for this rule F. Is There Treatment Capacity for the Proposed Wastes? 1. What Is a Capacity Determination? 2. What are the Capacity Analysis Results? V. Compliance Dates A. Notification B. Interim Status and Permitted Facilities VI. State Authority A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized States B. Effect on State Authorizations VII. Designation of Inorganic Chemical Wastes under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) A. Reporting Requirements B. Basis for Proposed RQ Adjustment VIII. Administrative Assessments A. Executive Order 12866 1. Methodology Section 2. Results B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq. C. Paperwork Reduction Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice F. Executive Order 13045 : Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act I. Overview A. Who Potentially Will Be Affected by This Proposed Rule? Beginning January 1, 1999 all documents related to EPA's regulatory, compliance and enforcement activities, including rules, policies, interpretive guidance, and site­ specific determinations with broad application, should properly identify the regulated entities, including descriptions that correspond to the applicable SIC codes or NAICS codes (source: October 9, 1998 USEPA memo from Peter D. Robertson, Acting Deputy Administrator of USEPA). Today's action, if finalized, could potentially affect those who handle the wastes that we are proposing to add to EPA's list of hazardous wastes under the RCRA program. This action also may affect entities that may need to respond to releases of these wastes as CERCLA hazardous substances. These potentially­ affected entities are described in the Economics Background Document placed in the docket in support of today's proposed rule. A summary is shown in the table below. SUMMARY OF FACILITIES POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE USEPA'S 2000 INORGANIC CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING WASTE LISTING PROPOSAL Item SIC code Industry sector name Number of U. S. relevant inorganic mfg. facilities 1 ........................ 2816 Inorganic Pigments ................................................................................................................... 3 1 ........................ 2819 Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, not elsewhere classified ......................................................... 3 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55686 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules The list of potentially affected entities in the above table may not be exhaustive. Our aim is to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists those entities that we are aware potentially could be affected by this action. However, this action may affect other entities not listed in the table. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine 40 CFR Parts 260 and 261 carefully in concert with the proposed rules amending RCRA that are found at the end of this Federal Register document. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding section entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. B. Why Does This Rule Read Differently From Other Listing Rules? Today's proposed listing determination preamble and regulations are written in `` readable regulations'' format. The authors tried to use active rather than passive voice, plain language, a question­ and­ answer format, the pronouns `` we'' for EPA and `` you'' for the owner/ generator, and other techniques to make the information in today's rule easier to read and understand. This new format is part of our efforts toward regulatory reinvention and it makes today's rule read differently from other listing rules. We believe that this new format will help readers understand the regulations, which should then increase compliance, make enforcement easier, and foster better relationships between EPA and the regulated community. C. What Are the Statutory Authorities for This Proposed Rule? These regulations are proposed under the authority of Sections 2002( a), 3001( b), 3001( e)( 2), 3004( d)±( m) and 3007( a) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U. S. C. 6912( a), 6921( b) and (e)( 2), 6924( d)±( m) and 6927( a), as amended several times, most importantly by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). These statutes commonly are referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and are codified at Volume 42 of the United States Code (U. S. C.), Sections 6901 to 6992( k) (42 U. S. C. 6901± 6992( k)). Section 102( a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U. S. C. 9602( a) is the authority under which the CERCLA aspects of this rule are proposed. II. Background A. How Does EPA Define a Hazardous Waste? Section 3001 of RCRA and EPA's regulations establish two ways of identifying wastes as hazardous under RCRA. A waste may be hazardous either if it exhibits certain properties (called `` characteristics'') which pose threats to human health and the environment, or if it is included on a specific list of wastes EPA has evaluated and found to pose unacceptable risks. EPA's regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) define four hazardous characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. (See 40 CFR 261.21 through 261.24.) As a generator, you must determine whether or not a waste exhibits any of these characteristics by testing the material or by using your knowledge of the process that produced the waste. (See 40 CFR 262.11( c).) EPA may also conduct a more specific assessment of a waste or category of wastes and `` list'' them if they meet criteria set out in 40 CFR 261.11. As described in 40 CFR 261.11, we may list a waste as hazardous if it: ÐExhibits any of the characteristics noted above , i. e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (261.11( a)( 1)); ÐIs `` acutely'' hazardous, i. e., if they are fatal to humans or in animal studies at low doses, or otherwise capable of causing or significantly contributing to an increase in serious illness (261.11( a)( 2)); or ÐIs capable of posing a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly managed (261.11( a)( 3)). Under the third criterion at 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3), we may decide to list a waste as hazardous (1) if it contains hazardous constituents identified in Appendix VIII to 40 CFR Part 261, and (2) if, after considering the factors noted in this section of the regulations, we `` conclude that the waste is capable of posing a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. '' We place a chemical on the list of hazardous constituents on Appendix VIII only if scientific studies have shown a chemical has toxic effects on humans or other life forms. When listing a waste, we also add the hazardous constituents that serve as the basis for listing to Appendix VII to part 261. Residuals from the treatment, storage, or disposal of most listed hazardous wastes are also classified as hazardous wastes based on the `` derived­ from'' rule (see 40 CFR 261.3( c)( 2)( i)). For example, ash or other residuals from the treatment of a listed waste generally carries the original hazardous waste code and is subject to the hazardous waste regulations. Also, the `` mixture'' rule (see 40 CFR 261.3( a)( 2)( iii) and (iv)) provides that, with certain limited exceptions, any mixture of a listed hazardous waste and a solid waste is itself a RCRA hazardous waste. Some materials that would otherwise be classified as hazardous wastes under the rules described above are excluded from jurisdiction under RCRA if they are recycled in certain ways. The current definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 261.2 excludes secondary materials from the definition of solid waste that are used directly (i. e., without reclamation) as ingredients in manufacturing processes to make new products, used directly as effective substitutes for commercial products, or returned directly to the original process from which they are generated as a substitute for raw material feedstock. (See 40 CFR 261.2( e).) As discussed in the January 4, 1985, rulemaking that promulgated this regulatory framework, these are activities which, as a general matter, resemble ongoing manufacturing operations more than conventional waste management and so are more appropriately classified as not involving solid wastes. (See 50 FR 637± 640). Our approach to these issues is described in more detail below in section III. D. 4. B. How Does EPA Regulate RCRA Hazardous Wastes? Wastes exhibiting any hazardous characteristic or listed as hazardous are subject to federal requirements under RCRA. These regulations affect persons who generate, transport, treat, store or dispose of such waste. Facilities that must meet the hazardous waste management requirements, including the need to obtain permits to operate, commonly are referred to as `` Subtitle C'' facilities. Subtitle C is Congress' original statutory designation for that part of RCRA that directs EPA to issue those regulations for hazardous wastes as may be necessary to protect human health or the environment. EPA standards and procedural regulations implementing Subtitle C are found generally at 40 CFR Parts 260 through 272. All RCRA hazardous wastes are also hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as described in section 101( 14)( C) of the CERCLA statute. This VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55687 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 1 As required in 40 CFR 262.30, the listing description includes the hazard code. Wastes listed under 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 1) due to the toxicity characteristic are designated `` E, '' and wastes listed under 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) for toxicity are designated `` T''. applies to wastes listed in 40 CFR 261.31 through 261.33, as well as any wastes that exhibit a RCRA characteristic. Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 lists CERCLA hazardous substances along with their reportable quantities (RQs). Anyone spilling or releasing a substance at or above the RQ must report this to the National Response Center, as required in CERCLA Section 103. In addition, Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right­ to­ Know Act (EPCRA) requires facilities to report the release of a CERCLA hazardous substance at or above its RQ to State and local authorities. Today's rule proposes to establish RQs for some of the newly listed wastes. C. What Is the Consent Decree Schedule for and Scope of This Proposal? The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA require EPA to make listing determinations for several specified categories of wastes, including `` inorganic chemical industry wastes'' (see RCRA section 3001( e)( 2)). In 1989, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed a lawsuit to enforce the statutory deadlines for listing decisions in RCRA Section 3001( e)( 2). (EDF v. Browner; D. D. C. Civ. No. 89± 0598). To resolve most of the issues in the case, EDF and EPA entered into a consent decree, which has been amended several times to revise deadlines for EPA action. Paragraph 1. g (as amended) of the consent decree addresses the inorganic chemical industry: EPA shall promulgate a final listing determination for inorganic chemical industry wastes on or before October 31, 2001. This listing determination shall be proposed for public comment on or before August 30, 2000. The listing determination shall include the following wastes: sodium dichromate production wastes, wastes from the dry process for manufacturing phosphoric acid, phosphorus trichloride production wastes, phosphorus pentasulfide production wastes, wastes from the production of sodium phosphate from wet process phosphoric acid, sodium chlorate production wastes, antimony oxide production wastes, cadmium pigments production wastes, barium carbonate production wastes, potassium dichromate production wastes, phenyl mercuric acetate production wastes, boric acid production wastes, inorganic hydrogen cyanide production wastes, and titanium dioxide production wastes (except for chloride process waste solids). However, such listing determinations need not include any wastes which are excluded from hazardous waste regulation under section 3001( b)( 3)( A)( ii) of RCRA and for which EPA has determined that such regulation is unwarranted pursuant to section 3001( b)( 3)( C) of RCRA. Today's proposal satisfies EPA's duty under paragraph 1. g to propose determinations for inorganic chemical industry wastes. As described above, the consent decree provides that EPA does not need to make listing determinations for certain wastes that it has exempted from hazardous waste regulations under the `` Bevill amendments'' to RCRA. See the discussion of `` exempt mineral processing'' wastes in section III. B. 1 below. III. Approach Used in This Proposed Listing A. Summary of Today's Action Manufacturers of the inorganic chemical products described above identified over 170 categories of residuals generated as part of their production processes. We first determined which of these residuals fell within the scope of our consent decree obligations. We then evaluated the risks posed by each of the remaining categories of residual materials. In some cases we used quantitative or qualitative screening methods. For 18 wastes we conducted full­ scale modeling to predict risks. As a result of this evaluation, we found that three wastes generated in the 14 inorganic chemicals manufacturing operations which we evaluated meet the criteria for listing set out in either 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 1) or 261.11( a)( 3). We conducted full­ scale modeling of two of these wastes and propose to list them under 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3). We found that one waste warranted listing under 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 1) because it exhibited hazardous waste characteristics. We did not model this waste. Since these are wastes from specific inorganic chemical industries, we propose to add them to Section 261.32 with K­ waste codes. The three wastestreams we propose to list as hazardous, along with their corresponding hazard code and proposed EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers, are: 1 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 does not apply to chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production exempt under 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7).) (T) We found that all of the remaining wastes that we evaluated did not meet the criteria for listing in 40 CFR 261.11, and we are proposing not to list them as hazardous wastes. More information on our evaluations of particular wastes is set out in the background documents and the sector­ specific discussions in section III. F of this preamble. We have previously listed as hazardous a number of wastes in 40 CFR 261.32 from other inorganic chemicals industries, including wastes from the production of inorganic pigments (codes K002 through K008), and wastes from chlorine production (codes K071, K073, and K106). Today's proposal does not affect the scope of any existing hazardous waste listing, and we are not soliciting comments on those existing listing determinations. We are also proposing other changes to the RCRA regulations as a result of the proposed listings. These changes include adding constituents to Appendices VII and VIII for Part 261, and setting new land disposal restrictions. We are proposing to add the following constituents to Appendix VII that serve as the basis for listing: K176Ð arsenic and lead, K177Ð antimony, and K178Ð manganese and thallium. We are also proposing to add manganese to the list of hazardous constituents in Appendix VIII, based on scientific studies that demonstrate manganese has toxic effects on humans and other life forms. Section IV of today's proposal describes the proposed changes to the land disposal restrictions, which would establish treatment standards for specific constituents in the wastes proposed for listing. Also as a result of the proposed listings, these wastes would become hazardous substances under CERCLA. Therefore, in today's rule we are proposing to designate these wastestreams as CERCLA hazardous substances, and to adjust the one­ pound statutory RQs for two of these wastestreams; this is described in section VII of today's proposal. B. What Wastes Associated With the 14 Sectors Are Outside the Scope of the Consent Decree? Determining the scope of our consent decree obligations was more complicated than usual for two reasons. First, Paragraph 1. g (quoted above in II. C) does not tell EPA which wastestreams it must evaluate. For most other listing obligations set out in the consent decree, the decree specifies particular wastestreams which EPA must evaluate for listing. See, for VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55688 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 2 The revised consent decree is available in the docket for today's proposal. example, paragraph 1. k identifying 14 specific petroleum wastestreams. 2 Second, paragraph 1. g contains an exemption for wastes found to be exempt from hazardous waste regulation in previous EPA actions implementing the so­ called `` Bevill exemptions'' for mineral processing wastes. Thus, we needed to conduct some analysis to determine the scope of our obligations. We began by asking facilities to identify all of the residuals generated by their production processes. We then reviewed their lists. We found that some residuals were actually exempt `` Bevill'' wastes that we need not address. We found that other wastes were really associated with the manufacture of other materials. Also, we concluded that a few residuals were not `` production'' wastes and therefore were not covered by the decree. With the exceptions discussed below in our evaluation of the sodium dichromate and titanium dioxide sectors, we chose not to evaluate any of the wastes that we considered to be outside the scope of the decree. We concluded that evaluation was not possible under the time frame set out in the decree. In the following sections we provide an overview of the types of wastes that we consider outside the scope. 1. Mineral Processing Wastes Exempt Under the `` Bevill'' Exemptions Many of the inorganic chemical manufacturing processes we address in this rule use ores and minerals as feedstocks. Some wastes derived from the processing of ores and minerals are exempt from regulation as RCRA hazardous wastes under decisions EPA made under statutory requirements known as the `` Bevill'' amendments. RCRA Sections 3001( b)( 3) and 8002( p) required EPA to determine whether wastes from the extraction, beneficiation or processing of ores and minerals warranted regulation as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA. Between 1989 and 1991 EPA completed a series of rules and studies establishing which mining wastes fit within the `` extraction, '' `` beneficiation, '' or `` processing'' definitions, and which of the wastes within each category were exempt from regulation as hazardous wastes. EPA concluded that all wastes produced during extraction and beneficiation are entitled to an exemption. EPA found that 20 categories of wastes from subsequent `` mineral processing'' operations met the `` high volume/ low toxicity'' criteria and were exempt as well. See 54 FR 36592 (Sept. 1, 1989), 55 FR 2322 (Jan. 23, 1990), the July 31, 1990 Report to Congress on Wastes from Mineral Processing, and 56 FR 27300 (June 13, 1991). EPA codified these `` Bevill'' exemptions at 40 CFR 261.4 (b)( 7). EPA discussed some of these exemptions further in a 1998 final rule promulgating treatment standards for non­ exempt mineral processing wastes that exhibit the toxicity characteristic. See the Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV Final Rule at 63 FR 28598 (May 26, 1998). Paragraph 1. g of the consent decree provides that EPA need not make listing determinations for wastes from any of the 14 inorganic chemical manufacturing processes which are `` excluded from hazardous waste regulation under Section 3001( b)( 3)( A)( ii) of RCRA and for which it has determined that such regulation is unwarranted pursuant to Section 3001( b)( 3)( C) of RCRA. '' In other words, the consent decree does not require us to make listing determinations for wastes which we exempted under the statute's `` Bevill'' provisions. Paragraph 1. g. of the consent decree requires EPA to make a listing determination for ``* * * titanium dioxide production wastes (except for chloride process waste solids). '' EPA interprets the exception to refer to the chloride process waste solids from the production of titanium tetrachloride which are exempt under the Bevill rule, rather than all solids from the chloride process. Solids generated after titanium tetrachloride forms fall within the scope of the consent decree. We reviewed the generators' lists of process residuals to determine whether they had included any Bevill exempt wastes which we need not assess. (In some cases, the generators had claimed that certain wastes were exempt under EPA's Bevill decisions.) This process was not always simple. We found it was sometimes difficult to determine whether a particular facility's waste fit within one of the exempt categories. For example, the mineral processing exemption for titanium dioxide covers only solid materials from an initial step in the production process. It was not always easy to tell whether particular waste solids were generated from the portion of the process that would make them exempt, or from later production steps. Sector­ specific information regarding our conclusions appears in section III. F of this preamble for those sectors where we found this exemption had some relevance. We found that facilities in only three of the consent decree sectors generate Bevill exempt wastes: Boric acid, sodium dichromate, and titanium dioxide. In other sectors, the facilities produce inorganic product chemicals from a mineral product. Under the Bevill exemption (54 FR 36620± 21), chemical manufacturing begins if there is any further processing of a saleable mineral product. Since these facilities use saleable mineral products as feedstock, their processes are chemical manufacturing, and may not be classified as mineral processing. Therefore, none of the wastestreams generated by these facilities in the production of the other inorganic chemicals are Bevill exempt. We emphasize that we are not reopening any Bevill decisions made in earlier actions regarding the exemptions. We are not re­ defining the boundaries between `` extraction'' and `` beneficiation, '' between `` beneficiation'' and `` mineral processing, '' or between `` mineral processing'' and non­ exempt chemical manufacturing. Nor are we revisiting our decision that all wastes uniquely associated with the extraction and beneficiation of ores and minerals are exempt. Similarly, we are not reopening any of our earlier decisions as to which categories of mineral processing wastes are exempt. Rather, we are determining whether particular wastestreams fall within any of the exempt categories. We are not requesting comment on, and do not intend to respond to comments relating to the earlier decisions. We also found that some inorganic chemical processes generate composite wastestreams that contain both a Bevill exempt waste and one or more nonexempt wastes. We evaluated the nonexempt portions of such wastes to fulfill our consent decree requirements. We apportioned risks between the exempt and nonexempt portion of such commingled wastes, and made listing determinations for the non­ exempt portions. We did not, however, assess the exempt portions of such streams. This assessment, therefore, does not reopen any earlier decision regarding exemptions for the `` Bevill'' component of the commingled streams. 2. Residuals Used or Reused in Different Industrial Processes In some cases, facilities within the 14 inorganic chemicals sectors set out in the consent decree produce residuals that are used or reused in processes that are not among those listed in the decree. Those industries in turn produced residuals derived from the materials generated in the consent decree industries. We evaluated the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55689 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules management of the original industry's material up to the point that the second industry inserts it into its production process. However, we generally considered the second production process and its associated wastes to be beyond the scope of the consent decree. We did not evaluate for listing purposes wastes generated from these nonconsent decree industries. For example, in the titanium dioxide sector, one facility uses a residual from the production of titanium dioxide as an ingredient to make salt. We considered salt­ making to be a separate production process outside the scope of the consent decree. We are not proposing any listing determinations for wastes generated in the salt plant. However, in some cases, the reuse of the residual from a consent decree process involved an activity which we always regulate as waste management. In this situation, we considered the reuse to be waste management, and the waste to be within the scope of the consent decree. Consequently, we evaluated the residual for listing. For example, we found that one of the facilities which produces boric acid generates a waste which is used as a fuel. Under our recycling regulations, we regulate burning for energy recovery and so, we evaluated this waste. See 40 CFR 261.2( c)( 2). We found that the waste is already being managed in a RCRA Subtitle C unit and decided not to list the waste. Others examples of reuse that we evaluated include land application of biological treatment solids from hydrogen cyanide production as a fertilizer or soil amendment, and land application of gypsum from the titanium dioxide sector. In two cases, however, we decided to make listing decisions for residuals generated during the production of non­ consent decree products. In the titanium dioxide sector, the residuals are commingled with other wastes clearly within the scope of the decree. See the discussions of the sodium dichromate sector and the titanium dioxide sector in section III. F. In the sodium dichromate sector, residuals from the non­ consent decree process are piped back to the consent decree process, making it difficult to determine whether the two processes are really separate. 3. Debris and Other Nonprocess Wastes Some generators also identified debris and structural components of their production plants as intermittentlygenerated wastes. We concluded that these materials do not fall within the scope of the decree. Most of the wastes that fell in this category were refractory bricks which become wastes when facilities remove them to refurbish their furnaces. We consider this material to be a structural component of the plant where production takes place rather than a waste from the `` production'' of an inorganic chemical. Similarly, we consider a few analogous types of plant debris to fall outside the scope of the decree. This debris includes miscellaneous construction materials, insulation, reactor bed material, and piping. These wastes were reported for the following inorganic sectors: Phosphoric acid, barium carbonate, sodium dichromate, hydrogen cyanide, antimony oxide, sodium phosphate, and titanium dioxide. We have never interpreted the decree to require us to consider listing tanks, pads, or other structural components housing production processes when they become wastes by being removed from use. Other paragraphs of the decree support this position. Paragraphs 1. c. (coke byproducts) and 1. k. (petroleum refining wastes) cover production processes involving reaction vessels lined with refractory or similar materials, and in neither case did the decree include wastes related to the reaction vessels themselves or related materials. Nor do any other provisions in the decree direct us to list any other type of structural components. We note that discarded refractory bricks and other debris would be regulated as hazardous wastes, if these materials were contaminated with a listed waste (including wastes listed as a result of today's rulemaking), or if they exhibited a hazardous waste characteristic. A few facilities also reported environmental media (excavated soils or recovered groundwater) contaminated with process residuals as wastes from their production processes. We consider such contaminated media to be outside the scope of today's listing determinations, because these are not wastes generated during production processes, but rather wastes generated due to construction or remedial action. We note that none of the other consent decree provisions require us to evaluate contaminated media. See the specific listing background documents for the different sectors for a full listing of the wastes we considered to be out of scope of the decree. C. What Information Did EPA Collect and Use? Our investigation of the wastes generated by the inorganic chemicals manufacturing industry included two major information collection efforts: A survey of the industries and field investigations. The survey effort included the development, distribution, and assessment of an extensive questionnaire sent under the authority of RCRA section 3007 to all known facilities engaged in any of the 14 inorganic chemical manufacturing processes. During our field investigations we made site visits to familiarize ourselves with processes and residuals, and made additional visits to collect samples of residuals which we sent to laboratories for analysis. Finally, we collected data from other sources to help characterize the settings in which some of the wastes are managed. Each of these efforts is summarized below. 1. The RCRA Section 3007 Survey We developed an extensive questionnaire under the authority of Section 3007 of RCRA for distribution to the inorganic chemicals manufacturing industry. The purpose of the survey was to gather information about solid and hazardous waste generation and management practices in the U. S. for the fourteen inorganic chemical industry sectors. The questionnaire collected information about the inorganic chemical products manufactured, the processes used, the wastes generated, the wastes characteristics, and how the wastes were managed. The questionnaire is included in the `` General Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination. '' which is in the docket for today's proposal. This document also provides more details on the producers identified in the inorganic sectors. We distributed the survey in March of 1999 to all 124 facilities that we had identified as potential manufacturers of chemicals in the 14 targeted sectors. We developed the list of facilities from a review of the available literature, which included directories of chemical producers, reference works of chemical technology, chemical profile information, and previous work by EPA on these industries. From the surveys distributed, 57 facilities indicated that they manufacture chemicals from at least one of the 14 sectors. The other facilities notified us that they had either stopped operations or did not manufacture inorganic chemical products. From the survey, we confirmed that one product was no longer manufactured in this country (phenyl mercuric acetate). We also conducted an exhaustive engineering review of the submitted surveys for accuracy and completeness. We conducted quality assurance reviews of the data to identify any inappropriate entries and missing data. The engineering review of each facility's VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55690 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules response resulted in follow­ up letters and/ or telephone calls to the facilities seeking clarifications, corrections, and additional data where needed. Where we conducted sampling and analysis of the waste, we used this analytical data in our analysis (see the following section). Facilities also submitted data in their survey on the composition of some of their wastes. In the absence of our own analytical data, we used data provided by facilities in our evaluation. These cases are noted in the sector­ specific discussions in section III. F. In some cases, these data consisted of results from testing to determine whether the wastes exhibited characteristics. We thought such data were reliable because of the consequences the facilities would face if their characteristic data were not accurate. In addition, survey respondents were required to certify the accuracy of their submittal. 2. Field Work: Site Visits, Sampling and Analysis As part of our field work, we visited production facilities (engineering site visits), we took preliminary samples (familiarization sampling), and we obtained samples to fully characterize the waste for constituents of concern (record sampling). We initiated the sampling phase of this listing determination with the development of a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for sampling and analysis. The QAPP describes the quality assurance and quality control requirements for the data collection. We also developed sampling and analysis plans (SAPs) for sampling at individual facilities. The QAPP and the SAPs are available in the public docket for this proposal. The primary purpose of the engineering site visits was to gain first hand knowledge of the manufacturing processes, the waste generation and management, and to identify potential locations for waste sampling. We conducted site visits at 25 facilities in 12 of the sectors. We selected the facilities to visit based on logistics and to visit sites that represent the variety of process and wastes generated within industry sectors. Site visit reports are available in the docket for today's rule. During some of the engineering site visits, we collected 22 familiarization samples to help us identify potential sampling or analytical problems for the wastes of interest. For example, we used the familiarization samples to assess the effectiveness of the analytical methods that we planned to use during record sampling for a number of the targeted waste matrices. During record sampling, we collected 69 waste samples from 13 different facilities. Additional samples were collected for QA/ QC purposes. Largely due to the time constraints imposed by our consent decree schedule, we focused the sampling effort on the wastes that we most expected to present significant potential risks. Based on information obtained from the RCRA Section 3007 Surveys, we established sampling priorities by considering the reported management practices (e. g., wastes going to Subtitle D landfills and impoundments were of concern), and the likely presence of contaminants of concern. We also found that we were able to make listing decisions on a variety of reported wastes without conducting sampling. In some cases, we were able to use information about the processes and the raw materials to conclude that a waste was not likely to present a significant risk. Also, we did not typically sample wastes that were reported to be characteristically hazardous waste and were already regulated as hazardous under RCRA. We felt that, for these wastes, we could make listing decisions without further information on waste constituents. In addition, we did not attempt to sample wastes that we found to be outside the scope of the consent decree, as described in Section III. B. Thus, for example, we did not sample a number of wastes that appeared to be exempt under the Bevill regulations. We believe that the 69 record samples from 13 sites provide an adequate characterization of the wastes that we sampled. The 13 sites represent approximately 30% of the 42 identified production facilities within the specific sectors we chose for sampling. The wastes sampled also represent the major waste types of concern, e. g., specific process wastes/ sludges, wastewater treatment sludges, wastewaters, and spent filter material. Section III. F of this proposal provides information on the specific wastes sampled in each sector. The docket for today's proposal also contains background documents for the specific sectors, which give details on which wastes we sampled and our evaluation of the need for sampling or modeling certain wastes. For most sectors, we focused our analyses on metal constituents, because these are the constituents expected from the inorganic processes under evaluation. We analyzed for other constituents in those cases where we expected they might be present in the waste, or if other constituents showed up in the familiarization sampling. Thus, we analyzed wastes from the inorganic hydrogen cyanide industry for cyanide and volatile organics because of their potential to be present from the process. Similarly, in the titanium dioxide sector, we analyzed waste samples for semivolatile and chlorinated organics due to the use of coke and chlorine as raw materials in the production process for the titanium chloride intermediate. The overall list of target analytes are in the QAPP, which is in the docket for today's rule. The docket also contains the background documents for each sector and the corresponding waste characterization data reports, which show the chemical analyses performed and the analytes found in the waste samples. In our analyses of wastes samples, we performed analyses to measure constituent concentrations in the wastes themselves (`` total'' analysis), as well as analyses for constituents that leach out of the wastes. We generally used the methods specified in OSW's methods manual (`` Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/ Chemical Methods, '' SW± 846), as described in the QAPP, the SAPs, and the background documents for the specific sectors. We used two extraction methods to measure leaching, the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP, SW± 846 method 1311), and the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP, SW± 846 method 1312). In general, we were able to measure the concentrations of constituents in waste samples at very low detection levels. However, for some constituents in some matrices the SPLP and/ or TCLP analyses provided detection limits that were somewhat above health­ based levels of concern. In such cases, we examined all of the analytical data to determine if the undetected constituent might possibly present a potential risk. Where we did not detect the constituent in the total analysis (i. e., the analysis of a sample prior to any leaching), we assumed that the constituent was not present in the leachate. However, if the totals analysis showed the presence of a constituent that we did not detect in the leachate, then we assessed the risk that would be posed if the constituent were present at a concentration equal to onehalf the detection limit. Section III. F shows the cases where we used this assumption in our evaluation of wastes for the different inorganic sectors, and further details are available in the background documents for each sector. 3. Other Sources We also collected data from a variety of other sources to help characterize the settings in which these wastes are managed. For example, we contacted VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55691 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules several state and local authorities to collect information regarding the location of drinking water wells. We also obtained information and, in some cases analytical data, from state authorities and other sources to help in our evaluations. We note these sources in the sector­ specific discussions in Section III. F when we relied on such data. D. How Did EPA Evaluate Wastes for Listing Determinations? 1. Listing Policy As discussed in section II. A. of this preamble, we consider the listing criteria set out in 40 CFR 261.11, in light of all the information we have relevant to the criteria, in making listing determinations. For decisions made under 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3), today's proposed listing determinations follow the elements of the EPA's hazardous waste listing policy presented the proposed listing for wastes generated by the dyes and pigments industry (see FR 66072, December 22, 1994). We have modified and adapted this policy in subsequent listings. See for example the recent Petroleum Refining proposal (60 FR 57747; November 20, 1995) and the Solvents waste proposal (61 FR 42318; August 14, 1996). This policy uses a `` weight­ ofevidence approach in which calculated risk information is a key factor to consider in making a listing determination under 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3). The criteria provided in 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) include eleven factors for determining `` substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment. '' We incorporate nine of these factors, as described generally below, into our risk evaluation for the wastestreams of concern: ÐToxicity (261.11( a)( 3)( i)) is considered in developing the health benchmarks used in the risk evaluation. ÐConstituent concentrations and waste quantities (261.11( a)( 3)( ii) and 261.11( a)( 3)( viii)) are used to define the initial conditions for the risk evaluation. ÐPotential to migrate, persistence, degradation, and bioaccumulation of the hazardous constituents and any degradation products (261.11( a)( 3)( iii), 261.11( a)( 3)( iv), 261.11( a)( 3)( v), and 261.11( a)( 3)( vi)) are all considered in our evaluation of constituent mobility (e. g., leaching from waste) and fate and transport models we used to project potential concentrations of the contaminants to which individuals might be exposed. We considered two additional factors, plausible mismanagement and other regulatory actions (261.11( a)( 3)( vii) and 261.11( a)( 3)( x)) in selecting the waste management scenarios we evaluated in our risk assessments. For example, we used information that the waste generators submitted in their Section 3007 questionnaires to decide what types of waste management units are used. Using information about other federal environmental regulatory programs, we concluded that some units or some pathways did not pose risks requiring evaluation. We separately considered the remaining factor, whether the available information indicated any impact on human health or the environment from improper management of the wastes of concern (261.11( a)( 3)( ix)). Thus, we examined a variety of databases for information on damage incidents for the inorganic chemical production processes under investigation. For example, we examined databases for information on potential and actual Superfund sites (CERCLIS), releases reported under the Toxic Release Inventory System (TRIS), civil cases filed on behalf of EPA, and spills and releases reported to the National Response Center (NRC). A full description of our search is in the docket for this rule. Most of the cases found for these industries typically resulted from spills or releases of products, and did not provide any useful information of possible risks presented by the wastes we evaluated for listing. In a few cases we found sites on the Superfund National Priority List (NPL) that included inorganic manufacturing processes. However these sites usually encompassed a variety of chemical manufacturing and mining industries, and it is difficult to attribute the damage reported to the specific inorganic manufacturing wastes under evaluation. Furthermore, contamination at these sites appears linked to historical management practices at closed or inactive manufacturing plants, and these were not useful in assessing current or potential hazards for the wastes at issue. In addition, Federal and State regulatory controls are now in place that would prevent mismanagement. For example, many of the wastes examined in today's proposal are regulated as characteristic waste, and releases or disposal to the land are addressed under the existing RCRA regulations. We did not find any evidence of actual damage cases. We describe our decisions under 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) in more detail in the sector­ specific discussion in section III. F below, and in the background documents. Generally, we conducted full­ scale risk modeling for 18 wastes in 5 sectors. We found that we could adequately address the risks of the remaining wastes with a variety of less time­ consuming approaches. Some were qualitative; others were quantitative, but not as complex as full modeling. We evaluated one waste using the single criterion set out in 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 1) rather than the eleven factors referenced in 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3). This is the first time under this consent decree that we have proposed to make a listing decision based on this criterion. It relies on the existing characteristics to identify wastes posing significant risks and does not require the use of modeling. See the discussion of wastes from the production of antimony oxide in section III. F. 1 of the preamble. Our proposed listing determinations are based upon estimates of individual risk. We relied on individual risk estimates (HQs > 1), and not population risk estimates, because we are concerned about risks to individuals who are exposed to potential releases of hazardous constituents. We believe that using individual risk as a basis for our listing determinations (rather than population risk estimates) also is appropriate to protect against potential risks, as well as present risks that may arise due to the generation and management of particular wastestreams. EPA acknowledges that in cases where small populations are exposed to particular wastes and waste management practices, population risks may be very small. We did not attempt to calculate population risks for the proposed listings. In general, we expect population risks arising from contaminated groundwater due to waste management to be small, because often only a limited number of domestic wells will be near these facilities, and groundwater contamination often moves very slowly. Nevertheless, the increased risk for an exposed individual may be significant. In proposing the listing determinations for K176, K177, and K178, EPA is protecting against the potential risk for exposed individuals, regardless of how many individuals are exposed. We set out below general observations about some of our approaches to risk assessment. 2. Characteristic Hazardous Waste We describe in Section a. below our analysis for wastes which are `` 100% characteristic''Ð wastes which all generators report as characteristic and which all generators appear to manage in compliance with applicable hazardous waste regulations. We VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55692 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3 On April 9, 1999, the D. C. Circuit in Great Lakes Chemical Corporation v. EPA ordered that the organobromine listing determinations be vacated. Accordingly, EPA removed the listings from CFR (see 65 FR 14472: March 17, 2000). describe our approach to wastes which are occasionally characteristicÐ but managed in complianceÐ in Section b. below. Finally, we discuss in Section c. one waste which appears to exhibit a characteristic frequently, but does not appear to be managed in compliance with hazardous waste regulations. a. Wastes consistently exhibiting characteristics. For wastes which these industries identified as characteristic and managed in compliance with hazardous waste regulations, we are proposing to find that there is no `` plausible mismanagement'' scenario to evaluate for listing. (See 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3)( vii).) The Subtitle C rules applying to characteristic wastes adequately protect human health and the environment, especially where waste generators are complying with them. 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3)( x) authorizes us to consider actions taken by other regulatory programs. We believe we can reasonably interpret this to include the rules for characteristic wastes under Subtitle C . We acknowledge that the regulation of characteristic wastes differs in some ways from the regulation of listed wastes. For example, for characteristic wastes, residues from treatment required by the land disposal restrictions need not always be placed in hazardous waste disposal units. However, we do not regard the differences as `` mismanagement. '' Rather, we believe that both approaches protect human health and the environment. Consequently, for the purposes of this rule we decided that we would not propose to list a `` 100% characteristic'' waste unless we found evidence of extraordinary risks under one or more of the other factors in 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3). For a few of the 100% characteristic wastes in this rule, we found factors warranting further consideration. For example, we found that the sole generator of cadmium pigment wastes codes them as hazardous, arranges for treatment to comply with the land disposal restrictions, and then disposes of treated residues in a Subtitle D landfill. At the same time, we found that the waste contains very high levels of cadmium. We decided to investigate further to ensure that the treatment residues did not present significant risks. We examined data relating to the treatment process and leachate monitoring data from the landfill receiving the residues. Based on these data, we concluded that the residues did not pose risks warranting listing. b. Wastes which sometimes exhibit characteristics. Information submitted in responses to the Section 3007 questionnaires also showed that there are a number of wastes that exhibit characteristics at some facilities, but not others. Consistent with previous listing decisions (see for example, the most recent petroleum refining listing at 63 FR 42137), we focused on the volumes of waste that did not exhibit characteristics in our listing evaluation. For wastestreams identified as exhibiting characteristics and apparently managed in compliance with applicable regulations, we relied on the `` no plausible mismanagement'' and `` other regulations'' analysis described above. A hypothetical example follows. If one facility generated 40 tons per year of a properly­ managed characteristic waste, and a second facility generated 60 tons per year of a non­ characteristic waste, we would not evaluate the total of 100 tons of waste under a single approach. Rather, we would evaluate the characteristic waste under the approach described above. For the waste that did not exhibit a characteristic, we would conduct the type of risk assessment described below in section III. E. c. Characteristic wastes not managed in compliance with Subtitle C. In one case, we found a characteristic waste where we believe that existing Subtitle C rules do not adequately prevent mismanagement. Four facilities generate a baghouse filter waste from the production of antimony oxide. Data from our sampling and analysis at 2 facilities showed exceedences of the toxicity characteristic. Two facilities recycle these wastes in a manner that may comply with applicable regulations. Two other facilities, however, did not identify their waste as characteristic wastes, and appear to manage them in ways which do not comply with Subtitle C rules. Because of this apparent noncompliance, we concluded that it would be appropriate to disregard the characteristic rules in an analysis of the factors in 40 CFR 261.( a)( 3). However, we also concluded that it was not necessary to conduct such an analysis. Since this waste fails the toxicity characteristic, it clearly contains levels of constituents which could pose threats to human health via groundwater when placed in a municipal landfill, if leachate were to migrate to a drinking water well at sufficient concentrations. Since the generators are not managing the wastes in compliance with applicable Subtitle C regulations, we assume that this type of mismanagement could occur at other sites. Accordingly, we exercised our authority to propose to list this waste under 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 1). As noted above, this provision authorizes (but does not require) EPA to list wastes that exhibit characteristics without the analysis required under 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3). We believe that noncompliance is an appropriate reason to use this authority to list a characteristic waste. d. Non­ characteristic wastes disposed of in hazardous waste units. We identified nine wastes which do not appear to exhibit any characteristic, but which are disposed of in Subtitle C management units. Four of these wastes are sent to combustion unit regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. The remaining 5 wastes are sent to Subtitle C landfills. We found that all of these wastes receive some treatment before land disposal. In one case available data indicates that the waste meets applicable LDR treatment standards as generated. In general, these wastes have very limited potential for mismanagement under 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3)( vii). This is particularly true for wastes which generators place in on­ site, Subtitle C units with ample capacity. Also, in some cases, some of the wastes are generated in very small quantities (less than 1 metric ton per year). These wastes are distinguishable from a noncharacteristic organobromine waste sent to a hazardous waste unit that we decided to list in 1998. That waste had extremely high concentrations of a constituent posing significant risks, and received no treatment (see May 4, 1998; 63 FR 24596). 3 We request comment on the individual rationales set out in the sector­ specific discussions and the background documents. 3. Evaluations of Particular Units and Pathways of Release We are proposing to find that some pathways of release from some units present low risks because they are adequately controlled under other Federal environmental regulations that minimize the likelihood of releases. We are also proposing to find that other risk pathways present low risks due to physical or chemical attributes of the wastes. In some cases, we evaluated all release pathways at a single unit under a combination of these approaches. a. Wastewater management. Facilities in these industries generally treat wastewaters in on­ site wastewater treatment plants and discharge to surface waters, or pretreat the waste and discharge to an off­ site wastewater VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55693 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4 In fact, 40 CFR 261.4 excludes `` any mixture of domestic sewage and other wastes that passes through a sewer system to a POTW for treatment'' (40 CFR 261.4( a)( 1)( ii), and industrial wastewater discharges that are point source discharges subject to regulation under Section 402 of the CWA (40 CFR 261.4( a)( 2)). 5 Clean Air ActÐ Title III: Upcoming MACT StandardsÐ Cyanide Chemical Manufacturing; Unified Air Toxics Website: http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ uatw/ mactupd. html: The hydrogen cynaide industry would also be subject to regulations under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart YYY under the CAA for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from wastewater treatment at facilities in the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry (SOCMI), which was proposed September 19, 1994 (59 FR 46780). treatment facility, e. g., a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), discharges to surface waters are controlled under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and require an NPDES permit, while discharges to a POTW are subject to State and national pretreatment standards. 4 Point source discharges for the various sectors in the inorganics listing are regulated under the CWA by the effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards in 40 CFR Parts 415 (Inorganic chemical manufacturing) and 422 (Phosphate manufacturing). Therefore, we did not evaluate NPDES effluent or discharges to POTWs in today's proposal. This approach is consistent with other listing rules. See, for example, 60 FR 57759 (November 20, 1995, petroleum refining wastes proposal). In a few cases, facilities reported disposal of wastewaters by deep well injection in a permitted Class I UIC hazardous waste injection well. In these cases, the wells were units regulated by the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program under the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR Part 144). These wells also had no migration exemptions under Section 148.20 to allow disposal of untreated hazardous waste. Therefore, we did not evaluate this scenario further. For surface impoundments, we concluded that releases to air were not likely to present concerns. For most sectors, the constituents of concern are nonvolatile metals, and this makes volatilization a highly unlikely pathway for constituents from normal wastewater treatment practices. We recognize that releases of volatile organic chemicals from impoundments may be a potential route of concern for one sector, inorganic hydrogen cyanide production. EPA is developing maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for cyanide manufacturing under the Clean Air Act (CAA), which may address these emissions. 5 EPA is evaluating possible air releases from wastewaters in impoundments as part of the MACT rulemaking. Therefore, we did not do any further evaluation of these emissions as part of today's listing determination. We assessed the potential for groundwater releases from the impoundments. For sectors and wastes where facilities did not use surface impoundments for wastewater management, we determined that `` plausible mismanagement'' would be continued management in existing tank­ based treatment systems. We do not view abandonment of existing treatment systems for surface impoundments as `` plausible, '' because the manufacturers have already made a considerable investment in wastewater treatment systems using tanks and will continue to use them. Further, we assumed that wastewater treatment tanks retain sufficient structural integrity to prevent wastewater releases to the subsurface (and therefore to groundwater), and that overflow and spill controls prevent significant wastewater releases. Thus, based on the lack of any significant likelihood of release of the constituents to groundwater, we did not project significant risks to groundwater from these wastes in the tank­ based wastewater treatment scenario. We did not model any releases to groundwater from tanks. This is consistent with our approach in other listing rules (see, for example, the proposed rule for chlorinated aliphatics production wastes at 64 FR 46476; August 25, 1999). We also considered the possibility of air releases from tanks. For most wastes, the constituents of concern are nonvolatile metals, making volatilization a very unlikely pathway of release from tanks. For the hydrogen cyanide sector, where volatile compounds are likely and tanks are used in wastewater treatment systems, the tanks will also be covered by other CAA regulations as described above. In addition, in many cases facilities have installed tank covers, further reducing the likelihood of release to the air. As a result, we have not modeled releases to air from tanks for any wastes in this listing determination. b. Waste solids management. We concluded that we did not need to model any releases of volatile constituents from solids for the same reasons set out above. The management practices of concern for waste solids were landfills, including disposal in onsite and off­ site landfills, and in a few cases, waste piles. We evaluated the potential for groundwater releases from all landfills and piles. We also considered the possibility of releases of airborne particulates by a multistep process where we compared the total concentrations of the constituents of concern to a series of soil screening levels (see section III. E. 3). 4. Evaluation of Secondary Materials RCRA gives EPA jurisdiction only over materials that are discarded. EPA's current definition of discard is set out in the definition of solid waste at 40 CFR 261.2. Under this approach, process residuals (or `` secondary materials'') destined for recycling are solid wastes within our jurisdiction if the recycling closely resembles waste management. Conversely, if the materials are recycled as part of an ongoing manufacturing process, they are not solid wastes. The existing rules specifically exclude secondary materials from jurisdiction that are used directly (without reclamation), as ingredients in manufacturing processes to make new products, used directly as effective substitutes for commercial products, or returned directly to the original process from which they are generated as a substitute for raw material feedstock. 40 CFR 261.2( e). In addition, the existing rules allow for closed loop reclamation where secondary materials can be reclaimed and returned to the original production process provided that the entire process is closed, the reclamation does not involve controlled flame combustion, and the reclaimed material is not used to produce a fuel or a material that is used in a manner constituting disposal. (40 CFR 261.4( a)( 8)) As discussed in the January 4, 1985, rulemaking, these are activities which, as a general matter, resemble ongoing manufacturing operations more than conventional waste management and so are more appropriately classified as not involving solid wastes. However, materials which would otherwise qualify for exclusion under these provisions are not excluded if EPA finds that the recycling is not legitimate. EPA considers a variety of economic and chemical factors when it determines whether or not a specific recycling practice is legitimate. (See Memorandum from Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director Office of Solid Waste, concerning F006 Recycling, dated April 26, 1989). These determinations are very site­ specific and tend to be very time consuming. EPA typically makes them in the context of site­ specific enforcement or permitting actions. The existing rules, however, do not exclude materials that are either contained in or used to produce fuels or that are directly used, or incorporated into a product that is used, in a manner constituting disposal. EPA asserts RCRA jurisdiction for these types of use/ reuse VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55694 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6 On May 26, 1998, we promulgated a conditional exclusion from the definition of solid waste for secondary materials (other than listed wastes) generated within the primary mineral processing industry from which minerals, acids, cyanide, water, or other values are recovered by mineral processing, with certain provisions. Because this conditional exclusion only applied to non­ listed wastes, and we were making listing determinations, we did not use this exclusion as a basis to not evaluate wastes for listing purposes. On April 21, 2000, the D. C. Circuit Court issued a decision vacating a portion of this conditional exclusion. [See Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA. 208 F. 3d 1047 (D. C. Cir. 2000)]. circumstances as they more closely resemble conventional waste management rather than ongoing manufacturing. (See 50 FR 637± 640, January 4, 1985). A series of court decisions also address the issue of our jurisdiction over recycled materials. In general, they hold that EPA lacks authority to regulate materials that are immediately reused in an ongoing manufacturing or industrial process. American Mining Congress v. EPA (824 F. 2d 1177 (D. C. Cir. 1987) (AMC I)); American Mining Congress v. EPA (907 F. 2d 1179, 1186 (D. C. Cir. 1990) (AMC II)); American Petroleum Institute v. EPA (216 F. 3d 50 (D. C. Cir. 2000)). The most recent decision, Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA (208 F. 3d 1047 (D. C. Cir 2000)), remanded a rule regulating the reuse of some closely related materials. We are still evaluating the impacts of this decision. However, the remand does not affect this rule because we are not relying on the exemptions in the remanded rule. 6 For almost all of the residual materials from these manufacturing processes which are re­ used or recycled in some way, we decided not to attempt to determine whether the recycling practice is not subject to regulation under the court decisions and regulations described above. Such determinations can be very timeconsuming particularly where we find recycling practices that appear not to be regulated, and then need to determine whether or not such practices are legitimate. Consequently, we decided that it would be more efficient to examine first the potential risks posed by the reported recycling practices. If we found no significant risks, we would decide not to list the material. If, on the other hand, we found risks, we evaluate the recycling practice prior to making a listing decision. To assess the risks of materials recycled on­ site by reusing them in one of the consent decree manufacturing processes, we first evaluated the management of the materials prior to their re­ use. We looked for closed piping, covers on containers, or similar barriers to releases to the environment. Where we found such management practices, we determined that there was no significant potential for releases. We then evaluated the potential for releases from the consent decree process itself. We found that the only points at which releases were expected were either those where we were already evaluating solid wastes for the purposes of this listing or points where the facility released uncontained gases outside of RCRA jurisdiction. Consequently, we felt that we were evaluating all of the potential risks (within our jurisdiction) associated with the recycling of these materials. In the antimony oxide sector, however, we found one residual that was being held in containers for several years for potential reuse. Our rules identify this practice as `` speculative accumulation'' and classify the materials held in such a manner as solid wastes. Accordingly, we assessed the risks posed by these accumulated wastes. We found that a few materials are inserted into separate manufacturing processes co­ located on­ site with consent decree processes. We evaluated the potential for releases prior to reinsertion into that separate process. However, as explained above in section III. B, we did not evaluate any risks posed by use of residuals in processes that are not subject to our consent decree deadline. We also considered the risks of materials recycled off­ site. We considered the potential for release before the materials were transferred offsite We did not assess the off­ site uses which involved non­ consent decree manufacturing processes. In a few cases, however, we found that the reuse involved land placement or burning for energy recovery. These activities are always regulated as waste management under the rules and court decisions described above. In those cases, we concluded that the materials were wastes from the consent decree process where they were generated, and we evaluated risks posed by the use. For example, we evaluated the risks posed by use of residual materials from the production of boric acid as fuels for cement kilns. In one case involving antimony oxide residuals, we found that the residuals were sent off­ site to another smelter producing antimony oxide. This smelter happens to be located outside of the country. We did not evaluate risks from its residuals, as we have no legal jurisdiction to regulate them. We have evaluated the production of antimony oxide within the U. S. in this rulemaking, so we have evaluated the risks that would be posed if this generator changed its practice and sent the materials to an antimony oxide smelter located within the U. S. For purposes of convenience, in the sector specific discussions below (and in the various background documents) we describe all of the residuals as wastes. We emphasize, however, that we have not determined whether any of the residuals that are recycled are solid wastes as defined in 40 CFR 260.2. We believe it is more appropriate to leave such site­ specific determinations to other decision­ making processes. E. Description of Risk Assessment Approaches Before turning to the details of the risk assessment approaches used, we want to highlight two general issues. First, we note that for this proposal we used a variety of screening methodologies to assess a large number of wastes. Due to time constraints imposed by the consent decree schedule, we chose Ðwhere appropriateÐ to use these methodologies rather than conducting more time­ consuming, full­ scale, risk assessment modeling. In general, however, we believe that these screening methodologies conservatively assessed risks, so that wastes that we `` screened out'' are unlikely to present significant risks. Second, we want to describe our selection of plausible mismanagement practices for both screening and full modeling assessments. In general, we assessed the types of management units which, according to data available to us, facilities have actually used or contemplated using. Frequently, we found that facilities had made economic investments that would make them likely to continue to use the same types of units. For example, where facilities had paid to install tanks to store or treat wastes, we assumed that they would continue to use tanks rather than place wastes in pits or surface impoundments. Furthermore, we found that some waste quantities were so large that it would be prohibitively expensive to transport wastes off­ site. Similarly, where facilities had installed piping to return residual materials to their production processes, we assumed that they would continue to use these systems to recycle those residuals. We also assumed that such facilities had found it more economical to return those residuals to their processes, and were thus not likely to send them to landfills or other types of disposal units. We seek comment on all data, assumptions and methodologies used in our risk assessment for this proposal. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55695 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 7 EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) may be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ iris. See also `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' (August 2000) for a discussion of the toxicity benchmark values used in today's rule. 1. What Risk Thresholds Were Used? EPA's listing program generally defines risk levels of concern for carcinogens as risks within or above a range of 1´10 ­6 to 1´10 ­4 (from 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 10,000) at the upper end of the risk distribution (e. g., 90th or 95th percentile risk for a particular exposure scenario). The level of concern for non­ cancer effects is generally indicated by a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1 or greater at the upper end of the distribution. Consistent with the listing policy described in the dyes and pigments proposal (59 FR 66075± 66078) we used a 1´10 ­5 risk level and/ or HQs of one to identify which wastes are candidates for listing. To make a listing determination, we then used a weightof evidence approach that considers the risk estimates along with other information related to the factors described in 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3). For cancer, a risk threshold of one in 1,000,000 represents the probability that an individual will develop cancer over a lifetime as a result of exposure to a chemical contaminant. When we estimate the lifetime excess cancer risk, we use an upper bound estimate of the carcinogenic slope factor (CSF) as derived from laboratory studies in animals or from human epidemiological studies. In addition, because the CSF typically relies on a number of extrapolations (e. g., from animals to humans and from high doses to low doses) there is some uncertainty in the value of the CSF. For non­ cancer effects, which include a wide variety of health effects, we used EPA's reference dose (RfD) as a risk threshold. A reference dose is an estimate of an oral exposure that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects in the general population, including sensitive individuals, over a lifetime. The RfD can be derived from a NOAEL, LOAEL, or benchmark dose. Uncertainty factors are applied to address limitations of the available toxicological data and are necessary to ensure the RfD is protective of individuals in the general population. The use of uncertainty factors is based on long­ standing scientific practice. Uncertainty factors when combined commonly range from 10 to 1000 depending on the nature and quality of the underlying data. The RfD methodology is expected to have an uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude. To assess risks associated with non­ cancer effects, we used a hazard quotient (HQ), which is defined as the ratio of the estimated dose of a given chemical to an individual to the reference dose for that chemical. A hazard quotient (HQ) of one (1) indicates that the estimated dose is equal to the reference dose (RfD) and, therefore an HQ of 1 is EPA's threshold of concern for non­ cancer effects. Usually, doses less than the RfD (HQ< 1) are not likely to be associated with adverse health risks and, therefore, are less likely to be of regulatory concern. As the frequency and/ or magnitude of the exposures exceeding the RfD increase (HQ> 1), the probability of adverse effects in a human population increases. However, it should not be categorically concluded that all doses below the RfD are `` acceptable'' (or will be risk­ free) and that all doses in excess of the RfD are `` unacceptable'' (or will result in adverse effects). The values of the CSF and RfD that we use for assessing risks are generally taken from EPA's on­ line toxicity data base called IRIS. However, in some cases we used EPA's compilation of toxicity benchmarks known as HEAST or other sources, such as toxicological issue papers prepared by EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA). 7 2. What Leaching Procedures Were Used? As noted in III. C, we used the TCLP and SPLP leaching procedures to evaluate the wastes in today's rule. EPA developed the TCLP as a tool to predict the leaching of constituents from the waste in a municipal solid waste landfill, and the TC regulations use this method to determine if a waste is hazardous under 261.24 (see the Toxicity Characteristic rule, 55 FR 46369; November 2, 1990). We have also used the TCLP in the listing program to estimate leaching concentrations for use in groundwater modeling (for example, see the recent petroleum listing, 63 FR 42110, August 6, 1998). We believe the TCLP is the most appropriate leaching procedure to use for wastes in municipal landfills, because the leaching solution is similar to the type of leachate generated from the decomposition of municipal waste. The TCLP leaching solution is a solution containing acetic acid that is adjusted to a pH of 4.93 or 2.88, depending on the acidity of the waste sample. EPA developed the SPLP as a method to predict leaching from wastes or soils under exposure to the slightly acidic, dilute solution generated by normal rainfall. The SPLP test uses a leach solution which mimics acid rain, while the TCLP uses a leach solution which mimics acids formed in municipal landfills. In past actions, EPA has recognized that the TCLP's use of organic acids may not be appropriate for disposal scenarios that do not involve municipal landfills. For example, in the proposed rule for management and disposal of lead­ based paint debris, EPA used the SPLP to assess leaching from landfills that do not accept municipal wastes (see 63 FR 70189; December 18, 1998). Similarly, EPA utilized the SPLP in screening low hazard wastes as part of its 1989 Bevill determination (see 54 FR 36592; September 1, 1989). In the context of EPA's more recent mineral processing sector actions, we considered the relative merits of both the TCLP and the SPLP for various wastes in the mineral processing industries; EPA decided to continue to rely on the TCLP for defining characteristically hazardous Bevill wastes, in part because we found that disposal in municipal landfills did occur for some sectors. See the Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV Final Rule at 63 FR 28598 (May 26, 1998). For today's rule, however, we have specific data showing that some wastes do not go to municipal landfills and are unlikely to be disposed of in municipal landfills. We used the SPLP sampling results for wastes that were not likely to go to municipal landfills, and we used the TCLP results for wastes going to municipal landfills. 3. How Were Wastes Screened To Determine If Further Assessment Was Needed? We used a number of approaches to eliminate from further consideration those wastes that could not plausibly pose unacceptable risks. This served to identify those wastes and chemical constituents that required further assessment. Different screening approaches were used depending on the type of waste management practices employed in the industry and, in some instances, the waste volume and the location of the waste management units. For wastes that are managed in landfills, groundwater contamination is the primary source of human exposures, particularly for certain metals and other inorganic compounds that are nonvolatile, such as those present in the wastes that are the subject of today's rule. We compared leachate concentrations derived from the TCLP or SPLP test measurements to levels in drinking water that are protective of human health. These levels, referred to as health­ based levels (HBLs), are designed to be protective of both VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55696 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 8 Details on how HBLs are derived may be found in the risk assessment background document for today's proposal, `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' (August 2000). 9 We used professional judgment to screen out constituents with concentrations within a factor of two of the HBLs. Historically, our models have suggested that the dilution and attenuation of constituents in the subsurface will generally result in dilution and attenuation factors (DAFs) of 2 or greater. (See, for example, the DAFs estimated for the petroleum refining listing determination, 63 FR 42110, and the docket for today's rulemaking for DAFs calculated to support today's proposal.) If our consideration of site­ specific factors had indicated that a very low DAF were likely for actual exposure (e. g. known drinking water wells placed very close to the management until boundary), we would have modeled that waste rather than screening it out using professional judgment. 10 Different statistics may be used for characterizing background levels depending on the data available. The mathematical properties of the arithmetic mean allow it to be used when only average values rather than the original data are available. However, if the original data are available, the data can be pooled and a geometric mean can be calculated. If the data are positively skewed, as is often the case, the arithmetic mean will be higher than the geometric mean. We consider either statistic to be a central tendency measure of background levels. However, background levels are highly variable and may be considerably higher or lower than the national average at any given location. See, for example, the U. S. Geological Survey paper `` Elemental Concentrations in Soils and Other Surficial Materials in the Conterminous United States, '' paper 1270, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1984. 11 See U. S. EPA, `` Revised Risk Assessment for the Air Characteristic Study, '' Office of Solid Waste, EPA 530± R± 99± 019, November 1999. children and adults. Health­ based levels (HBLs) are levels in environmental media that would not exceed EPA's risk thresholds given conservative assumptions regarding exposure (e. g., a level in drinking water that would not exceed a risk threshold for an individual whose drinking water intake was at the high end of the distribution for the general population). 8 Although an HBLs represents a concentration level at the point of exposure, we conservatively assumed direct contact with the wastes (i. e., no dilution) for the purpose of screening out wastes and chemical constituents that could not pose unacceptable risks and, therefore, do not merit further analysis. As explained previously, we used SPLP measurements for wastes that are managed in landfills containing only industrial wastes and TCLP measurements for wastes that are managed in landfills which also contain municipal wastes. For wastewaters that are managed in surface impoundments, we used the concentration in the filtered liquid (i. e., the SPLP filtrate) because the filtrate is more representative of the fraction of the waste that could infiltrate into the subsurface environment. Regardless of the type of measurement, if the result of the chemical analysis for a particular compound was below the limit of detection but the compound was detected in the waste, then we used 1 ¤2 the value reported by the laboratory as the limit of detection for that compound. Any chemical contaminant in a waste that did not screen out against HBLs (i. e., the waste concentration was a factor of 2 or less times the HBLs 9 ) we identified as a constituent of concern (CoC) requiring further assessment. However, very low volume wastes were subject to further screening, as described below. For very low volume wastes that did not screen out against HBLs, we performed an additional conservative screen to determine if the waste could plausibly pose a risk to human health when disposed of in a landfill. Typically wastes generated in volumes of less than 1 or 2 metric tons per year were considered as candidates for this de minimis analysis. This analysis assumed that the entire mass of the chemical contaminant in a volume of waste that is generated in a year's time would leach out of the waste and infiltrate into groundwater in the same year. The only dilution that was assumed to occur was with the volume of water that infiltrated into the landfill. To minimize the amount of dilution we chose a conservative infiltration rate based on the infiltration that could occur for a relatively low permeability soil underlying a relatively small landfill (corresponding to the 10th percentile of the distribution of municipal landfill areas nationwide). However, in some cases the resulting infiltration was less than the amount of water that would be withdrawn from a well by a household for domestic usage. In these instances, we diluted the infiltrate into the minimum volume of water needed to support a household well, which we estimated from data on U. S. per capita water consumption assuming a family of four. The concentration derived using this procedure was then compared to the HBLs. Any chemical contaminant that did not screen out as a result of this analysis we identified as a constituent of concern (CoC) requiring further assessment. While we do expect the de minimis screen to be conservative overall, the degree to which it is conservative depends on many waste and site­ specific factors. (For example, our sampling and analysis data indicate that in some cases essentially all of the chemical constituent leached out of the sample over the duration of the leach test.) For wastes managed in waste piles and landfills, we performed a multilevel screening analysis to determine if further assessment of the air pathway was needed. Wind blown dust from wastes managed in piles is a potential source of human exposures. This pathway is also possible for landfills, but likely to result in much lower releases due to the common usage of daily and longer­ term cover at landfills. In the first level screen we compared the waste contaminant total concentrations to background levels in soils. Background soil levels were taken from published compilations of levels in native soils nationwide and were generally characterized using a geometric mean or (in a few instances) an arithmetic mean concentration of the available data. 10 If the waste concentrations exceeded background levels in soils, we performed a second level screen by comparing the waste concentrations with soil ingestion HBLs. Soil ingestion HBLs assume direct contact with the waste and, therefore, are more conservative than HBLs based on inhalation exposures. In those instances when the waste concentrations exceeded both background levels and soil ingestion HBLs, we performed a third level screen using the results of EPA's air characteristics study. This study developed levels of chemical contaminants in wastes that are protective of human health with respect to inhalation exposures when managed in a variety of ways. 11 In particular, air characteristic levels were developed for waste piles at several different distances from a potential receptor. We used the air characteristic levels corresponding to a downwind distance of 25 or 150 meters (80 or 500 feet). Because the air characteristic levels include the effect of atmospheric dilution, they are significantly higher than soil ingestion HBLs. In most cases waste concentrations are either below background or below soil ingestion HBLs for the wastes EPA evaluated. Moreover, we found no instances in which air characteristic levels are exceeded. In the cases where waste concentrations exceeded the soil ingestion levels, the exceedence was typically less than a factor of 2 to 3. We believe it is highly unlikely that off­ site exceedences due to windblown dust from piles or landfills would actually exceed the soil ingestion levels given this low level of exceedence in the waste. Therefore, we conclude that risks associated with particulates from piles and landfills transported by an air pathway are not significant and no further assessment is needed. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55697 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 12 See the risk assessment background document for today's proposal, `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wasters'' (August 2000). 13 See EPA's `` Exposure Factors Handbook'' (EPA/ 600/ P± 95/ 002Fa), August 1997, for additional details on human exposure factors. 14 We relied upon the probabilistic risk estimates for today's proposal. However, both deterministic and probabilistic approaches are presented in the risk assessment background document. 15 See HWIR proposal at 64 FR 63429, November 19, 1999, and the final rule for the recent listing of wastes from petroleum refining at 63 FR 42157, August 6, 1998. EPA derived HBLs for chemical contaminants from toxicity benchmarks and a set of exposure assumptions that differ depending on the type of health effect and exposure pathway. For carcinogenic effects, HBLs were derived from a cancer slope factor (CSF) for the oral route of exposure. For non­ cancer effects, HBLs were derived from EPA's oral reference dose (RfD) for the compound. Risk thresholds were as described previously. Drinking water and soil ingestion HBLs for individual chemical contaminants are presented elsewhere. 12 The exposure assumptions we used for deriving the HBLs are described as follows. For drinking water exposures, we derived HBLs for carcinogenic effects for an adult exposed for 30 years and having a tap water intake of 1.4 liters per day. This represents 21 milliliters per day on a per kilogram body weight basis, which is the mean tap water intake for adults. A duration of exposure of 30 years represents the 95th percentile of the distribution of residential occupancy periods for adults nationwide. We derived HBLs for noncancer effects for a child having a tap water intake of 1.3 liters per day. This represents 64 milliliters per day on a per kilogram body weight basis and corresponds to the 90th percentile of the distribution of tap water intakes in children that are 1 to 10 years of age. 13 Because the drinking water HBLs incorporate conservative exposure assumptions, we consider them to be appropriate for screening purposes. Soil ingestion HBLs were derived from either the CSF or the RfD assuming a soil ingestion rate of 200 milligrams per day and an exposure duration of 8 years. A soil ingestion rate of 200 milligrams per day (about 3/ 100th of a teaspoon) is a conservative estimate of the mean intake rates for children in the age range of 1 to 7. An exposure duration of 8 years is an estimate of the mean residential occupancy period for a 6 year old child. In selecting these values for use in deriving soil ingestion HBLs, we considered the likelihood that children would actually come into direct contact with the wastes. In cases where wastes are known to be managed in on­ site landfills or surface impoundments that are located adjacent to or in close proximity to surface waters, we used additional screening criteria to identify wastes that could have the potential to adversely impact surface waters before eliminating the wastes from further consideration. We used EPA's national water quality criteria for this purpose. Specifically, we compared waste concentrations (i. e., SPLP measurements for wastes managed in on­ site landfills and SPLP filtrate measurements for wastes managed in surface impoundments) directly to ambient water quality criteria that have been established for the protection of both human health and aquatic life. Any chemical contaminant in a waste managed under these circumstances that did not screen out against ambient water quality criteria (within a factor of 2) we identified as a constituent of concern (CoC) requiring further assessment. EPA recently republished ambient water quality criteria for a large number of chemical contaminants (see 63 FR 68354; December 10, 1998). Separate criteria for the protection of aquatic life have been established for fresh water and salt water. In a number of instances waste management units are located adjacent to estuarine environments. In these cases, for screening purposes, we used the lower of the fresh water and salt water criteria. 4. How Was the Groundwater Pathway Evaluated? We conducted modeling analyses to assess possible risks to human health from wastes managed in land­ based units such as landfills and surface impoundments. We used fate and transport models to estimate contaminant concentrations that might occur in a residential drinking water well from migration of uncontrolled releases of leachate from a waste management unit through the subsurface environment. We assessed human exposures to these contaminants from information on the amount of tap water an individual drinks and the length of time an individual might reside at a residence and utilize water from a residential well. We then assessed what the human health risks would be as a consequence of such exposures. We took a probabilistic approach to the assessment of human exposures. In this approach, we used Monte Carlo simulation techniques to determine the distribution of groundwater concentrations to which an individual could be exposed and combined this with distributional data for the general population on the intake rates of tap water and the duration of exposure. We then assessed the risks to human health from both the middle (central tendency) and upper (high end) portions of the distribution of human exposures. EPA defines high end as the 90th percentile and greater of the distribution of exposures in the population. Central tendency generally refers to the mean or 50th percentile of the distribution. Central tendency and high end estimates may be generated using either probabilistic or deterministic approaches. 14 We evaluated potential groundwater exposures over a 10,000 year time period. Evaluating peak doses over this time horizon allows the model to capture the slow movement of some chemicals through the subsurface. While exposure assumptions (e. g., land use patterns, climate, environmental and other exposure assumptions) are expected to change over 10,000 years, such changes are difficult to predict. We believe such a time period is appropriate to ensure human health is protected. Even with long time periods, we are still concerned with the risk that would result once contamination reaches potential drinking water wells. Given that the metals of concern do not degrade in the environment, we believe a long modeling time period is necessary. Further, there is uncertainty in when peak concentrations at the receptor well may occur, and using the 10,000 year time frame makes it more likely that we will capture the peak risk in our evaluation. EPA has used similar time horizons for groundwater modeling in past hazardous waste rules. 15 For modeling chemical concentrations in ground water, many input parameters were varied. These included waste characterization data (e. g., chemical concentrations and waste volumes), waste management practices (e. g., waste management unit size and infiltration rates), hydrogeological parameters (e. g., depth to water table, hydraulic conductivity, and aquifer thickness), and chemical parameters (e. g., soilwater partition coefficient). We conducted extensive sensitivity analyses to determine which of these parameters had the greatest influence on the risk results. For a detailed discussion of the ground water analysis, including parameter distributions, input assumptions, and sensitivity analyses, see the risk assessment background document for today's proposal, `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' (August 2000). VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55698 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 16 A log uniform distribution is a distribution that has equal probabilities at all percentiles when the parameter is transformed into logarithms. For these chemical constituents, we used a log uniform distribution that was centered on the geometric mean of the available data and had a width of 3 logs. This was done to better account for the variability normally seen in measurements of Kd. 17 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, `` Draft National Survey of Solid Waste (Municipal) Landfill Facilities, '' Office of Solid Waste, Washington, D. C., 1988 (EPA/ 530± SW± 88± 034). 18 See assumptions made for the recent proposed hazardous waste identification rule at 64 FR 63382; November 19, 1999. In assessing groundwater exposures for wastes managed in off­ site landfills, we considered the locations of every industrial and municipal landfill known to receive the wastes and the volume of wastes managed at each of these sites. In so doing, we considered only that volume of waste that is currently not being managed as hazardous waste. For wastes managed on­ site by multiple facilities, we generally considered only those facilities where groundwater exposures are expected to be the highest. These locations were identified by considering the concentration levels of chemical constituents in the waste managed at the site and the proximity of on­ site waste management units, namely landfills and surface impoundments, to potential off­ site receptors. Our rationale for selecting particular locations for conducting modeling analyses is discussed in section III. F for the specific inorganic sectors. a. How were contaminant concentrations in groundwater modeled? For modeling fate and transport in the subsurface environment, we used the groundwater model EPACMTP (EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products). The model consists of two coupled modules: (1) A one­ dimensional module that simulates infiltration and dissolved contaminant transport through the unsaturated zone, and (2) a three­ dimensional saturated zone flow and transport module. Fate and transport processes accounted for in the model are advection, hydrodynamic dispersion, sorption equilibria, hydrolysis, and dilution from recharge to the saturated zone. The model assumes that the soil and aquifer are uniform porous media. EPACMTP (as used in this analysis) does not account for heterogeneity of the aquifer or for preferential migration pathways such as fractures and macro­ pores or for colloidal transport, any or all of which could be important at a particular site. Although EPACMTP simulates steadystate groundwater flow in both the unsaturated zone and the saturated zone, the model (as used in this analysis) simulates contaminant transport from a finite source and predicts the peak contaminant concentration arriving at a downgradient groundwater well. Only migration of chemical contaminants within the surficial aquifer is modeled by EPACMTP. We did not model migration of contaminants to deeper aquifers but, instead, based our assessment on exposures that might occur from groundwater withdrawn from the uppermost aquifer where contaminant concentrations are expected to be the highest. Equilibrium sorption of chemical contaminants onto soil and aquifer materials is parameterized in the EPACMTP model using a soil­ water partition coefficient (Kd). For today's proposed rule, we used values for Kd that have been derived from field studies and have been published in the scientific literature. An empirical distribution was used to characterize the variability of Kd for chemical contaminants for which sufficient published data were available. However, for several chemical contaminants having relatively few published values (e. g., antimony and thallium), a log uniform distribution was used. 16 Our use of empirically derived partition coefficients assumes that sorption is linear with respect to groundwater concentration (i. e., the Kd isotherm is linear). However, sorption is not unlimited and will tend to level off as groundwater concentrations increase beyond the linear range (i. e., the Kd isotherm becomes non­ linear). This condition is most likely to occur in the unsaturated zone where dilution is limited, if leachate concentrations are sufficiently high. EPA has sometimes used the MINTEQA2 equilibrium speciation model to estimate Kd's for a variety of metals rather than relying solely on field measurements. However, recently a number of technical issues have been raised concerning the model and its application. EPA is in the process of evaluating the model to address those issues. Therefore, we have decided not to use MINTEQA2 for today's proposed rule. Once the evaluation is completed and the issues are satisfactorily resolved, EPA may again choose to use the model in an appropriate form in future rulemakings. Infiltration of leachate from landfills into the subsurface is modeled using the HELP model (Hydrologic Evaluation for Landfill Performance), a quasi­ twodimensional hydrologic model used to compute water balances for landfills. We assumed that landfills have a final earthen cover but no liner or leachate collection system. The net infiltration rate that is calculated by the model considers, among other factors, precipitation, evapotranspiration, and surface runoff and depends on the type of soil and the climate where the landfill is located. For surface impoundments, the infiltration rate is estimated from the liquid depth in the impoundment and from the hydraulic conductivities and thicknesses of the sediments and the underlying soil. We assumed that surface impoundments have no liner or leachate collection system. Unconsolidated or loose sediments are treated as free liquid so that the pressure head on the underlying, consolidated sediments is determined by the depth of the liquid in the impoundment and the depth of the unconsolidated sediments. As sediment accumulates at the base of the impoundment, the weight of the liquid and upper sediments acts to compress (or consolidate) the lower sediments. The result is the formation of a consolidated sediment layer having a hydraulic conductivity that is much lower than the previously unconsolidated sediment. We assumed that landfills have an operational life of 30 years. 17 In landfills, leaching of contaminants from the waste leads to an exponential decrease in the leachate concentration with time. The rate at which this occurs depends on the volume of waste disposed of in the landfill and the total concentration of chemical contaminants in the waste. We used the measured TCLP concentration (for disposal in a municipal landfill) or SPLP concentration (for disposal in an industrial landfill) as the initial leachate concentration for modeling. In contrast, we assumed that surface impoundments have an operational life of 50 years. 18 Many surface impoundments are periodically dredged and, therefore, can be maintained in service for longer periods of time. With surface impoundments, leachate concentrations are not expected to decrease over time and, therefore, leachate concentrations are assumed to remain constant during their operational life. We used the total concentration of chemical contaminant measured in the wastewater or (for wastewaters with high levels of solids) the concentration measured in the SPLP filtrate as the leachate concentration for modeling. The fate and transport simulation modules in EPACMTP are linked to a Monte Carlo module to allow quantitative consideration of variability VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55699 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 19 Ibid. 20 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, `` Exposure Factors handbook'', Volumes I and III, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Enironmental Assessment, Washington, DC., August 1997 (EPA/ 600/ P± 95/ 002Fa and c). and uncertainty in groundwater concentrations due to variability and uncertainty in model input parameters. We use a regional site­ based methodology to associate the appropriate regional climatic and hydrogeologic conditions to the location of actual waste management sites. This methodology accommodates dependencies between the various model input parameters. In this approach, a site location is assigned to one of 13 hydrogeologic regions and one of 97 climatic regions that are linked to databases of climatic and hydrogeologic parameters. A climatic data set provides infiltration and recharge values for three soil textures at each of 97 climatic centers in the contiguous United States. The soil textures are based on a Soil Conservation Service soil mapping database and U. S. Department of Agriculture definitions of coarse, medium, and fine soil textures. (These textures are represented in EPACMTP by sandy loam, silt loam, and silty clay loam, respectively.) Infiltration rates for the waste management unit and the recharge rate for the surrounding region were determined for each soil type and climatic center using the HELP model. A site location is generally assigned to the climatic center that is geographically closest to the site. Each site location is also located on a groundwater resource map (from a U. S. Geological Survey inventory of State groundwater resource maps) and a hydrogeologic region is assigned to the site based on the primary aquifer type at that location. A hydrogeologic database provides a distribution of values for depth to groundwater, aquifer thickness, hydraulic gradient, and hydraulic conductivity for each of 13 hydrogeologic regions. The hydrogeologic data base (HGDB) was developed from a survey of hydrogeologic parameters for approximately 400 hazardous waste sites nationwide. These site­ specific data were then regrouped according to hydrogeologic classifications, and a distribution of parameter values was generated for each of the 13 hydrogeologic regions (made up of 12 specific hydrogeologic environments and one miscellaneous category). In the analysis for today's rule, we modified the above approach for on­ site waste management units to enable available site­ specific information on depth to groundwater to be used in place of the values found in the database. We also used a regional site­ based methodology to associate the appropriate soil characteristics to a given site location. In this approach, a distribution of soil textures at a site is determined by associating the site location with a soils classification region. We defined soil classification regions from information on the soil types found within a 100 mile radius of the site location. The distribution of soil textures for the region was determined by identifying the soil texture classifications from data contained in the U. S. Department of Agriculture (Natural Resources Conservation Service) STATSGO (State Soil Geographic) data base. The predominant soil textures within each mapping unit (which represents a collection of soils) were identified and the fraction of the three soil textures used in the EPACMTP model were determined (i. e, sandy loam, silt loam, and silty clay loam). These soil classification regions were used for modeling off­ site municipal and industrial landfill sites. A similar approach was taken for on­ site landfills and surface impoundments except that the predominate soil textures from mapping units that correspond to the site location itself were identified. These were compared for consistency with other soils information available for the site. Once the fraction of the three soils textures is determined for a given site location, a distribution of soil parameter values is generated from information on the distribution of soil parameter values for the three soil textures and the fraction of each soil texture for the site. These parameters are used for modeling groundwater flow and contaminant transport in the unsaturated zone and include saturated conductivity, moisture retention properties, water content, and organic matter content. A full description of the groundwater modeling analyses conducted for today's proposed rule may be found in the background document, `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' (August, 2000). b. How were human exposures assessed? Our assessment of human exposures to contaminated ground water is based on a residential drinking water scenario. A different approach was used for determining the location of exposure depending on whether the wastes are managed on­ site or are shipped off­ site for disposal. For waste shipped to off­ site municipal landfills, we used EPA's National Survey of Municipal Landfills 19 to determine the distance from the landfill to the receptor well. We also used these same data for off­ site industrial landfills. For wastes managed on­ site in either landfills or surface impoundments, we attempted to determine the closest point at which a residential well could be located and, therefore, the point at which human exposures could plausibly occur. We considered the location of the facility property boundary, the type of land use adjacent to the property boundary, the presence of surface waters that could intercept ground water flow, utilization of ground water for residential or agriculture uses, and the existence of residential drinking water wells in the direction of ground water flow. For both on­ site and off­ site waste management, we assumed the receptor well was located down­ gradient from the waste management unit and that ground water is withdrawn from the top ten meters of the aquifer and within the lateral extent of the contaminant plume. Exposures were further assumed to occur out to a distance of a mile from the waste management unit. Our assessment of human exposures did not consider naturally occurring background levels in ground water. Background levels in ground water are not a significant source of human exposure for several of the more important chemical constituents in the wastes that are the subject of today's proposal (e. g., antimony and thallium). However, for manganese, dietary exposures are a significant source of background exposures. We did not attempt to quantify the cumulative risks from both dietary and drinking water exposures combined and, therefore, this is a source of uncertainty in our assessment of risks from manganese in these wastes. Human exposures were characterized in terms of lifetime average daily dose (LADD) and average daily dose (ADD) for both children and adults. We used the LADD for assessing cancer risks and the ADD for assessing risks from noncancer effects (including reproductive, developmental, neurological, cardiovascular, hematologic, metabolic, and a wide variety of other physiologic effects). Exposures to children of age one to six years and adults of age 20 to 64 years were assessed. We used information from EPA's Exposure Factors Handbook 20 to characterize tap water intake rates for individuals and residential occupancy periods of households (and, therefore, the length of time an individual could be exposed to contaminated ground water). Distributional data on tap water intake rates for individuals and residential occupancy periods for households were VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55700 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 21 Industrial wastewater discharges that are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program are specifically excluded from regulation as hazardous wastes under 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 2). 22 EPA guidance provides a simple rule of thumb for estimating the 30Q5 from the 7Q10 depending on the size of the river. For smaller rivers (defined as those with a low flow of 50 cfs or less), the 30Q5 is 1.1 times the 7Q10. For larger rivers (low flow of 600 cfs or greater), the 30Q5 is 1.4 times the 7Q10. See `` Technical Support Document for Water Quality­ Based Toxics Control, '' EPA/ 505/ 2± 90± 001, March 1991. 23 The harmonic mean is defind as the inverse of the average of the sum of the inverses of the recorded flows. used to generate both the ADD and LADD exposure estimates. For assessing lifetime exposures, we averaged the well water concentrations over the duration of exposure (i. e., the residential occupancy period). We also averaged the tap water intake rates over the duration of exposure to account for the changes in tap water intake rates with age that are seen among children. For estimating the ADD, we used the peak 9­ year average well water concentration but did not further average the estimated exposure (which we believe would be inappropriate given the range of possible health effects we want to protect against). Previous work with the EPACMTP ground water model has shown that the peak 9­ year concentration and the maximum predicted concentration are nearly identical. A full description of the methods and data used in the exposure assessment for today's proposed rule may be found in the background document, `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' (August, 2000). 5. How Was the Surface Water Pathway Evaluated? A number of facilities that generate wastes covered by today's proposed rule are located adjacent to rivers or bays. As a consequence, the potential exists for subsurface releases of chemical contaminants from on­ site management of the wastes to enter these river and bay systems through ground water inflow. In instances where no direct contact with ground water is likely to occur (as there would otherwise be if, for example, ground water was being used for residential drinking water), it becomes important to evaluate the potential water quality impacts of these releases on surface waters in the context of hazardous waste listings. However, we wish to emphasize that the surface water impacts considered in today's proposed rule are due to subsurface releases to ground water only. Direct discharges to surface waters are already regulated by the Clean Water Act under the NPDES permit system and are not considered further in today's proposal. 21 We conducted a screening level analysis to evaluate potential surface water impacts. In this analysis, we estimated the volume of leachate that would infiltrate into ground water and assumed that this entire volume would be intercepted by surface water. Because this is a screening analysis, we made conservative assumptions that are likely to overstate the infiltration of leachate and, therefore, the potential release to surface water. For example, for on­ site landfills, we assumed a soil type (sandy loam) that is likely to overstate the infiltration rate even in the absence of liners or leachate collection systems. Similarly, for surface impoundments we assumed a sludge thickness (8 inches) and soil type (sandy loam) that is likely to overstate the infiltration rate. In addition, we assumed no retardation in the migration of chemical contaminants in ground water due to sorption or other processes. Due to the nature of these releases, which are likely to occur over a wide area, we assumed that the inflow of contaminated ground water was rapidly diluted into surface water and that there was little or no mixing zone. We followed EPA's Office of Water guidance for determining the design flows for rivers as regards water quality criteria. The appropriate design flow depends on the particular water quality impact being evaluated. For assessing potential impacts on aquatic life, we used the `` 7Q10'' as the design flow. The 7Q10 is the seven day low flow with a return frequency of once every 10 years and is the recommended design flow for use with chronic water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life. We believe that chronic water quality criteria are the appropriate criteria for evaluating the potential impact of continuing steady releases, such as those that would result from subsurface discharge of contaminated ground water. On the other hand, EPA generally uses the `` 30Q5'' as the design flow for assessing potential impacts on human health. The 30Q5 is the thirty day low flow with a return frequency of once every 5 years and is the recommended design flow for use with water quality criteria for the protection of human health as regards non­ cancer effects. However, a 30Q5 design flow was not available in all cases. In these instances, we estimated the 30Q5 based on the 7Q10 design flow. 22 For carcinogens (e. g., arsenic), lifetime exposures are the primary concern and a design flow that corresponds to a longer averaging time is appropriate. For this reason, EPA recommends the long­ term harmonic mean be used as the design flow. 23 The harmonic mean is always less than the arithmetic mean and is used in place of it because low flow conditions drive long­ term average water quality. However, because this flow statistic was not available, we estimated the harmonic mean flow from the arithmetic mean flow and the 7Q10. As a result of the screening level analysis, all wastes screened out for which the ground water to surface water pathway was a concern. Therefore, no additional analysis of this pathway was conducted. 6. What Are the Limitations and Uncertainties of the Assessment? Our assessment of exposures and risks is subject to a variety of limitations and uncertainties. These are discussed in some detail in the background document for today's proposed rule. A number of these are highlighted here. We assumed our sampling and analysis data are fully representative of the range of wastes generated in the effected industries. However, our own data show that there are significant variations in waste concentrations across facilities in a given industry. Variability in waste concentration that is unaccounted for could lead to an over­ or under­ estimation of risks. However, any tendency toward underestimation is likely to be mitigated to some extent by our selection of wastes and exposure scenarios that are intended to capture the highest risks. We also assumed that our methods for measuring the leaching behavior of wastes (i. e., the TCLP and SPLP test procedures) are both representative of the range of leaching conditions that exist under real world conditions and accurately quantify the concentrations of contaminants that leach into the subsurface environment from a given waste management unit. However, we know that many metals exhibit varying (or amphoteric) behavior with respect to pH and that any one test procedure is capable of characterizing leaching behavior only under a particular set of conditions. The ground water model we used in our analysis (i. e., EPACMTP) is designed to characterize dilution and attenuation in the subsurface environment under homogeneous conditions. The model does not account for subsurface heterogeneities, nor does it account for fractured flow or colloidal transport. These conditions, if present at VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55701 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules a site, can lead to less dilution and attenuation of contaminant levels than predicted by the model, causing ground water concentrations to be under estimated. In addition, sorption of metal species onto soil and aquifer materials exhibits considerable variability depending on geochemical conditions and the total concentration of the metal present at a given location. Although our use of empirically derived Kd values captures some of this variability, the available published data are fairly limited for certain metals (e. g., antimony). We have accounted for the uncertainty associated with the small number of data points explicitly for these metals by expanding the range of Kd values used for modeling (to three orders of magnitude). Even for metals that have abundant data (e. g., arsenic), it is unlikely that the range of variability apparent in the data could exist at a given site. Uncertainty associated with the specification of Kd as noted above could lead to an over­ or under­ estimation of risk. However, a tendency toward overestimation is likely to be mitigated by the fact that under near steady­ state conditions (when ground water impacts are the greatest), concentrations in ground water are little influenced by Kd. Under non­ steady conditions, any tendency toward over­ or underestimation is limited by the variability inherent in the empirical distributions of Kd used in the analysis, which include both relatively high and relatively low values of Kd. Nevertheless, in general the risk estimates are sensitive to the specification of Kd and, therefore, this is an important source of uncertainty in our analysis. As indicated previously, for wastes managed on­ site we based our assessment of human exposures on the plausibility of ground water being used for drinking water. While some information was available on utilization of ground water for drinking water, very limited information was available from which to determine the location of exposure at a given site. For wastes managed off­ site we assumed that ground water is used for drinking water (or will be in the future) and we used national data on the distribution of distances to residential wells to assess human exposures and risk. Our analysis did not consider possible changes in the location of on­ site waste management operations in the future. These exposure assumptions (about which there is considerable uncertainty) may have an impact on the estimated risks and, therefore, the outcome of the risk assessment. Other important uncertainties include those related to the health effects of chemical contaminants in humans (hazard identification), absorption and metabolism of ingested contaminates (pharmacokinetics), and biological response (dose­ response relationships). These and other limitations and uncertainties are discussed in the background document, `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' (August, 2000). F. Sector­ Specific Listing Determination Rationales We seek comments on all proposed listing decisions in this section, and the underlying rationales used to support our proposals. 1. Antimony Oxide a. Summary. We have evaluated antimony oxide production wastes and propose to list two wastes from this process as hazardous: (1) Baghouse filters and (2) slag that is disposed of or speculatively accumulated. We propose to list the baghouse filter waste under the criterion in 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 1) because it routinely exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste, but the waste is not consistently managed in compliance with Subtitle C regulations. We propose to list the slag under the criteria in 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) because of risks associated with land disposal. 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). Other wastes generated by the antimony oxide industry do not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) for listing a waste as hazardous. They do not pose a substantial present or potential threat to human health or the environment. We identified no risks of concern associated with the current management of these other wastes. b. Description of the antimony oxide industry. Antimony oxide was produced by four facilities in the United States in 1998. Antimony oxide is used as a flame retardant in plastics and textiles, a smoke suppressant, a stabilizer for plastics, an opacifier in glass, ceramics and vitreous enamels, and a coating for titanium dioxide pigments and chromate pigment. The manufacturers use two different processes to produce antimony oxide. In the first process, antimony metal is roasted in the presence of air. The antimony oxide forms as a fume, cools and condenses in a baghouse. In the second process, crude (low grade) antimony oxide is roasted in the presence of air to produce higher grade antimony oxide. The antimony oxide cools and condenses in a baghouse. The crude antimony oxide comes either from off­ site or is recycled from within the facility. c. How does the Bevill Exclusion apply to wastes from the antimony oxide manufacturing processes? Antimony oxide producers use a range of raw materials to produce antimony oxide, including antimony metal ingots, sodium antimonate, and antimony ore concentrate, and some facilities have claimed that wastes generated from the production of antimony oxide are Bevill exempt. Wastes generated from processes using either antimony ingots or sodium antimonate (both of which are saleable mineral products) are considered chemical manufacturing wastes rather than mineral processing wastes and are not eligible for the Bevill exemption. The September 1, 1989 Bevill final rule states at 54 FR 36620± 21 that chemical manufacturing begins if there is any further processing of mineral product. Two of the facilities also purchase an antimony ore concentrate as a raw material and place this material in kilns to produce antimony oxide. The smelting of a ore concentrate above the fusion point is defined as mineral processing (See 54 FR 36618). At these antimony oxide facilities, since mineral processing has begun, wastes from the process are not eligible for the Bevill exemption as beneficiation wastes (See 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7)( i)). In addition, although there is a Bevill exemption for 20 specific mineral processing wastes form various mineral processing sectors, the wastes generated from antimony oxide mineral processing are not included as one of these 20 wastes and are not excluded. (See 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7)( ii)). Thus there are no antimony oxide wastes that qualify for the Bevill exemption. d. Wastes generated by these processes. Table III± 1 summarizes our information about the wastes generated from the production of antimony oxide: VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55702 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 24 `` United States Antimony Corp. Stibnite Hill Mine Project Operating Permit 00045'', 6th review draft, January 1999. This draft permit is issued under the Metal Mine Reclamation Act, 82± 4± 301 MCA. It was prepared by the facility, approved by the State of Montana on August 12, 1999 (with a number of stipulations), and subsequently approved by the Forest Service. 25 `` Above Ground Land Emplacement Facilities, N. J. Law, '' Letter to Honorable James J. Florio, Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation, and Tourism, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, from J. Winston Porter, Administrator, EPA, dated March 26, 1986. TABLE III± 1.Ð ANTIMONY OXIDE PRODUCTION WASTES Waste category Number of reported generators 1998 volume (MT) Reported waste hazard codes Management practices Antimony slag not recycled in process ........ 3 113 D008 ......................... Sent to lead smelters for lead and/ or antimony 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 antimony recovery; industrial Subtitle D landfill; or non­ hazardous waste incinerator Empty supersacks ........................................ 1 15 No code reported ..... Disposal in off­ site Subtitle D landfill or recycled In addition to these wastes, there are other materials produced that are reused in the antimony oxide production process. Antimony oxide and antimony slag are captured at various points in the facility and reinserted into a furnace to produce antimony oxide, either on­ site or off­ site. Because these materials are managed prior to reuse in ways that present low potential for release, and because we evaluated process waste generated after the secondary materials are reinserted into the process, we do not believe that these secondary materials present significant risks. e. Agency evaluation. (1) Antimony slag not recycled in antimony oxide process. How Are These Wastes Currently Managed? Three facilities produced antimony slag that is not recycled in the antimony oxide process. Two of these facilities send the slag to lead smelters. One of the two facilities reported its slag to be TC hazardous because of its lead content (D008). The third facility, however, has historically stored a portion of its slag on­ site in drums, reporting that they plan to reclaim antimony when antimony prices are more favorable. Recent revisions to the facility's Operating Permit, 24 however, require that the slag be placed in an on site engineered `` slag storage pit'' to be constructed in the next two to three years. We assessed the on­ site disposal scenario, reflecting the projected management practice for this waste. For a number of years, the facility has been placing approximately 20 MT/ yr in steel drums on pallets on the ground. The facility reported that they intend to reclaim the antimony from this slag when antimony prices are favorable. We consider storage on­ site for more than one year to be speculative accumulation and consider these materials to be solid wastes. We believe that the length of time secondary materials are accumulated before being recycled is an important indicator of whether or not they are wastes. This is supported by the large number of recycling damage cases where secondary materials that were overaccumulated over time caused extensive harm. (See 50 FR 614) `` Under RCRA and the implementing regulations, permanent placement of hazardous waste, including perpetual `` storage'' falls into the regulatory category of land disposal. '' 25 (See also American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 216 F. 3d 50 (D. C. Cir. 2000).) Since the Operating Permit requires the facility to build and use an on­ site, land­ based unit for this waste, we assessed the onsite landfill scenario for this waste. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? We selected two of the three facilities for sampling and analysis. At the site which stores the slag indefinitely, we collected one sample of `` reduction furnace slag'' that was designated as containing less than 5 percent antimony (AC± 1± AO± 01) and one sample of `` reduction furnace slag'' that was designated as containing between 5 and 10 percent antimony (AC± 1± AO± 06). Based on characterization information provided by the facility in its RCRA Section 3007 Survey response, we believe these samples are representative of all of the slags generated at the facility. We conducted total, TCLP and SPLP analyses of these slags. The analytical results for the constituents found to be present in the leachates at levels exceeding the HBLs are presented in Table III± 2. We collected a third sample (LI± 1± AO± 01) at a facility that reclaims its slag for lead. This sample failed the TC for lead, as the facility reported in its RCRA Section 3007 Survey response. The results are available in `` Waste Characterization Report, Laurel Industries Inc., La Porte, Texas'' in the docket for today's proposal. TABLE III± 2.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF SPECULATIVELY ACCUMULATED ANTIMONY SLAG Constituent of concern AC± 1± AC± 01 AC± 1± AO± 06 HBL mg/ L Total mg/ kg TCLP mg/ L SPLP mg/ L Total mg/ kg TCLP mg/ L SPLP 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 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55703 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established? We modeled the annual volume reported to be stored on­ site indefinitely (20 MT). (The facility reports that it processes sodium antimonate from two facilities and returns the resultant slag to the process for further processing. We did not include these recycled slag volumes in our modeling.) We used the total and SPLP results as model inputs, reflecting the industrial nature of the on­ site unit. We used only the analytical results for the facility that stores the slag indefinitely. Both of the samples for this facility are relevant because they represent the material stored on­ site and destined for the onsite slag pit. We did not model the sample from the other sampled facility because they acknowledged that their waste exhibited the TC. Both this facility and the facility that was not sampled reclaim these wastes in a manner that is excluded from regulation under Subtitle C. We believe that it is reasonable to assume that they will continue to manage their slags in ways that do not violate Subtitle C regulations. Also, in this case, the SPLP results are higher than the TCLP results, making the industrial landfill the worst case scenario. We examined records available from the State where the slag is stored to determine the appropriate distance­ towell to model. We identified four residential wells within several miles of the facility. These data demonstrate that groundwater is a viable and actively used resource in this area. One well is located 1.4 miles directly downgradient. Based on local topography and groundwater information, we do not believe the other identified wells could be affected by releases to groundwater from the facility. We modeled potential releases to a downgradient residential well. Given that our groundwater model is not configured at this time to model releases further than one mile, we did not assess the full distance to the known well. In our probabilistic analysis, we varied the well distance from the closest property boundary that appeared to be potentially downgradient to the limit of the model (one mile). Our results therefore are conservative with respect to this particular well, but otherwise reflect the fact that future residences and wells may be placed closer to the facility and any potential groundwater plumes associated with its operation. Specifically, we modeled potential distances to wells from the facility's southern boundary to one mile. We used a regional site­ based approach in modeling this unit, as described in section III. E. 4. We modified this to enable us to use available depth to groundwater information at this particular site. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? Where these slags are reused and present no exposure route of concern, we did not evaluate these secondary materials further. The results of the risk assessment for the on­ site disposal scenario for boron, selenium, and vanadium were very low. In the 90th to the 95th percentile range, the highest hazard quotient for these three constituents was in the range of 0.001. For this reason, the full results for these three constituents are not presented here. The results of the risk assessment for the on­ site disposal scenario for antimony and arsenic are presented in Table III± 3: TABLE III± 3.Ð PROBABILISTIC RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR SPECULATIVELY ACCUMULATED ANTIMONY SLAG Percentile Adult risk Child risk Adult risk Child risk 1 Antimony hazard quotient 1 ArsenicÐ cancer risk 90 th % ............................................................................................................................ 2.2 4.6 4 E± 07 3 E± 07 95 th % ............................................................................................................................ 4.5 9.4 1 E± 06 9 E± 07 For a more complete description of this analysis, see `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' (August 2000) in the docket for today's proposal. In our modeling results, the dilution and attenuation factors (DAFs) were relatively high. For example, high end antimony DAFs were as high as 8,000. This is the result of the hydrogeological setting of the site evaluated. Due to the high hydraulic conductivity we used in modeling, the landfill leachate is readily diluted into a large volume of groundwater. Given the uncertainty about the actual ultimate management practice and the site­ specific nature of the modeling, DAFs could be considerably lower in other disposal scenarios, resulting in much higher hazard quotients and, therefore, higher potential risks. Our modeling approach assumes that the slag will be placed in an unlined unit. Information from the facility, however, indicates that they plan to place the waste in an on­ site lined storage pit, upon completion of construction, that will be governed by a state mining permit. We considered whether our decisionmaking should account for the added protection provided by a liner system. Our first consideration is the current uncertainty regarding this waste's disposition. While the facility has stated its intended placement of this waste in a lined unit, our most recent information indicates that construction had not yet begun. The facility may in fact choose to place this waste in an off­ site commercial landfill that would not necessarily be lined. This uncertainty is greater than in most waste management scenarios that we have assessed in this rulemaking, where there is a long term history of management in a particular type of management unit (e. g., an operating onsite landfill, a local off­ site landfill). Because of this uncertainty, we are hesitant to give much weight to a liner system that may be constructed in the future. More generally, we considered the efficacy of landfills (and any liners) over the modeled risk assessment period, which covers 10,000 years. Landfills are used actively until their capacity is reached (our models assume an active life of 30 years), and at the end of their active life, we assume landfills are closed and the wastes remain in the unit indefinitely. The effectiveness of liner systems depends on how they are designed. Composite and double liners that combine two or more layers of liner material with leachate collection and leak detection will no doubt minimize leakage to the subsurface during the period when the leachate collection system is actively managed. However, depending on the regulatory controls relevant for a particular unit, monitoring would continue for a limited postclosure period. There is also uncertainty associated with liner performance, in the near term as well as in the long term. There are a variety of factors that may influence longevity and performance, such as poor construction, installation VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55704 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 26 A material is not accumulatively speculatively, however, if the person accumulating it can show that the material is potentially recyclable and has a feasible means of being recycled and thatÐ during the calendar year (commencing on January 1)Ð the amount of material that is recycled or transferred to a different site for recycling equals at least 75 percent by weight or volume of the amount of that material accumulated at the beginning of the period. (40 CFR 261.1( c)( 8)) or facility operation, or geologic movement below the liner that can cause holes, tears or larger failures. Some defects may have a significant effect. Because of our uncertainty regarding the efficacy of the liner system over long periods of time, and the uncertainty over the ultimate disposal for this waste, we believe our use of the modeling results for an unlined landfill is appropriate. In deciding whether to list this waste as hazardous, we also considered other factors in addition to the risk results noted above. First, we considered the very high levels of toxic constituents present in the waste and in test leachate (which is one of the criterion cited in 261.11( a)( 3)( ii)). The levels of antimony and arsenic are quite high. The antimony level exceeds 10% in the waste (up to 127,000 mg/ kg), and the SPLP antimony concentration exceeds the drinking water HBL by a factor of >35,000. Another key factor is the lack of any appreciable degradation expected for these metals (a constituent's degradation or persistence is also a criterion for listing given in 261.11( a)( 3)). Unlike some organic compounds, metals such as antimony will not degrade over time. Thus, even if the loss in effectiveness of a liner system only occurs over the very long term, the metals would still be present for leaching. It is difficult to assess the impact of the long­ term effectiveness of the liner system in question for today's proposal. However, we note that the effectiveness of the liner system would have to be sufficient to reduce the antimony concentration at the well by close to 90% in order to keep the risks below an HQ of 1. Therefore, given the reasons cited above, we propose to list these slags as hazardous: K177 Slag from the production of antimony oxide that is disposed of or speculatively accumulated. It is important to note that this listing has been developed to capture only those wastes that are not recycled. Thus, this listing, as proposed, would not apply to generators that recycle or reclaim this material as long as it is not speculatively accumulated. If slags have been speculatively accumulated (i. e., held for more than a calendar year without recycling) at the time of the effective date of this final rule, these slags would meet the listing immediately. 26 We also propose to add antimony to Appendix VII to Part 261, which designates the hazardous constituents for which K177 would be listed. (2) Baghouse filters. How Are These Wastes Currently Managed? These filters capture product or offspecification product. Two facilities place antimony laden baghouse filters in their on­ site production furnaces. One of these facilities also sends a portion of its baghouse filters to Mexico for antimony recovery. Two other facilities dispose of these wastes in a nonhazardous waste incinerator and an industrial Subtitle D landfill. None of these wastes are handled as hazardous, although our sampling efforts showed this waste to exhibit the toxicity characteristic for lead and arsenic. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? We collected a total of three samples of this waste category from two facilities. At one facility we collected one sample of the `` oxidation furnace'' baghouse filters (AC± 1± AO± 03) and one sample of the `` reduction furnace'' baghouse filters (AC± 1± AO± 07). At the other facility, we collected a sample of the baghouse associated with its kiln (LI± 1± AO± 03). Because the facilities sampled represented the range of production practices within the industry, we believe these samples are representative of all of the baghouse filters generated by this industry. We conducted total, TCLP and SPLP analyses of these baghouse filters. The analytical results for the constituents found to be present in the leachates at levels exceeding the HBLs are presented in Table III± 4. Two of the three samples of the waste, one from each facility that generate this waste, exceed the toxicity characteristic for either lead or arsenic. (The third sample exhibits TCLP lead levels close to the TC standard). TABLE III± 4.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF BAGHOUSE FILTERS FROM ANTIMONY OXIDE PRODUCTION (MG/ KG OR MG/ L) Constituent of Concern LI± 1± AO± 03 AC± 1± AC± 03 AC± 1± AO± 07 HBL TC 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 Waste? We propose to list the baghouse filters waste because our data show it routinely exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste (i. e., TC lead or arsenic), yet the generators do not identify their wastes as exhibiting the toxicity characteristic and the generators that dispose of this waste do not comply with Subtitle C regulations. We propose to list this waste under the 261.11( a)( 1) criteria: K176 Baghouse filters from the production of antimony oxide (E). Because we believe we have sufficient reason to list this waste under 261.11( a)( 1) based on the TC exceedences and lack of compliance with hazardous waste regulation, we chose to conserve our time and resources and did not conduct formal risk assessment modeling of the off­ site landfill scenario, as we would traditionally do to support a 261.11( a)( 3) listing. Such modeling would reflect reported management practices. Antimony is not a TC constituent and, therefore, was not considered in the 261.11( a)( 1) listing decision. However, antimony levels are high and would likely result in risk if modeled. Leach results for the waste exceed the HBLs by VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55705 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 27 As noted above, these filters capture product materials. EPA does not regulate reclamation of these products. See 50 FR 14216, April 11, 1985: `` Under the final rules, commercial chemical products and intermediates, off­ specification variants, spill residues, and container residues listed in 40 CFR 261.33 are not considered solid wastes when recycled except when they are recycled in ways that differ from their normal useÐ namely, when they are burned for energy recovery or used to produce a fuel'' 28 Since, as explained below, we find no significant risks from the larger volume wastes we assessed, we conclude that any low volume wastes from this third facility also would not pose any risks warranting listing. a wide margin, e. g., the SPLP results for antimony are up to 48,000 times the HBL. The high levels of antimony in the waste (up to 15%) would provide a long­ term source of the metal for leaching into the groundwater. Thus, we expect that modeling an off­ site Subtitle D scenario would yield significant drinking water risk. Note that, when facilities process the antimony oxide product captured in these filters by reinserting the productcontaining filters back into the furnace where the antimony oxide originated, without reclamation, these materials would not be solid wastes. 27 We also propose to add arsenic and lead to Appendix VII to Part 261, which designates the hazardous constituents for which K176 would be listed. The `` mixture'' rule for listed wastes currently provides an exemption for wastes listed solely because they exhibit characteristics (see 40 CFR 261.3( a)( 2)( iii)). Mixtures of such listed wastes lose their listed waste status when they cease to exhibit characteristics for which they were listed. (However, they would still need to comply with Land Disposal Restriction requirements.) In the both of the last two Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) proposals (60 FR 66344, December 21, 1995) and (64 FR 63382, November 19, 1999), we proposed to narrow the exemption to only include wastes listed for ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity. This narrowing would make any waste listed for the toxicity characteristic (TC) (including the waste proposed today for listing under the (a)( 1) criteria) ineligible for the current exemption. In other words, under current mixture rule regulations, mixtures containing these baghouse filters would become nonhazardous wastes once they ceased exhibiting the characteristic. Under the HWIR proposal, however, such mixtures would remain hazardous wastes even after they cease to exhibit the TC. As we state in the TC rule, chemicals can still pose hazardous at levels below the TC (see 55 FR 11799, March 29, 1990). Under an amended consent decree (Environmental Technology Council v. Browner, C. A. No. 94± 2119 (TFH), April 11, 1997), EPA is required to sign a notice taking final action with respect to the proposed revisions to the mixture rule by April 30, 2001. (3) Empty supersacks. One facility ships crude antimony oxide in supersacks and then reuses them to store intermediate materials until they wear out. The facility then sends these empty supersacks either to an off­ site industrial Subtitle D landfill or to an offsite plastic recycler. The facility claims that the supersacks are empty and would meet the standard in 40 CFR 261.7 (which exempts `` empty'' containers formerly used to manage hazardous waste). Although 40 CFR 261.7 does not literally apply to these sacks, we think it is reasonable to take a similar approach here. We believe that the levels of crude antimony oxide in worn­ out supersacks would be low because the material is the primary feedstock (raw material) used in this process. We do not believe it follows that these supersacks should be regulated, when other similarly empty containers would be exempt. Therefore, we propose not to list this waste as hazardous. 2. Barium Carbonate a. Summary. We have evaluated the wastes, waste management practices, and potential risk exposure pathways associated with the barium carbonate production processes and propose not to list any wastes from this industry as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA. Some wastes in this industry are D002 or D005 characteristic hazardous wastes, which are both currently subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulation and managed in compliance with those regulations. For other wastes, not identified as characteristic hazardous wastes, we have identified no risks of concern associated with the current management of these wastes that would warrant listing. These wastes do not meet the criteria listed under 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) for listing a waste as hazardous. b. How is barium carbonate produced? There are two facilities in the United States that produce significant quantities of barium carbonate. A Georgia facility produces barium carbonate for commercial sale. A Pennsylvania facility produces barium carbonate only for use as a feedstock in its own internal manufacturing processes. A third facility is a specialty manufacturer that produces extremely small amounts of barium carbonate (approximately 10 kg in 1998). 28 For more detailed information concerning this industry, see `` Barium Carbonate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' in the docket for today's proposal. Barium carbonate (BaCO3) has a wide range of uses, including feedstock for production of other barium chemicals, an additive in various glasses, ceramics, bricks, and other construction materials, an additive in oil­ drilling suspensions, and a brine purification chemical in the chlor­ alkali industry. The two primary barium carbonate production facilities use different manufacturing processes to make barium carbonate. The Georgia facility uses locally mined barite ore, containing barium in the form of barium sulfate, as the primary feedstock. The ore is crushed and milled, thermally reduced in a roasting kiln, and leached with water to dissolve the barium. The resulting barium sulfide solution is filtered and reacted with carbon dioxide gas to produce a barium carbonate precipitate. This precipitate is then dried, and sized for sale. The Pennsylvania facility uses a commercially purchased high purity barium chloride solid as the primary feedstock. The facility dissolves the barium chloride in water, heats and filters the resulting solution, and precipitates barium carbonate by reacting the barium chloride solution with ammonium bicarbonate. The resulting barium carbonate precipitate is washed, filtered, dried and sized before the facility utilizes it as a feedstock in other manufacturing processes on­ site. c. What wastes are generated? Table III± 5 below briefly lists the facilityreported residuals from the barium carbonate manufacturing processes, residual volumes generated in 1998, reported RCRA hazard codes, and residual management practices. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55706 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 29 Note that primary barite ore has wide use in drilling muds for the petroleum industry and numerous other industrial uses, including use as feedstock for barium chemicals; see `` Barite'' U. S. Geological SurveyÐ Minerals Information, 1997, http:// minerals. usgs. gov/ minerals/ pubs/ commodity/ barite/ index. htm. TABLE III± 5.Ð BARIUM CARBONATE PRODUCTION WASTES Waste category 1998 volume (MT) Reported RCRA hazard codes Sequential residual management practices Barite Ore Feedstock ProcessÐ Georgia Facility Treated barium wastes (D005 barium wastes include barite ore leaching waste, barium sulfide filtration sludge, and barium carbonate production area cleaning and maintenance wastes). 18,300 ................... None (D005 prior to treatment). Disposal in local, captive, industrial Subtitle D landfill (after treatment of D005 wastes in onsite Subtitle C treatment unit). Wastewater from BaCO 3 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 baghouse dust collector bags. 3 (filter media) ....... ~1.5 (baghouse bags). None ...................... (1) Washed and washwaters re­ inserted to barium carbonate production process. Solids managed as barium carbonate production area cleaning and maintenance wastes. (2) Treated materials disposed in off­ site municipal Subtitle D landfill. High Purity Barium Chloride Feedstock ProcessÐ Pennsylvania Facility Ammonia vapor scrubber water and ammonia reclamation unit wastewaters. Not reported .......... D002 ...................... Treatment in on­ site, tank­ based WWTP. 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 landfill Ammoniated spent process solution storage tank solids. 1 ............................ None ...................... Disposal in off­ site municipal Subtitle D landfill. Sludge and spent filter media from filtration of barium chloride solution and BaCO3 drying and sizing unit dusts. <1.23 ..................... D005 ...................... (1) Stored in closed container; (2) Sent to off­ site Subtitle C facility for treatment and disposal. In addition to these wastes, the two barium carbonate manufacturing facilities also produce other materials which are either piped directly back to the production process or are used for other purposes. Residues from the barite ore feedstock production process, ore crusher/ grinder, kiln, barium carbonate drier, granulation and packaging processes are directly returned to their unit of origin with no significant pathways for exposure of these materials to the environment prior to reuse. Barium carbonate production area cleaning and maintenance wastewaters are also re­ inserted to the barium carbonate production process with no significant pathways for exposure of these materials to the environment prior to reuse. Because these materials are managed prior to reuse in ways that present low potential for release, and because we evaluated all wastes generated after they are reinserted into the process, we do not believe that these secondary materials present significant threats. The barite ore feedstock facility also produces molten sulfur or sodium hyposulfate from hydrogen sulfide gas piped from the barium carbonate manufacturing process. Because the material is a gas from a production unit, rather than from a waste management unit, and is conveyed to its destination through piping, the gas is not a solid waste. RCRA Section 1004( 27) excludes non­ contained gases from the definition of solid waste, and therefore they cannot be considered a hazardous waste (see 54 FR 50973). The facility using barium chloride as its feedstock reclaims ammonia in the form of ammonium hydroxide from barium carbonate production wastes and uses this material throughout the facility as a feedstock and reagent. Spent ammoniated process solution is piped from the process unit where it forms to a storage tank where it is commingled with ammoniated spent process solutions from several other on­ site manufacturing processes. The ammoniated spent process solutions from these other manufacturing processes are beyond the scope of this listing determination. From the storage tank, the facility pipes the commingled ammoniated spent process solutions to an ammonia reclamation unit which reclaims the ammonia in the form of ammonium hydroxide. Ammonium hydroxide is used on­ site in various manufacturing processes, including the production of ammonium bicarbonate solution for use in the barium carbonate production process. Because the spent solution is piped to the reclamation unit with no significant potential for exposure to the environment, we did not evaluate the solution further. Both facilities produce barium carbonate from a saleable mineral product. 29 Under the Bevill exemption (54 FR 36620± 21), chemical manufacturing begins if there is any further processing of a saleable mineral product. Since these facilities use saleable mineral products as feedstock, their processes are chemical manufacturing, and are not classified as mineral processing. Therefore none of the wastestreams generated by these facilities during the production of barium carbonate are Bevill exempt. See the `` Barium Carbonate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' for more details on these residuals. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55707 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules d. Waste characterization and Agency evaluation. Barium is the primary constituent of potential concern in the wastes from both facilities. Barium occurs in several production wastes at high levels, in some cases exceeding the TC level (100 mg/ L) in TCLP leachate samples. These TC wastes are coded and treated as hazardous (D005). The Georgia facility holds a hazardous waste treatment permit to allow on­ site stabilization of barium, and the Pennsylvania facility sends all of their D005 wastes off­ site for treatment and disposal at a hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility. We decided not to do characterization sampling for wastes from either facility because both facilities submitted information to us on the nature of their wastes. We also received some additional analytical data from the State of Georgia for the Georgia facility. These data provided information on the concentrations (or absence) of the metal constituents of potential concern in the wastes and in test leachates from the wastes. We believe the available information is sufficient to adequately characterize the wastes and to allow us to evaluate their risk potential for the purposes of a listing decision. `` Barium Carbonate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' summarizes the analytical data and other information available for these wastes. We propose not to list any of the wastes from the barium carbonate manufacturing industry. Many wastes from this industry are characteristically hazardous and managed as hazardous wastes either on­ site or at permitted Subtitle C treatment facilities off­ site. Other wastes did not exhibit constituents at levels of concern for purposes of a listing given the nature of their management and disposal. Several groups of wastes from each of the facilities are disposed of in a treated form, rather than an as­ generated form. In general, therefore, we focused our evaluation on the treated form of the wastes. The paragraphs below describe how the wastes are generated and managed for the two processes and our rationale for proposing not to list the wastes. We solicit comments on the proposed listing decisions described below. (1) Wastes from the production of barium carbonate from barite ore feedstock. (a) Treated barium wastes. The waste category, `` treated barium wastes, '' is the treatment residue from the commingling and treatment of several barium wastes in an on­ site hazardous waste treatment unit. The barium wastes, which are consistently characteristically hazardous for barium (D005) before treatment (or are consistently assumed by the facility to be D005 wastes), include: ÐBarite ore leaching waste, which is solids from the filtration of the liquid product stream from the barite ore roasting and leaching units, ÐBarium sulfide sludge, which is from polishing filtration of liquid barium sulfide, and, ÐWastes from cleaning and maintenance of the barium carbonate production area. A RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste treatment facility permit governs the onsite treatment process for these barium wastes. The three wastes are sent directly to the treatment unit, or they are stored prior to treatment for short time periods in Subtitle C closed containers. The treatment process is a stabilization process for barium using gypsum (primarily calcium sulfate) to precipitate soluble barium as less soluble barium sulfate. According to RCRA Subtitle C regulations, the treated barium waste must meet the LDR UTS. Treatment takes place in concrete mixer­ type trucks. Once treatment is complete, the treatment trucks immediately transport the waste to the facility's captive Subtitle D landfill for disposal, located approximately 2 miles from the production facility on facilityowned property. State and facility information indicate that the treated barium wastes no longer exceed the TC level for barium (100 mg/ L from TCLP analysis) and typically leach less than 1 mg/ L barium, according to both SPLP and TCLP analyses. In addition, according to data the facility and the state of Georgia submitted to EPA from sampling events conducted during the past two years at the facility, the waste meets the LDR UTS for all regulated constituents. The treated barium wastes are disposed of in the landfill without daily cover. However, the waste has a relatively high moisture content (approximately 50%) when placed in the landfill and, according to the facility, hardens over time and does not create dust. In addition, the waste does not contain any known volatile constituents of concern. To assess the potential for groundwater releases from the captive, industrial landfill, we compared the SPLP leaching data from the facility and the state of Georgia to existing HBLs for ingestion of groundwater. SPLP data are appropriate for evaluating this waste because it is placed in a Subtitle D industrial landfill. We did not find any constituents in the available SPLP data that exceeded the health­ based levels by more than a factor of 2 (see section III. E. 3 for a discussion of this riskscreening criterion). See the `` Barium Carbonate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' for further details on the available data. In addition, we found only one exceedence of AWQC standards among the SPLP leaching data for treated barium wastes. Selenium was found at a level of 0.04± 0.06 mg/ L, which exceeds the AWQC standard (0.0050 mg/ L) by a factor of 8 to 12. However, the landfill in which the treated barium wastes are placed is 1,700 feet from the nearest downgradient water body, the Etowah River, and also lies beyond the river's 100 year flood plain. In recent years, the Etowah River in the vicinity of the landfill has had a flow rate varying between 9.9 to 230 m 3 per second on a daily basis. Given the distance over which leachate from the treated barium wastes would need to travel before reaching the river, dilution and attenuation during transport in local groundwater, and further dilution in the Etowah River, we believe the levels of selenium in the leachate would decrease to a level which would no longer pose a risk to the environment. We do not believe it is necessary to assess other management practices for the treated barium wastes. The facility has treated and disposed of their treatment residues in a similar manner for over 15 years. The production facility itself relies on a local source of barite ore, has operated from its current location since 1942 and is therefore not likely to change its location in the near future. The dedicated landfill has a remaining life of nearly 20 years and is located approximately 2 miles from the production facility. Given the dedicated nature of the landfill, its proximity to the production facility, and the significant remaining capacity, we believe it is unlikely that the Georgia facility will dispose of their wastes in any other unit in the near future. Thus there is no need to assess additional management scenarios for this wastestream. Given the facility's Subtitle C waste treatment permit, we believe that the facility's untreated D005 wastes are adequately managed with respect to this rulemaking. In addition, we have found no potential for releases to air, groundwater, or surface water at levels of concern from the treated wastes. Therefore we propose not to list these wastes. (b) Wastewater from barium carbonate precipitate dewatering. The facility filters barium carbonate precipitate from VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55708 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules residual process solutions and sends this filtrate to the facility's tank­ based wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for treatment. According to the facility's RCRA Section 3007 Survey response, the wastewater does not exceed the TC level for any constituent. Wastewater from the barium carbonate production process commingle in the WWTP with wastewaters from other facility processes beyond the scope of this rulemaking and comprise approximately 17% of the total WWTP flow­ through. The wastewater treatment is an oxidation process. Treatment of the wastewaters occurs in tanks equipped with secondary containment. Given the controlled manner in which the wastewater is managed in tanks, the lack of any volatile constituents of concern, and NPDES regulation of the WWTP effluent, we propose not to list this wastewater. (c) Treated wastewater treatment plant sludge. The facility's WWTP generates a treatment sludge from the commingling and treatment of wastewaters discussed above in the preceding section. The resulting sludge is dewatered to 25% solids content in an uncovered tank. None of the information the facility provided on this waste indicates the presence of volatile constituents of concern. The facility places the dewatered WWTP sludge directly from the WWTP unit into a treatment unit consisting of a concrete mixer­ type truck containing gypsum (primarily calcium sulfate). The truck mixes the wastewater treatment sludge with the gypsum to convert soluble barium to a less soluble barium sulfate prior to transporting the waste to the facility's off­ site, captive, Subtitle D landfill. We found low potential for releases from either the dewatering tank or the treatment unit. Analytical data from the state shows that the treatment process reduced leachable barium in the sludge, according to SPLP analysis, from 53 mg/ L to 0.03 mg/ L. SPLP analytical data from the State also show no potential constituents of concern in treated WWTP sludge samples at concentrations above HBLs or above AWQCs. Therefore, this waste screened out from any further risk evaluation for groundwater or surface water. The SPLP data are appropriate for evaluating this waste because it is placed in a Subtitle D industrial landfill. Similar to the treated barium wastes described above in section (a), the waste has a high moisture content when placed in the landfill and is reported by the facility to harden over time. Therefore, we do not believe this waste poses a significant risk through releases of airborne dust. In addition, the waste does not contain any known volatile constituents of concern. We do not believe it is necessary to assess other management practices for this waste. The facility has treated and disposed of their wastewater treatment plant sludge in a similar manner for over 15 years. Given the dedicated nature of the landfill, its proximity to the production facility, and the significant remaining capacity, we believe it is unlikely that the facility will dispose of their wastes in any other facility in the foreseeable future. Based on our knowledge of the current nature of the management of the treated wastewater treatment plant sludge and of the low level of constituents of concern it contains, including volatile constituents, we propose not to list the treated wastewater treatment plant sludge. (d) Spent polypropylene and nylon filter media and baghouse dust collector bags. Baghouse dust collector bags and polypropylene and nylon filter media fabric at the Georgia facility deteriorate over time and must be replaced periodically. The facility washes the bags and filters with water and then soaks them in sulfate solution to stabilize any remaining barium. The facility then disposes of the bags and filter fabric in a local municipal Subtitle D landfill. Wastewaters from the washing of the filters and bags are returned to the production process. Solids from the washing of the filters and bags become part of the cleaning and maintenance wastes that are treated as discussed above in section (a). The facility did not provide chemical composition analyses for these wastes. However, we do not expect either baghouse bags or nylon and polypropylene filter fabrics, which are used primarily for physical separation of solids from liquids in the barium carbonate production process, to contain notable levels of any potential constituent of concern besides barium. According to the facility, neither the bags nor the filters exceed the TC level for any constituent. In addition, the facility treats the materials to stabilize any remaining barium before disposing of them in a Subtitle D municipal solid waste landfill. The facility does not produce a large volume of these wastes; approximately 3 metric tons per year of filters and approximately 1.5 metric tons per year of baghouse bags. Because barium is not volatile, and because we do not expect the filter media and bags to contain any other volatile constituents, we do not believe these residuals pose any risk through airborne pathways. Given the relatively small volume of these wastes, the inert nature of the filters and bags themselves, and the facility's washing and stabilization of barium prior to disposal, we believe these treated bag wastes do not warrant listing as hazardous wastes. (2) Wastes from the production of barium carbonate from high purity barium chloride feedstock. (a) Barium carbonate production wastewaters and wastewater treatment plant sludge. The Pennsylvania facility commingles and treats wastewaters from several manufacturing processes at their facility in an on­ site, tank­ based WWTP. Wastewaters from the barium carbonate production process are piped directly to the WWTP and comprise less than 1% of total WWTP flow through; the remainder of the wastewaters entering the WWTP are from manufacturing processes not within the scope of this listing determination. Wastewaters from the barium carbonate production process include: ÐAmmonia vapor scrubber waters and ammonia reclamation unit wastewater. ÐBarium carbonate precipitate washwater. A scrubber captures ammonia vapor from the mixing of ammonium bicarbonate solution with the barium chloride solution to precipitate barium carbonate. Water, sodium hydroxide, and emissions from other manufacturing processes in the facility mix with the ammonia vapor in the scrubber to produce this wastestream. An ammonia reclamation unit recovers ammonia from ammoniated spent process solutions from multiple manufacturing processes, including the barium carbonate manufacturing process, in the form of 28% ammonium hydroxide solution. The unit also produces a wastewater. Approximately 1% of the total ammonia reclamation unit inflow derives from the barium carbonate production process. Therefore, a small percentage of the unit's wastewater derives from barium carbonate production. The facility also produces a wastewater from the washing of barium carbonate precipitate with deionized water in order to remove any process solution remaining on the precipitate. The only possible release route of concern from the tank­ based system for the wastewaters would be through air releases. This pathway is highly unlikely for the nonvolatile metals that are the potential constituents of concern in these wastes. Given the controlled manner in which the wastewaters are managed and the regulation of the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55709 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30 The Agency has previously evaluated the Bevill status of wastestreams at the Searles Lake facility; see memos dated February 14, 1992 and June 30, 1993 in Appendix E of the `` Boric Acid Background Continued treatment unit's discharge under the NPDES program, we propose not to list these wastewaters. Treatment of the commingled wastewaters consists of neutralization followed by filtration. The treatment generates a sludge. According to the facility's RCRA Section 3007 Survey response, the sludge does not exceed the TC level for any constituent. The facility disposes of the sludge in a local Subtitle D municipal solid waste landfill. We do note the presence of some potential constituents of concern in the WWTP sludge. These constituents include vanadium, nickel, and antimony. However, we do not believe that these constituents derive from the barium carbonate manufacturing process. Because the barium carbonate production process wastewaters contribute less than 1% of the total input to the on­ site WWTP, any constituents in the barium carbonate production wastewaters sent to the WWTP also make a minimal contribution to the total level of constituents in the combined wastewater in the WWTP and the resulting sludge. In addition, the process uses high purity barium chloride dissolved in deionized water as its primary feedstock and reclaims much of the residual ammonia from its ammonium bicarbonate feedstock. Therefore, the likelihood that the constituents of concern in the sludge might arise from the barium carbonate production process is very low. Moreover, the facility has provided information to us indicating that the barium carbonate process is not the source of these potential constituents of concern and that they derive instead from on­ site manufacturing processes beyond the scope of today's listing proposal (see `` Barium Carbonate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' for further details). Given the minimal potential for contribution of constituents of concern by the barium carbonate process wastewaters to the WWTP sludge, we propose not to list this sludge under this rulemaking effort. (b) Ammoniated spent process solution storage tank solids. The facility pipes residual process solution containing ammonia directly from the barium carbonate precipitate settling unit to covered storage tanks prior to routing it through an on­ site ammonia reclamation unit. The barium carbonate process wastewater is one of many ammoniated residual process solutions the facility routes to the storage tanks and constitutes approximately 1% of the unit's total input. The ammoniated spent process solution storage tank accumulates solids which the facility removes and disposes of in a local Subtitle D municipal solid waste landfill on a yearly basis. The tank solids are a small volume waste of 1 MT/ yr. According to analytical data provided by the facility, the solids do not exceed the TC level for any constituent, though they do contain vanadium, nickel, and antimony at levels of potential concern. However, as noted for the wastewater treatment plant sludge, the constituents of concern in the solids are unlikely to arise from the barium carbonate production process because the barium carbonate production process contributes only 1% of the total wastewaters in the storage tanks. In addition, information the facility provided indicates that the nickel, vanadium and antimony found in the sludge derive from other manufacturing processes that are beyond the scope of this listing determination. Thus, given the solids' small volume and the low likelihood that the barium carbonate process wastewater contributes any constituents of concern, we propose not to list the ammoniated spent process solution tank solids in this listing determination. (c) Sludge and spent filter media from filtration of barium chloride solution and barium carbonate drying and sizing unit air pollution control residues. Both the air pollution control dusts from the barium carbonate drying and sizing unit and sludge and the spent filter materials from barium chloride solution filtration exceed the TC regulatory level for barium (100 mg/ L). The facility codes the waste as characteristic hazardous waste (D005). The facility stores these small volume wastes in closed containers on­ site before sending them to a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility for treatment and disposal. We believe that the containers present no significant potential for release to the environment. We believe that regulations applying to characteristic wastes adequately protect against mismanagement. Furthermore, these wastes comprise a very small volume (< 1.23 metric tons per year). Thus, we propose not to list these wastes. 3. Boric Acid a. Summary. We have evaluated the wastes from the production of boric acid and propose not to list any wastes from this process as hazardous under RCRA. These wastes do not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) for listing wastes as hazardous. They do not pose a substantial present or potential threat to human health or the environment. We have identified no risks of concern associated with the current management of the wastes. b. Description of the boric acid industry. Boric acid was produced by two facilities in the United States in 1998. These two facilities are both located in the Mojave Desert in California, one of the few areas where borate minerals can be mined in the United States. The two facilities mine borates from different sources to produce boric acid. The first recovers borate from brines pumped from beneath Searles Dry Lake, California. The second facility mines sodium borate ores near Boron, California. The first facility extracts highly mineralized brine and uses a liquidliquid extraction process to remove the borates from the brine. During the first production step, called the `` loading section, '' the facility mixes the brine with a chelating agent in a kerosene solution that causes most of the boron and some of the sodium and potassium compounds in the brine to bind to the extractant. The loaded extractant is sent through strippers where it is mixed with dilute sulfuric acid to strip the boron, sodium and potassium from the extractant to form boric acid, sodium sulfate and potassium sulfate. The solution is then sent to a solution settler from which the liquor goes to boric acid recovery using crystallization and evaporation techniques. The second facility mines sodium borate kernite ore to produce boric acid through a process of dissolution, classification, thickening, filtration and crystallization. Because the facilities use such different sources and production processes, their resulting wastes are very different and are discussed separately. For more detailed information concerning this industry, see the `` Boric Acid Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' in the docket for today's proposal. c. Agency evaluation of wastes generated by the brine recovery process. Are There Any Wastes in This Process That Fall Under the Bevill Exemption? The depleted brine from the loading section of the brine recovery process is exempt as a mineral processing beneficiation waste under 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7)( i). 30 This waste from the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55710 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' in the docket. extraction/ beneficiation of ores and minerals is thus outside the scope of the consent decree. The facility reported generating 4,600,000 MT in 1998. This Bevill exempt waste is commingled with wastes which do not qualify for the Bevill exclusion later in the process. The portion of the waste which does not qualify for the Bevill exclusion is within the scope of the consent decree and is discussed below. As discussed in the Agency's prior Bevill evaluations for this facility, mineral processing begins at the liquidliquid extraction step where sulfuric acid is added to the loaded extractant to produce sodium sulfate and boric acid. Wastes generated before this step, including spent brine, are beneficiation wastes and retain their Bevill exemption. All wastes generated after the beginning of mineral processing are non­ exempt solid wastes. Therefore, all of the wastes at this facility which are generated from the liquid extraction step to the end of the process are all non'exempt solid wastes. See the `` Boric Acid Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' in the docket for more information on the Bevill exemption for wastes at this facility. What Kinds of Wastes Are Generated by the Brine Recovery Process? The Bevill exempt depleted brine from the loading section is sent through an API settler and Wemco floatation cells designed to separate organic compounds from the brine. The organic emulsions generated in these units and in the process settlers are sent to an onsite `` crud'' treatment facility which breaks down the emulsion into aqueous and organic components. This treatment process generates a non­ exempt hydrocarbon waste (fuel oil) that is sent off­ site to a used oil refinery. The Bevill exempt brine is sent to the `` Trona skimmer'' where it is combined with other non­ exempt wastewaters generated during the process. The Trona skimmer acts as a settling pond promoting phase separation of remaining organic materials in the brine. The Bevill exempt brine is then returned to the dry lake for recharging as required by the facility's Bureau of Land Management permit. Because the non­ exempt wastewaters are commingled with the Bevill exempt brine in the Trona skimmer, the nonexempt wastewaters are also returned to the dry lake as a small percentage of the overall volume. The non­ exempt organic waste removed at the Trona skimmer is stored on­ site in a tank until it is shipped off­ site to a commercial blender and subsequently burned for energy recovery. Additional wastes generated by the brine recovery process that are not Bevill exempt include: ÐPetroleum contaminated sludges from containment areas around the API settler, Wemco floatation cells, loading section and liquid­ liquid extraction (LLX) strippers ÐSpent activated carbon collected from the carbon filter system used to purify the borate liquor before it goes into the crystallization units In addition to the above wastes, the facility also produces other materials during the production of boric acid that are either piped directly back to the production process or used for other purposes. These materials include aqueous residuals and kerosene recovered from the crud treatment process, off­ specification product, scrubber water and condensate that are returned to on­ site production units for use. Because these materials are reused on­ site in production units and there is no significant potential for exposure of these materials to the environment prior to reuse, we found that they present no significant threat. Also, off­ specification product, when reinserted without reclamation into the process where it originated, is not a solid waste. How Are the Wastes From the Brine Recovery Process Currently Managed? Table III± 6 summarizes our information about the wastes from this process: TABLE III.± 6.Ð BORIC 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 brine volume is 4.6 million MT). (1) Combined wastewaters; discharged to Trona skimmer with the Bevill exempt partially 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 Subtitle 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. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55711 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 31 Based on the RfD in IRIS (2E± 1 mg/ kg­ day) and a 90th percentile drinking water intake rate in children (64 mL/ Kg/ day). What Is EPA's Decision About Whether to List These Wastes as Hazardous? We propose not to list any wastes from the brine recovery process for the production of boric acid. Our rationale for each waste is presented below. (1) Fuel oil from the crud treatment facility. We propose not to list the fuel oil generated at the crud treatment facility. The facility characterized the fuel oil as 100 percent hydrocarbons. The fuel oil is stored on­ site in a covered tank prior to being shipped offsite to a Subtitle C permitted used oil refinery. For those scenarios where wastes are managed in a tank, the impervious nature of the construction materials (concrete, fiberglass, or steel) of tanks is unlikely to result in releases to groundwater in all but the most catastrophic scenarios. We also are not concerned with potential air releases because the tank is covered. The subsequent treatment at the permitted used oil refinery is already regulated under Subtitle C and the used oil regulations. Therefore, we propose not to list this waste. (2) Miscellaneous wastewaters. We propose not to list the miscellaneous wastewaters. We evaluated the potential for an exposure pathway via groundwater ingestion and determined that no such pathway exists. The facility producing boric acid by recovering borates mined from Searles Dry Lake is located in California's Mojave Desert. The process and associated wastewaters are tied to the Mojave Desert location because it is the source of the borate rich brine. The environment is arid with only 4 inches of precipitation annually. The groundwater under the facility has total dissolved solids (TDS) levels as high as 450,000 ppm. All wastewaters, including the Bevill exempt depleted brine, are co­ managed and ultimately returned to the dry lake resource. Due to the extremely high TDS levels in the area, the water is non­ potable. The surrounding communities have drinking water piped in from 25 miles away. Therefore, no groundwater exposure pathway exists. Furthermore, the total volume of the miscellaneous wastewaters is 4 percent of the volume of the depleted brine; any contaminants in these wastewaters would therefore be diluted by a factor of 25 prior to return to the dry lakebed. Most of the miscellaneous wastewaters are generated in the later part of the process and thus we do not expect they will contain constituents of concern at significant levels. There is one wastewater that contains organic constituents not found in the influent brine (formaldehyde and fuel hydrocarbons). This wastewater is generated at the carbon column. However, it only represents 0.03 percent of the total volume that is returned to the dry lake. Also, the reported level of formaldehyde in the waste would be well below the HBL for this chemical (3 mg/ L) 31 after mixing with other wastewaters. We are not concerned with potential air releases because the Trona skimmer, where the wastes are mixed, is covered. The facility also mixes a characteristic (D002) HCl acid waste stream with the Bevill exempt depleted brine prior to reaching the Trona skimmer. The resultant mixture is not characteristic and the mixing takes place within a pipeline where there is no opportunity for exposure to the characteristic waste before or during the mixing. Given the factors listed above, particularly the lack of an exposure pathway, we propose not to list the miscellaneous wastewaters. (3) Organics from the Trona skimmer. We propose not to list the organics (chlorinated hydrocarbons) recovered from the Trona skimmer. The organics are stored in a covered tank before being shipped off­ site. For those scenarios where wastes are managed in a tank, the impervious nature of the construction materials (concrete, fiberglass, or steel) of tanks is unlikely to result in releases to groundwater in all but the most catastrophic scenarios. We also are not concerned with potential air releases because both the Trona skimmer and tank are covered. The waste is shipped off­ site to a Subtitle C permitted blender prior to being burned for energy recovery in cement kilns. Burning by cement kilns is regulated under MACT standards for cement kilns (64 FR 31989, June 14, 1999 and 64 FR 52827, September 30, 1999). Therefore, we did not further evaluate potential risks from burning the organics under this listing. The facility reported a California­ only hazardous waste code CA343 (organic liquids, unspecified) for the waste but did not report any federal characteristic codes. The facility manifests the waste using the California code when they send it to the blender. Because this waste has significant BTU value and also carries a state hazardous waste code, we expect this management practice to continue; we do not believe there would be any significant benefit to the environment by listing this waste. (4) Sludges from containment areas. We propose not to list the sludges collected from containment areas around the process tanks, the loading section, LLX strippers, Wemco flotation cells and API settlers. The facility reported a California­ only hazardous waste code CA611 (petroleum contaminated soils) for the waste but did not report any federal characteristic codes. The facility stores the waste onsite in drums, transfers to it to 20 cubic yard roll­ off bins and mixes the sludge with soil, and then ships the waste offsite with a manifest as a California­ only hazardous waste to a Subtitle C landfill. The facility is tied to its location in California so we believe it is plausible that the waste will always be treated as a California­ only hazardous waste. We do not believe there would be any significant benefit to the environment by listing this waste. (5) Spent activated carbon. We propose not to list the carbon that is regenerated on­ site. The carbon is regenerated in an on­ site furnace. The carbon filtration process occurs later in the process after much of the organic additives have settled out of the borate liquor. Consequently, we expect that the filters will not collect high concentrations of constituents of concern, except perhaps kerosene related organics. We expect any such constituents that are filtered out using carbon adsorption to be combustible. There is no potential for exposure prior to the regeneration process or during the return of the activated carbon to the carbon filter. The furnace is permitted by the State of California Air Control Board. Although the permit does not contain any requirements for emission controls, it does require annual reporting. We reviewed the emissions data and do not believe that the emissions from the furnace are of concern. The reported emission levels are significantly below the MACT standards for permitted hazardous waste incinerators (64 FR 52827, September 30, 1999). We expect the use of this furnace to continue because it is expedient to regenerate the carbon onsite and the facility is unlikely to relocate given the proximity of the mineralized brine source. Therefore, we propose not to list this waste. d. Agency evaluation of wastes generated by the kernite ore process. What Kinds of Wastes Are Generated by the Kernite ore Process? The facility generates two primary wastestreams: Tailings and gangue. The tailings include the wastewaters and fine insolubles from ore processing and boric acid production. The tailings are managed in tanks and then pumped to on­ site evaporation ponds/ surface impoundments. The boric acid gangue which includes clay, sand and other VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55712 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 32 California Water Quality Control Plan for the Lathontan Regions, revised 1991 (p. 4.6± 1) 33 Source: California Regional Water Quality Control Board permit, board order 6± 93± 17. course insolubles, is produced during the separation of solids from the borate liquor, a step the facility calls `` classification. '' The gangue is placed on a slab for drainage and then managed in on­ site waste piles with gangue produced from the other production process at the facility. The drainage from the slab is sent to the tailings ponds. The remaining wastestream is comprised of the filters from the filtration of the borate liquor to remove any remaining insoluble ore material prior to crystallization. The filter aid is washed off weekly and managed with the tailings. The spent filters are transferred to a solid waste bin in preparation for on­ site disposal in a industrial Subtitle D landfill. In addition to the above wastes, the facility also produces off­ specification product that is put directly back to the production process. Because the material is reused on­ site in production units in ways that present low potential for release, and because we evaluated process waste generated after the secondary material is reinserted into the process, we do not believe that the offspecification product presents significant risks. Note that, when facilities process off­ specification product by reinserting the offspecification product back into the process where it originated, without reclamation, the off­ specification product would not be a solid waste. The facility made beneficiation exemption claims under the Bevill amendments for the tailings and gangue wastes. Because we propose not to list these wastes, we did not review the facility's Bevill exemption claims. How Are the Wastes From the Kernite Ore Process Currently Managed? Table III± 7 summarizes our information about these wastes: TABLE III± 7.Ð BORIC ACID: KERNITE ORE PROCESS WASTES Waste category 1998 volume Sequential management practices Tailings ............................................................... Up to 750,000 gallons/ day 1 ............................. (1) Stored in tank; (2) Pumped to evaporation ponds/ surface impoundments Gangue ............................................................... Portion of 900,000 MT 2 .................................... (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 To List These Wastes as Hazardous? For the reasons set out below, we propose not to list any wastes from the kernite ore process for the production of boric acid. (1) Tailings. We propose not to list the tailings from boric acid production. The tailings are managed in a tank and then pumped to evaporation ponds. The facility provided TCLP data for the tailings. Those data show waste contains arsenic and antimony above health­ based drinking water levels. The Agency also assumed that boron was present in significant levels due to the nature of the ore. The facility provided total levels for the boron concentration in the waste. We conducted an in­ depth review of the groundwater conditions at the site and have concluded that a groundwater exposure pathway does not exist. No one is currently living near the facility boundary closest to the waste management unit areas and it is unlikely that future development will occur. The closest existing drinking water well is two miles away from the waste management units. It is a community well and is subject to all applicable drinking water standards. In addition, there are several factors described below which make contamination of this well from a potential release from the facility's evaporation ponds unlikely. The groundwater under the off­ site area of land closest to the waste management units is not suitable for use as drinking water. The ore body, which is the raw material for the process, has a localized impact on the groundwater in its vicinity. Monitoring wells in the area show that the groundwater in the geologic strata underneath the off­ site area adjacent to the waste management units has total dissolved solids (TDS) levels in excess of three times the maximum level for an aquifer to be considered a drinking water source in California. 32 Additional factors such as low flow rate and high treatment cost make the potential for a private well in that area highly unlikely. Municipalities can tap into an alternative water source through a regional pipeline and need not rely on groundwater. The geology of the area has several characteristics that reduce the potential for releases from the impoundments from reaching known drinking water sources. The transport time to groundwater for the constituents of concern appears to be significant given the depth to groundwater under the waste management units (170± 220 feet) and the affinity of these constituents to bind with soil. 33 The area under the facility has several geologic faults that act as groundwater barriers. The South Borax fault is likely to prevent any potential release from the waste management units from reaching the drinking water source for the existing community well. The fault is located just south of the waste management units, between the units and the well. In addition, the groundwater underlying the waste management units is contained in the tertiary soil layer whereas the community well draws from the quaternary layer. We believe that migration between these two layers would be limited. (The facility submitted a detailed summary of the geologic conditions at the site. This information has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. See `` Summary of Boron Operations Hydrogeology, Potential Groundwater Receptors and BAP Waste Management Parameters''). Finally, we note that the impoundments in question are designed with a triple liner and leachate collection system, making any significant release less likely over the active life of the units. Based on these factors, we do not believe there is a VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55713 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules groundwater exposure pathway from the tailings. We also assessed the potential for air releases from the tailings ponds. Because the constituents of concern from this process are nonvolatile metals, we are not concerned with releases through volatilization. Although the surface impoundments are evaporation ponds, the facility claims that there is still some level of moisture in the ponds at all times, thereby minimizing release of particulates to the air. The particulates would not likely be subject to wind blown erosion due to the moisture level of the waste. Furthermore, the closest off­ site receptors are at least two miles away from the unit. Due to dispersion, it is unlikely that any particulate releases would reach such receptors at significant levels. The facility also provided a risk assessment which assessed the air risks from the tailings ponds. Their assessment did not show any air risks from the tailings ponds even when they assumed a conservative dry down process for the unit. (The facility's air risk assessment is available in the RCRA docket for today's proposal). In summary, there are several site specific factors that need to be taken into account when evaluating risks from this waste. This is the only facility in the country producing boric acid from ore. The facility is tied to its location because it is the source of the ore. The hydrogeology of the site is such that local groundwater is not suitable for drinking water use, and any potential releases from the unit would be unlikely to migrate to any drinking water source. Furthermore, the facility is remote with the nearest receptors two miles away. Based on all of these facts, we propose not to list the tailings from the kernite ore process for the production of boric acid. (2) Gangue. We propose not to list the gangue generated during the boric acid process. Initially, the gangue is placed on a slab to drain. The drainage from the gangue is collected and managed with the tailings (we assessed the drainage as part of the tailings wastestream; see section (1) above for our listing recommendation). The drained gangue is trucked to on­ site waste piles. The gangue is wet when transported to the waste pile but most of the moisture evaporates quickly in the dry desert environment. The same geological conditions apply to the gangue waste unit as described above for the tailings waste unit. The gangue is ultimately managed as a dry waste pile and there is virtually no precipitation to cause leaching. We assumed a greater risk to groundwater would come from the tailings because there is any liquid associated with the gangue would evaporate before leaching into the subsurface. Based on our decision regarding the tailings, we did not further evaluate the risks to groundwater from the gangue. We did assess in more detail the potential for air releases from the waste pile. We do not expect releases of the nonvolatile metals from this waste. The moist gangue solids are trucked to onsite waste piles. The gangue contains enough sodium sulfate to cause the gangue piles to set up like cement when it dries, helping prevent erosion and air release of particulates from the pile. As a further check of potential air releases, we examined the potential for release of the constituent of most concern, arsenic. According to data provided by the facility, the total levels of arsenic in the gangue vary between 25 and 78 mg/ kg. We compared these total concentrations to one of the levels calculated as part of the EPA's Air Characteristic Study (530± R± 99± 019b, Aug 1999, Table 4± 3). The Study evaluated different waste management and receptor scenarios to determine waste concentrations that would remain below a specific target risk. Using the waste pile scenario at a receptor distance of 150 meters, the study showed that arsenic levels of 6,000 ppm did not cause exceedences of the target risk levels. The concentration levels in the gangue are well below this number. In addition, the location of the facility is remote with the closest residence two miles away, which is significantly beyond the 150 meter range. The Air Characteristics Study only evaluated direct risks from inhalation, not indirect risks. However, due to the desert environment where the facility is located, risks related to consumption of soil, plants or animals are highly unlikely to arise. Based on these factors, we believe that the arsenic levels in the gangue do not present unacceptable risks via the air pathway. In addition to arsenic, boron and antimony are the two other constituents of concern present in the gangue. Based on data provided by the facility, antimony is found at total concentrations ranging from 36 mg/ kg to 84 mg/ kg in the gangue. The facility estimated the boron total concentration levels to be 25,000 ppm based on average daily sampling of the gangue. Arsenic is the most toxic of the three constituents. Because the particulate releases and exposure scenario would likely be the same for all three constituents and because, as discussed above, we do not believe arsenic poses a concern, we also believe there are no unacceptable levels of risk from the antimony and boron in the gangue. After assessing possible risks from arsenic, we compared the ratios of the waste concentrations for the three constituents to the ingestion health­ based level for each constituent. This ratio for arsenic was an order of magnitude higher than the ratios for antimony and boron, indicating that the highest potential risk from ingestion would arise from the arsenic. Thus, based on the lack of significant risk for arsenic in this waste, the Agency concluded that neither antimony nor boron pose a significant air risk at this site. In addition, as mentioned above in the tailings section, the facility has conducted an air risk assessment. The document shows no significant risk from the management practices for the gangue waste pile. The facility's risk assessment is available in the docket for today's proposal. Therefore, based on all of these factors, we propose not to list the gangue from the production of boric acid using the kernite ore process. (3) Spent filters. We propose not to list the spent filters generated during the filtration step of the boric acid production process. The spent filters are stored in a solid waste bin and then managed in an on­ site industrial Subtitle D landfill. The filtration step occurs late in the process, so we expect minimal contamination. In addition, because the filters are washed weekly, the vast majority of any contaminants filtered out at this stage would be captured by the wash process and managed with the tailings (see section (1) above for listing determination on the tailings). The facility applies a daily cover at the landfill which protects against residual particulates from being released into the air. Furthermore, the quantity of spent filters is relatively small (3 MT), making it unlikely to present a significant risk in the landfill. Finally, the location of the facility is remote with the closest residence being two miles away. Therefore, we propose not to list the spent filters from the kernite ore process for the production of boric acid. 4. Cadmium Pigments a. Summary. We propose not to list any wastes from the production of cadmium pigments. All of the nonwastewater residuals consistently exhibit the toxicity characteristic for barium, cadmium, and selenium. There is only one producer, and over the past seven years the producer has drummed and shipped with manifests all its nonwastewater residuals to an off­ site Subtitle C facility for treatment to applicable LDR standards. The VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55714 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 34 USGS Minerals Information, Mineral Commodity Summary, 1996 (see http:// minerals. usgs. gov/ minerals/ pubs/ commodity/ cadmium/ 140396. txt) wastewaters are pretreated on­ site in closed tanks prior to discharge to a POTW, which is regulated under the Clean Water Act. We conclude that the existing regulatory controls adequately reduce risks, and there are no exposure pathways of concern. These wastes do not pose a substantial present or potential hazard, and thus do not meet the criteria for listing set out in 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3). b. Description of the cadmium pigments industry. One facility produced cadmium pigments in the United States in 1998 and 1999. Cadmium pigments are cadmium sulfides of variable composition, usually produced as powders but also available in other forms such as pastes and liquids. Cadmium pigments are used to provide shades of bright yellow, orange, red, and maroon. The shades depend on the ratio of cadmium and zinc to sulfides and selenium. Current uses of cadmium pigments include decorative and protective coatings for plastics, glass, ceramics, rubber and other materials. The coatings provide heat resistance to surfaces and a barrier to chemical and sunlight exposures. Cadmium pigments are produced by digesting cadmium metal in sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and water to produce a cadmium sulfate solution (liquor). Chemical reagents are added to the liquor to selectively precipitate out metals which are present as impurities. Sodium sulfide and metals (e. g., zinc, selenium) are added to the purified liquor to yield a slurry which, after filtration, is the `` greencake'', the first intermediate product from the cadmium pigments production. The greencakes are then washed, sized, and calcined. The calcined materials are ground, rewashed, filtered, dried, milled, and blended to make different shades. The use of cadmium pigments is declining. 34 Growth in the overall demand for cadmium pigments is limited to the manufacturing areas requiring use of cadmium pigments, such as the plastics industry, where no substitute is adequate. Our RCRA Section 3007 Survey results show that six out of seven facilities ceased production of cadmium pigments in recent years. The domestic demand for cadmium pigments in the next few years is likely to remain stable. A more complete discussion of this process and the industry is provided in the `` Cadmium Pigments Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' in the docket for today's proposal. b. What kinds of wastes are generated by this process?. Using the facility's survey response, we divided the wastes into two broad categories: Wastewaters and non­ wastewaters. Table III± 8 summarizes the types of wastes in each category, the characteristics of each waste, waste volume, and current management practices: TABLE III± 8.Ð CADMIUM PIGMENT PRODUCTION WASTES Waste category Reported waste codes 1998 waste volume (MT) Management practice Non­ wastewaters Miscellaneous solid wastes, including materials from dust collectors, plant cleanup, filtered pigments from the presses, and from the on­ site wastewater pretreatment process. D005 D006 D010 33.5 .................. Each waste is drummed (separately or sometimes combined) and shipped to a commercial off­ site hazardous waste treatment facility to be treated and decharacterized before placing in a Subtitle D landfill Note: D005Ð barium D006Ð cadmium D010Ð selenium Contaminated paper and cloth, including filter bags, filter cloths, filter cartridges, and dust collector bags. D005 D006 D010 9.3 Contaminated gaskets generated from the red and yellow calciners. D005 D006 D010 0.3 Iron press residue generated from digestion of cadmium metal. D005 D006 D010 4.5 Wastewaters Gas scrubber wastewater (spent caustic from scrubbing vapors generated from calcination process). Not reported ..... pH adjusted, treated to remove zinc and cadmium The resulting sludge is a part of the miscellaneous solid wastes. All these wastewaters are then combined and further treated in on­ site closed tanks for pH adjustment 2­ step filtration monitoring for turbidity prior to discharge to a POTW. Process wastewater from filtering the greencake ........ Not reported ..... pH adjusted, treated to recover cadmium. Process wastewaters from wet washing system ......... Not reported. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55715 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 35 Quarterly leachate monitoring data from March 95 to September 98, provided by Michigan's Department of Environment, Wayne County District Office and Local Office. c. Agency evaluation. After evaluating the characteristics and current management practices of all the waste residuals, we determined that: (1) all the non­ wastewater wastes are being properly treated and managed as hazardous wastes under RCRA regulations, and (2) all the wastewaters are being treated on­ site in closed tanks and discharged to a permitted POTW, where they are subject to the Clean Water Act. Therefore, we did not pursue risk assessment modeling for any of these wastes. The following are the details of our evaluation: (1) Non­ wastewaters. In its RCRA Section 3007 Survey, the facility classified all four wastes of this category as characteristic hazardous, as generated, for barium, cadmium, and selenium. The facility also provided data characterizing each non­ wastewater residual for total and TCLP concentrations of eight TC metals. Except for chromium (which was detected in the TCLP leachate of one waste below its health­ based level), no other hazardous constituents were reported. The total volume of these four wastes was 47.6 metric tons in 1998. Over the past seven years the generator has managed all its nonwastewater wastes generated from the production of cadmium pigments as TC hazardous wastes. These wastes are drummed and shipped with manifests to a commercial off­ site Subtitle C facility for treatment. The off­ site treatment includes mixing and treating the wastes with other solid wastes and the addition of lime and fly ash to meet the current LDR treatment standards (via stabilization). The resultant mixture forms a concrete­ like residue, which no longer exhibits a characteristic and is managed in a Subtitle D landfill. We believe this management, which complies with existing Subtitle C regulations, adequately protects human health and the environment. Although we generally believe that Subtitle C regulations for characteristic wastes adequately prevent mismanagement, we have additional data that help confirm our conclusion for this waste. The landfill information and leachate data provided by the local and state governments (per our request) indicate that the landfill has a liner with a leachate collection system. The landfill leachate data 35 we have to date demonstrate that constituents detected in the landfill leachates are not attributable to the cadmium pigments production wastes. The landfill information and leachate data are provided in the `` Cadmium Pigments Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' in the docket for today's proposal. We recognize that the residues from commercial treatment facilities represent the commingling of wastes from a variety of facilities and wastes. Therefore, information on the landfill leachate from treated material is of limited use. However, the data available indicate that the cadmium pigment wastes do not present a substantial hazard when disposed. Given that the generating facility has followed the reported management practice for seven years, we believe use of this or comparable treatment and disposal will continue. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for These Wastes? We propose not to list any of the four wastes in this category as hazardous because they are already managed in compliance with existing hazardous waste regulations, including full compliance with the BDAT requirements for treatment prior to land disposal. We conclude that available data on the specific cadmium pigment manufacturing wastes do not support a decision to list the wastes as hazardous. (2) Wastewaters. We propose not to list the wastewaters as hazardous because the gas scrubber and the process wastewaters are pretreated onsite in closed tanks prior to discharge to a POTW. The wastewater treatment tanks provide sufficient structural integrity to minimize potential releases to groundwater. We are unlikely to find potential air releases from these tanks as neither volatile contaminants nor airborne particulates are likely to be present in these wastewaters. During treatment, the closed tanks present no significant threat of release to the environment. After treatment, the wastewaters are subject to the Clean Water Act program. We conclude that the wastewaters do not warrant listing. We assessed solids from the on­ site treatment as miscellaneous wastes discussed above in section (1). 5. Inorganic Hydrogen Cyanide a. Summary. We propose not to list any wastes from the production of inorganic hydrogen cyanide (HCN) as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA. These wastes are managed in on­ site wastewater treatment processes, industrial landfills, municipal landfills, hazardous waste incinerators, hazardous waste landfills, and hazardous waste injection wells. After analysis of these waste management practices and potential exposure pathways, we concluded that there are no risk pathways of concern. These wastes do not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) for listing as hazardous. They do not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment. b. Description of the inorganic hydrogen cyanide industry. Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is used in the manufacture of a number of important chemicals including: adiponitrile to produce nylon, methyl methacrylate to produce clear acrylic plastics, sodium cyanide for the recovery of gold, triazines for agricultural herbicides, methionine for animal food supplements, and chelating agents for water treatment. HCN is manufactured via two primary inorganic synthesis processes: Andrussow and Blausa ¨ ure­ MethanAmmoniak (BMA). The Andrussow process involves the reaction of ammonia, methane (natural gas) and air over a platinum catalyst; the BMA process is similar except the reaction occurs in the absence of air. The reaction products are quenched with water. Excess ammonia reactant is recovered for reuse in the reaction or converted to an ammonium salt. The aqueous HCN product is purified and concentrated for use as a liquid feedstock for manufacturing of one or more of the final products mentioned above. Two of the Andrussow process manufacturers do not produce a liquid hydrogen cyanide intermediate product but immediately convert the hydrogen cyanide in the reactor gases in a sodium hydroxide contactor to produce liquid sodium cyanide. There are ten manufacturers of hydrogen cyanide in the United States who use the Andrussow or the BMA process. Of these ten manufacturers, only one uses the BMA process. Two of the nine Andrussow manufacturers use an abbreviated version of the Andrussow process to produce sodium cyanide. Manufacture of sodium cyanide as a final product results in fewer wastes and significantly lower wastewater volumes. The inorganic hydrogen cyanide industry subject to this rulemaking is composed only of the facilities that produce hydrogen cyanide as an intermediate product or feedstock to manufacture a variety of commercial chemicals using the Andrussow and BMA processes. This proposal specifically does not cover wastes from the manufacturing of HCN as a byproduct in the manufacture of acrylonitrile by the ammoxidation of VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55716 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules propylene (Sohio process). The Sohio process is inherently an organic chemical manufacturing process, and is not within the scope of the inorganic chemicals manufacturing industry or the consent decree. Furthermore, we have already evaluated wastes for acrylonitrile manufacturing, and the cyanide wastes associated with the Sohio process (K011, K013, and K014) are subject to Subtitle C regulation. c. What kinds of wastes are generated by this process? How Did We Categorize the Wastes? Wastes generated from the production of hydrogen cyanide consist of various types of wastewater, various types of spent filter media, spent catalyst, biological solids from wastewater treatment, and ammonium salts. Based on an assessment of the wastes reported in the survey, the wastes were categorized as follows: ÐCommingled wastewaters. This waste includes continuously generated wastewaters such as HCN purification wastewater and ammonia purification wastewater. ÐAmmonia recycle cartridge and spent carbon filters. This waste consists of spent filter material and filter solids that are generated during the filtration of the recycled unreacted ammonia stream prior to being reused as process feedstock. ÐBiological wastewater treatment solids. The biosolids are generated from the biological treatment of process and non­ process wastewaters to remove residual cyanide and organonitrile contaminants. ÐFeed gas cartridge and spent carbon filters. This waste consists of spent filter material and filter solids that are generated during the filtration of natural gas prior to being used as process feedstock. ÐProcess air cartridge filters. This waste consists of spent filter material and filter solids that are generated during the filtration of ambient air that is used in the reaction. ÐAcid spray cartridge filters. The waste consists of spent filter cartridges and filter solids from acid spray filters used in the hydrogen cyanide stripper. ÐSpent catalyst. This waste consists of metal gauze panels that contain the precious­ metal catalyst used to catalyze the synthesis reaction. The catalyst activity diminishes with time and needs to be replaced with fresh catalyst periodically. ÐAmmonium sulfate and ammonium phosphate. The ammonium wastes are generated from the neutralization of excess ammonia in the process using sulfuric or phosphoric acid. ÐMiscellaneous wastewaters. These numerous wastewaters are generated during plant upsets or shutdowns for maintenance and are reported in detail in the `` Inorganic Hydrogen Cyanide Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination. '' ÐHCN polymer and sump wastes. These wastes are generated in process vessels, tanks, and wastewater collection sumps and removed during periodic plant maintenance operations. ÐSludge from wastewater collection tank. This waste is generated from the settling of suspended solids in wastewater tanks and removed during periodic plant maintenance operations. ÐHCN storage tank solids. These solids settle out of the HCN product. The solids are generated during manual tank cleaning after thorough washing. ÐWastewater filters. These are generated from the filtration of process wastewater prior to deep­ well injection. ÐAmmonium sulfate filters. This waste is from the filtration of the ammonium sulfate solution from the neutralization of excess ammonia by sulfuric acid. The filtered ammonium sulfate solution is then crystallized into solid form prior to sale as fertilizer. ÐSpent ammonium phosphate. Ammonium phosphate solution is used to scrub the off­ gas from the reactor to assist in ammonium recovery. ÐOrganic layer from wastewater collection tank. This is generated from the treatment of commingled HCN wastewater and predominantly nonHCN process wastewater. In addition to these wastes, other residuals are produced by some of the facilities that are recycled back to the production process. These materials consist of process water and recovered ammonia. These residuals are reused on­ site via enclosed piping systems and tanks, minimizing the potential for environmental releases. Also, we evaluated all wastes generated after these secondary materials are reinserted or reused; we do not believe that these secondary materials present significant risks. Consequently, we did not evaluate them further. How Are These Wastes Currently Being Managed? Table III± 9 summarizes the major waste categories, waste characteristics, waste volumes, and their current management practices: TABLE III± 9.Ð INORGANIC HYDROGEN CYANIDE PRODUCTION WASTES Waste Category (Number of facilities) Reported Waste Codes 1 1998 volume (MT) Management practices Commingled wastewaters (8) ............................................................................ D002 ........ 5,600,000 On­ site wastewater treatment in tanks or surface impoundments, discharge to NPDES outfall or POTW. Ammonia recycle cartridge and spent carbon filters (5) ................................... none ......... 73 Off­ site municipal D landfill; off­ site industrial D landfill; on­ site Subtitle C landfill; on­ site Subtitle C incineration Biological wastewater treatment solids (4) ........................................................ none; F039 3 . 45,397 Off­ site industrial Subtitle D landfill; 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 industrial D landfill; on­ site Subtitle C landfill as non­ hazardous waste; offsite recycle/ reuse via return to manufacturer Process air cartridge filters (8) .......................................................................... none ........ 7.5 Off­ site municipal D landfill; off­ site industrial D landfill; reclamation. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55717 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TABLE III± 9.Ð INORGANIC HYDROGEN CYANIDE PRODUCTION WASTESÐ Continued Waste Category (Number of facilities) Reported Waste Codes 1 1998 volume (MT) Management practices Acid spray cartridge filters (1) ........................................................................... none ......... 1.1 On­ site Subtitle C landfill as nonhazardous 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 2 3.9 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 (1993) Off­ site Subtitle C incineration 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 three facilities in Alabama, Tennessee, and Texas to collect record samples of wastes for the listing determination. These facilities were selected based on the survey information for the entire industry sector and collectively represent all the wastes generated and all of the waste management practices used by the manufacturing sector. (1) Commingled wastewaters. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? Eight of the ten facilities generated commingled wastewaters from the inorganic hydrogen cyanide process. The total volume of commingled wastewaters reported by these facilities was 5.5 million MT in 1998. Six of these eight facilities treat the commingled wastewaters using one or more of the following operations in their on­ site wastewater treatment processes: (a) steam stripping to remove cyanide and ammonia, with off­ gasses vented to flares, scrubbers or incinerators; (b) pH adjustment; (c) aerated or non­ aerated biological treatment in tanks or lined/ unlined surface impoundments; (d) ozone treatment in tanks; (e) oxychlorination in surface impoundments; (f) settling in surface impoundments; and NPDES outfalls, or POTWs. In addition to commingling of the hydrogen cyanide process wastewaters, some facilities also commingle these wastewaters with wastewaters from other non­ HCN processes generated in the same chemical manufacturing complex. The remaining two facilities manage their commingled wastewaters by filtration and disposal via deepwell injection. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? Based on the reported management practices, we assessed the potential for releases from tanks and surface impoundments. We decided that risks from the ultimate discharges to NPDES outfalls and POTWs are adequately controlled by the Clean Water Act. Risks from discharges to Class I injection wells with RCRA `` no­ migration'' variances are adequately regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and RCRA (see section III. D. 3). Potential releases to groundwater. We assessed both the tank and surface impoundment scenarios for potential releases to groundwater and determined that the unlined surface impoundment scenario poses a more significant potential risk to groundwater than the tank scenario. We focused on the surface impoundment pathway because several of the reported surface impoundments are unlined, posing a potential direct release pathway to groundwater. We take the position that tanks, by the impervious nature of the construction materials (concrete, fiberglass, or steel) are not likely to result in significant releases to groundwater. We conducted sampling and analysis of these wastewaters at the three facilities located in Alabama, Tennessee, and Texas currently using surface impoundment­ based wastewater treatment systems. We assessed each site individually, because we believe it is reasonable to assume that large volume wastewaters managed in impoundments in question would not be moved off­ site or to different locations. Our decision on what scenario to assess was based on review of our analytical data and the characteristics of the surface impoundments used at the three facilities. We evaluated the potential for groundwater releases to drinking water wells at the Alabama site, and potential surface water impacts at the Tennessee facility. The analytical data for the wastewater managed in the surface impoundment at the Texas facility showed that all levels of the toxicants of concern are below healthbased levels, or are associated with other commingled on­ site production processes and are not due to HCN production. The Alabama facility manages wastewater in a series of surface impoundments and tanks that provide equalization, oxidation, maturation, rock­ reed filtration, and mixing. In addition, the facility has an emergency holding basin which has also been used for HCN process wastewaters. The surface impoundments are equipped with double synthetic liners with leachate detection and collection systems. The oxidation basin is a concrete­ lined structure with an additional synthetic liner. Our analytical data indicates that concentrations at the inlet to the impoundments would exceed the HBLs for one constituent of concern (acetonitrile). A study of existing wells near the facility indicates the presence of private water wells within a one­ mile radius of the property boundary. We VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55718 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 36 The `` Inorganic Hydrogen Cyanide Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination, '' available in the docket for today's proposal, provides all analytical data we developed, as well as split samples collected by industry, where available. therefore assessed these units further for potential releases to groundwater. The Tennessee facility manages the wastewater in unlined surface impoundments and some of the toxicants of concern were above the health­ based levels and water quality criteria, thus, we assessed this facility's impoundments for potential releases to groundwater. As described below, the Tennessee facility and its surface impoundments are sited on the banks of the Loosahatchie River, with no off­ site downgradient wells. However, we did assess the impact from potential releases to groundwater to the nearby river at this site. Potential releases to air. We also examined the air exposure pathway for the wastewater treatment impoundments and tanks because of the potential release of volatile organic compounds and hydrogen cyanide from the wastewater treatment units. EPA is developing maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for cyanide manufacturing under the Clean Air Act (CAA), which may address these emissions. Although this rule will be technology­ based, the CAA ultimately requires EPA to regulate significant risks remaining after the imposition of technology­ based controls. EPA has also proposed regulations under the CAA for volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from wastewater at Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) facilities, which would cover the HCN manufacturers (see proposal at 60 FR 46780, September 12, 1994). Therefore, we are deferring control of any air releases to the MACT and SOCMI standards and did not assess this pathway further in today's proposal. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? We conducted sampling and analysis of these wastewaters at the three facilities currently using surface impoundment­ based wastewater treatment systems. We collected samples at various places in the process, including prior to commingling, so that we could assess the risks of the wastestream at issue here. Today's proposal is based primarily on samples of the commingled wastewaters collected in the wastewater treatment plants. 36 For assessing the groundwaterto drinking water pathway at the Alabama facility, we used the sample collected at the HCN wastewater collection tank where the HCN wastewaters are collected prior to mixing with other non­ HCN wastewaters in the equalization impoundment. We estimated the concentration of the constituents of concern in the equalization impoundment by applying the dilution factor in the impoundment (e. g., 36 to 1 total wastewaters to HCN wastewaters), and we assessed these concentrations in our modeling for this pathway. For the groundwater­ tosurface water pathway at the Tennessee facility, we used the sample collected at the exit from the surface impoundments. We used the sample from wastewater exiting the unit, rather than at the inlet, because treatment occurs in the impoundment. However, the inlet data are similar, and even using the inlet data would not significantly increase the surface water screening results. We analyzed the waste for both amenable and total cyanide, as well as a number of volatile organics and metals. We used the amenable cyanide results as our cyanide risk assessment inputs because we believe that amenable cyanide most closely represents the fraction of cyanide likely to be mobile in a groundwater scenario and the `` free cyanide'' assessed in our health­ based level (HBL). However, this had no impact on our risk results, because our data show that amenable and total cyanide results for this waste are the same. We sampled the wastewater at the Alabama facility in August, 1999. The analytical data for the commingled HCN wastewaters (DG± 1± HC± 07) represent waste concentrations prior to commingling with other non­ HCN wastewaters. Our results for a key chemical, acetonitrile, are qualified as `` estimated'' for this sample as a result of problems during sampling and analyses at this site as described further in Waste Characterization Report, Degussa­ Huls; February 25, 2000, available in the docket for today's proposal. The facility's split samples were more problematic, because the analytical instruments were not calibrated for key constituents being analyzed; thus, the split sample results appear even more uncertain. Despite the estimated nature of the results for acetonitrile in this waste sample, the data clearly indicate that acetonitrile is likely to be present in the waste. Acetonitrile, also commonly referred to as methyl cyanide, is a likely by­ product from the main reaction between methane and ammonia to form hydrogen cyanide. In addition, samples we collected at the Tennessee facility show that significant levels of acetonitrile are present in the wastewater, albeit at somewhat lower levels than we found at the Alabama site. We initially sampled at the Tennessee facility in August of 1999 (sample DM± 1± HC± 08). We used the analytical results for this sample as input to the risk assessment (described further below). However, because our analytical results for amenable cyanide were qualified due to holding time exceedences, we sampled at this facility a second time in October of 1999 to better understand the potential impact of this waste on the environment (DM± 2± HC± 08). All of the analytical data for these samples are available in `` Inorganic Hydrogen Cyanide Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemicals Listing Determination'' in the docket for today's proposal. The second round of sampling showed lower levels of the key constituent of potential concern than found in the first round of sampling. Due to time constraints, we did not re­ run the risk assessment model for this pathway to incorporate the second round of analytical data. However, this would result in somewhat lower risks, and thus would have had not impacted our proposed decision. The critical analytical results for the commingled wastewaters for the Tennessee and Alabama surface impoundments are presented below in Table III± 10. These represent the constituents found to be present in the wastewaters at level exceeding the HBLs or AWQC. (Several other constituents were marginally above the AWQC and were not important in the surface water screening.) VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55719 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 37 The facility reported that the cover on the equalization unit was installed to ensure compliance with expected new regulations to control volatile organic carbon emissions from wastewater sources for the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI) (proposal, 59 FR 46780, September 9, 1994). 38 U. S. EPA Phase II RFI Workplan, Potentiometric Surface Plan, March 3 & 4, 1999. TABLE III± 10.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM INORGANIC HCN PRODUCTION (MG/ L) Constituent of concern Sample DM± 1± HC± 08 Sample DM± 2± HC± 08 2nd Rnd Sample DG± 1± HC± 07 1 HBL AWQC 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 Water Risk Assessment Established? The Alabama facility's surface impoundments are located in the center of an industrial park on the west side of Mobile Bay. The wastewater treatment impoundments are located near the eastern property boundary of the facility and approximately 4,000 feet south of the State of Alabama barge canal. We chose to assess surface water risks at the Tennessee facility, which is closer to a surface water body. However, given the use of groundwater in the area around the Alabama facility, we assessed the possible impact on drinking water wells. We selected the equalization basin as the unit for quantitative modeling. This is the first surface impoundment in the series and is likely to hold the highest level of constituents of concern. We elected not to assess the emergency holding pond, which is used primarily during high stormwater events. Due to the intermittent use of the holding pond, we expect the potential for significant groundwater releases to be greater for the equalization pond. In addition, the equalization pond is covered with a floating synthetic membrane, while the holding pond is not. 37 Our modeling of the covered equalization pond did not assume any loss of the volatile constituents of concern, thus allowing more of the constituents to infiltrate to the groundwater rather than volatilize to the air. Based on information available in a corrective action plan related to a product spill on­ site (Risk­ Based Corrective Action Plan for the Sodium Cyanide Production Unit at Degussa Corporation Alabama Facility, Theodore, Alabama; March 19, 1998), the most likely direction of groundwater flow is to the low­ lying areas to the north­ northeast of the surface impoundments. We found there are drinking water wells located due east of the equalization surface impoundment. Although the wells are located east of the surface impoundment instead of the estimated north­ northeast groundwater flow direction, they are at somewhat lower ground elevation than the surface impoundment. Given the uncertainty in the direction of the groundwater flow, we assumed that contaminated groundwater from the surface impoundment could migrate to the east and reach these wells. Based on the available land use and groundwater use information for this area, we performed risk modeling for potential releases to drinking water wells located between 3,100 and 5,280 feet east of the surface impoundment. The minimum distance of 3,100 feet is based on the distance from the impoundment to the eastern boundary of the industrial area controlled by the facility. The maximum distance of 5,280 is the distance east from the impoundment to the closest known well. This drinking water well appears to be located just inside the eastern boundary of the state property, which lies to the east of the industrial park where the facility is located. We also assumed that a future well may be placed in the same State property directly east of the facility's undeveloped tract at approximately 3,100 feet from the surface impoundment. The details of this assessment are presented in the `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' in the docket for today's proposal. The results of the risk modeling for the only drinking water constituent of concern are presented in Table III± 11 below. TABLE III± 11.Ð GROUNDWATER RISK RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM THE PRODUCTION OF INORGANIC HYDROGEN CYANIDE Percentile Acetonitrile hazard quotient (HQ) 1 90th % ...................................... 0.3 95th % ...................................... 0.5 1 Risk from inhalation scenario during showering included exposure factors for both adult and child in the analysis. How Was The Groundwater­ To­ Surface Water Risk Assessment Established? The Tennessee facility and its surface impoundments are sited on the banks of the Loosahatchie River. The surface impoundments are located approximately 800 feet from the river. Based on information available in the Remedial Facility Investigation (RFI), 38 the direction of the groundwater flow is documented to be south towards the Loosahatchie River. The possibility of a public water supply well or private well being located downgradient of the Tennessee surface impoundments is unlikely because the facility boundary extends to the river to the south. Hence, based on the geologic setting of the facility as detailed above, we believe it is highly unlikely that these impoundments could impact drinking water wells via migration of a contaminated groundwater plume. Based on these facts we did not assess the groundwater­ to­ drinking water well pathway further at this site. We did, however, conduct a screening analysis of potential releases of groundwater to surface water and subsequent exposure via ingestion because of the proximity of the unit to the river. We calculated the concentrations in the river that would result from discharge of contaminated VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55720 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules groundwater by estimating the infiltration rate for the unlined impoundment and diluting the resulting leachate volume into the river under various flow conditions. The results of this screening level analysis suggest that concentrations of the constituents of concern in the river would be well below the aquatic life AWQC and HBLs for drinking water. The details of the screening analysis are presented in `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' in the docket for today's proposal. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? Our risk assessment results for the surface impoundment scenario, summarized above for drinking water in Table III± 11, suggest that the only constituent of concern that required modeling (acetonitrile) does not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment. The HQ was below one at both the 90th and 95th percentile in the probabilistic risk distribution. The results of our risk analysis also show that hypothetical releases to the adjacent river would not result in exceedences of risk thresholds. Our analysis was conducted at a screening level and thus is based on a number of conservative assumptions that may overstate actual risk. We did not account for dilution of the potential plume in groundwater flowing under the surface impoundment that would result in yet lower river concentrations. We did not account for the likelihood that river water would be pretreated prior to use for drinking and showering. We did not account for volatilization, biodegradation, or hydrolysis of the cyanide and other constituents prior to exposure. Even if we used the surface impoundment influent concentrations, rather than the exit concentrations, as input to the analysis, this waste would not exceed risk thresholds in the adjacent river. For these reasons, we propose not to list this waste category as hazardous. For a more complete description of this analysis, see `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determination for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' in the docket for this proposal. (2) Ammonia recycle cartridge and spent carbon filters. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? Five facilities reported generating 73 MT/ year of filter media and waste solids in 1998 from the removal of organonitrile polymers from the ammonia recycle stream. The management methods reported by the industry were off­ site municipal Subtitle D landfill, off­ site industrial Subtitle D landfill, on­ site Subtitle C incineration, and on­ site Subtitle C landfill. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We conducted risk assessment modeling for off­ site disposal in both a municipal and an industrial landfill, using only those two waste volumes reported to be managed in off­ site Subtitle D landfills; volumes managed as hazardous wastes were not included in this array. No significant volatile constituents were detected in this waste (only non­ volatile metals were detected; see following section), thus volatilization from landfills to the air was not a pathway of concern. We did not conduct risk assessment of the voluntary Subtitle C landfill and incineration practices because we assumed that listing would not significantly increase regulatory control for these wastes. Note that these on­ site captive units have sufficient capacity and flexibility to accept these relatively small volume non­ hazardous wastes. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? Two samples were collected at different facilities. We sampled again at both facilities because of problems with the cyanide analyses for the first set of analyses and elevated detection limits for certain metals in the Tennessee sample. Due to the schedule constraints of this determination, we initiated the risk analyses using the first round of samples. The risk analysis and second round of sampling and analysis were conducted in parallel. HBLs are shown in Table III± 12. TABLE III± 12.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF AMMONIA RECYCLE FILTERS [mg/ L] Parameter RH± 1± HC± 05 (1st data set) RH± 2± HC± 05 (2nd data set) DM± 1± HC± 04 (1st data set) DM± 02± HC± 04 (2nd 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 Risk Assessment Established? We assessed the off­ site landfill scenario for the ammonia recycle filter cartridges, reflecting the types of management reported for this waste. We assessed the groundwater ingestion pathway for these landfills. Our model inputs included different hydrogeologic settings reflecting the two regions where the wastes are reported to be managed. As noted in section III. C., we used the TCLP results for the municipal landfill scenario and the SPLP for the industrial landfill scenario. As described above, we had some initial concerns about our analytical data and determined that re­ analysis would serve to demonstrate the validity of these data. Due to the time constraints of this listing determination, we could not delay the risk assessment modeling until the validated results of the second round of analyses became available, and thus used the first round of samples for the Texas facility as model input. Subsequently, having reviewed all the analytical data, we believe that the modeled data set appropriately characterizes the risks of VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55721 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules all constituents included in the first sampling round, and that re­ running the model with the second round of analytical data would not increase the predicted risk. The only additional constituent of concern found in the second analysis was cadmium. We modeled this constituent using the same two scenarios and found no significant risk. What is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? The results of our probabilistic risk assessment are provided in Table III± 13 below (we also completed deterministic risk modeling and the results were comparable; see `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' for details). At the 90th and 95th percentile cumulative risk level, we found no cancer risk in excess of 1E± 07, nor did we find any hazard quotients that exceeded one. As a matter of policy, we generally do not consider listing wastes with predicted cancer risks of less than 1E± 06 or hazard quotients of less than 1.0. We see no special concerns warranting an exception to this policy. Based on these results we conclude that this waste does not pose risk to human health and the environment at levels that warrant listing. We therefore are proposing not to list ammonia recycle filters from inorganic hydrogen cyanide production. TABLE III± 13.Ð GROUNDWATER RISK RESULTS FOR AMMONIA RECYCLE FILTERS 1 Percentile Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Adult HQ Child HQ Adult cancer risk Child cancer 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 solids. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? Four facilities reported a total volume of 45,397 MT/ year for this waste. The management methods reported are offsite municipal and industrial Subtitle D landfills, on­ site Subtitle C landfill, and off­ site use as agricultural liming agent (volume not reported). What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We evaluated the Subtitle D landfill and the agricultural liming agent scenario reflecting the reported management practices. We assessed the landfill scenario using our TCLP and SPLP results for the wastes reported managed in such landfills. We assessed the agricultural use scenario by comparing total constituent concentrations to the soil screening levels (see section III. C. 3). How Was This Waste Category Characterized? We collected two samples of this waste at two different facilities. We conducted total and leaching analyses of these samples. To evaluate the industrial landfill disposal scenario we compared the SPLP leaching results to constituent HBLs, and for the municipal landfill scenario we compared TCLP leaching results to the HBLs. In all cases the SPLP and TCLP levels corresponding to the management practice were below the HBLs. For the agricultural liming scenario, we compared the total concentrations in the waste to the soil screening levels; no constituents exceeded these screening levels, i. e., all constituents were below background or direct soil ingestion levels. The full analyses are summarized in the `` Inorganic Hydrogen Cyanide Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemicals Listing Determination'' and the analytical results are reported in detail in the Waste Characterization Reports for this sector; these documents are available in the docket for today's proposal. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We propose not to list this waste as hazardous because the levels of toxicant constituents found in the waste are below the levels of concern. (4) Feed gas cartridge and spent carbon filters. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? Nine facilities reported a total volume of 9.7 MT/ year for this waste. The management methods reported are offsite manufacturer refurbishing for reuse, off­ site municipal D landfill, off­ site industrial D landfill, and on­ site C hazardous landfill. The facility using the hazardous C landfill for disposal of the filters is managing the filters as nonhazardous waste in a captive on­ site C landfill. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We assessed the municipal and industrial Subtitle D landfill scenarios using our TCLP and SPLP results, respectively. No volatile constituents were detected in this waste (only nonvolatile metals were detected; see following section), thus volatilization from landfills to the air was not a pathway of concern. We did not assess the voluntary Subtitle C landfill scenario because we assumed that listing would not significantly increase regulatory control. Note that the on­ site unit has sufficient capacity to continue to accept this small volume waste. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? We collected one sample of this waste. The analytical results showed that SPLP levels for all constituents are below drinking water HBLs. The TCLP results showed levels that exceeded HBLs for the constituents summarized below in Table III± 14: VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55722 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TABLE III± 14.Ð CHARACTERIZATION 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 facility were comparable. We did not find cyanide in these wastes. The full analytical results are summarized in the `` Inorganic Hydrogen Cyanide Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemicals Listing Determination'' and are reported in detail in the Waste Characterization Reports for this sector; these documents are available in the docket for today's proposal. How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established? We assessed the groundwater ingestion pathway for the off­ site landfill scenario for this waste, reflecting the types of management reported. As noted in section III. E., we used the TCLP results for the municipal landfill scenario and the SPLP for the industrial landfill scenario. We found that the industrial Subtitle D landfill scenario screened out because all constituents in the SPLP analysis were below their respective HBLs. The constituents of concern that exceeded their respective HBLs in the TCLP results were boron, lead, nickel, and zinc. We evaluated these constituents using the de minimis volume screening analysis, as described in section III. E. 3 of today's proposal. The analysis suggests that lead, nickel and zinc are not of concern. We modeled the remaining constituent, boron, using our standard groundwater model for the municipal landfill scenario. We modeled the municipal landfill scenario, using a hydrogeologic setting reflecting the region where the waste was reported to be managed. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? As noted above, the industrial landfill scenario screened out. For the municipal landfill scenario, the results in Table III± 15 show that the HQs are well below one at both the 90th and 95th% for the constituent of concern. Thus, our risk assessment results suggest that the only constituent of concern that required modeling (boron) does not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment. For a more complete description of this analysis, see `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes' in the docket. Thus, we propose not to list this waste as hazardous. TABLE III± 15.Ð GROUNDWATER RISK RESULTS FOR FEED GAS FILTERS FOR BORON Percentile Adult HQ Child HQ 90th ....................................... 0.007 0.01 95th ....................................... 0.01 0.05 (5) Process air cartridge filters. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? Eight facilities reported a total volume of 7.5 MT/ year for this waste. The management methods reported are offsite industrial D landfill, off­ site manufacturer refurbishing for reuse, offsite municipal D landfill, and on­ site industrial D landfill. Most facilities reported the practice of filtering the air that they feed to the reactors. Very small volumes of spent filters are generated periodically. We did not assess these wastes beyond the characterization provided in the RCRA Section 3007 Survey results because no wastes were available to sample when we conducted our sampling. The level of toxic constituents is expected to be low because the filters are only used to remove airborne solids from the ambient air used in the process. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We propose not to list this waste as hazardous because we do not believe that the level of any toxic constituents in these small waste volumes would exceed levels of concern that would pose a risk based on management in Subtitle D landfills. (6) Acid spray cartridge filters. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? One facility reported a total volume of 1.1 MT/ year for this waste. The management method reported was onsite Subtitle C disposal as a nonhazardous waste. The cartridge­ type filter elements are used in the process to prevent clogging of spray nozzles used to inject the hydrogen cyanide intermediate product into the HCN stripper. The filters remove process particulates, including rust, from the hydrogen cyanide intermediate product. The waste is generated when the spent filter elements are replaced weekly. While this waste is classified as nonhazardous, the generator disposes of it in the facility's on­ site Subtitle C landfill. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? No sample of this waste was collected because of unavailability during the sampling time frame and because the level of toxic constituents is expected to be low. The filters are used to remove inert impurities such as pipe scale. The facility washes the filters prior to removal of the filters from the process. We expect that any hydrogen cyanide contamination is removed during this washing. The facility reported in its RCRA Section 3007 Survey that the waste contains a total concentration of cyanide of one ppm. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We propose not to list this waste as hazardous because the level of toxic constituents found in this waste are expected to be below levels of concern. While we do not have any leaching test data, we can conservatively estimate that any leachable level of cyanide would be at least 20­ fold less than the 1 ppm total level reported, i. e, less than 0.05 mg/ L. This is well below the HBL for amenable cyanide (0.3 mg/ L). Furthermore, this small volume waste is already managed in a Subtitle C landfill. (7) Spent catalyst. All ten facilities reported generation of this waste, with a combined total volume of 4.1 MT/ year. The management method reported was off­ site metals reclamation or regeneration. These catalysts gradually lose their effectiveness over time and are periodically reclaimed. Due to the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55723 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 39 Note that the SPLP/ HBL groundwater screen for this scenario is likely to be a worse­ case screening, because the fertilizer application scenario isn ot analogous to a landfill scenario, particularly with respect to application rates. high value of these precious­ metal materials, generators maintain close control over these materials. The spent material is an impermeable metal gauze that undergoes thorough cleaning and decontamination to eliminate cyanide concentrations prior to removal from the reactor. We have chosen not to evaluate these materials further because management practices for these materials prior to reuse minimize the potential for environmental releases. Therefore, we propose not to list this waste as hazardous because there are no significant known exposure pathways that would present risk. (8) Ammonium sulfate and ammonium phosphate. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? Three facilities reported a total volume of 27,425 MT/ year for this waste. The management method reported was off­ site use as fertilizer. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We assessed the agricultural end use of this waste by comparing the total constituent results to the soil screening levels. In this case we evaluated the material, because it is land applied. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? One sample of this by­ product was collected from the Alabama site. The analytical data results show that the detected constituents of concern in the total analyses are below the soil screening levels. In addition, we compared the SPLP leaching results to the HBLs as a screen of potential groundwater exposure. 39 The detected SPLP results are below the HBLs. The analytical results showing the level of toxic constituents are included in the `` Inorganic Hydrogen Cyanide Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemicals Listing Determination. '' What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We propose not to list this waste as hazardous because the levels of toxic constituents found in the waste are below levels of concern. (9) Miscellaneous wastewaters. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? Four facilities reported a total volume of 209,000 MT/ year for this waste category; the total volume represents twenty two different miscellaneous wastestreams that are generated on an intermittent or periodic basis. The management method reported was commingling with other major process wastewater streams described above as the `` commingled wastewaters'' category. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We did not assess these numerous wastewater streams individually. The wastewaters were assessed indirectly within the commingled wastewater category discussed earlier. The volume and constituents represented by these miscellaneous wastewaters are represented in the total commingled major and miscellaneous wastewater streams. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? We did not collect samples of these miscellaneous wastewater streams. The levels of toxic contaminants in these wastewaters are reflected in the contaminant concentrations of the total commingled wastewater streams at each facility. See the commingled wastewater category discussed earlier in this section for a discussion on how the commingled major and miscellaneous wastewater streams were characterized. Two of the miscellaneous wastewaters were reported to contain potentially high concentrations of hydrogen cyanide when generated. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste Category? We propose not to list this waste category as hazardous. There is no direct exposure pathway into the environment from these individual wastes, because they are treated and commingled with the other wastewaters generated at each facility. Although high concentrations of hydrogen cyanide in the wastewaters are possible for some of these wastes, the risk is reduced by the high dilution that occurs when these wastewaters are mixed with other large volume wastewaters in the facility­ wide wastewater collection system. These miscellaneous wastewaters are generated intermittently and infrequently. Thus, any potential releases from land­ based management of the wastes after dilution in with other wastewaters would be short­ lived, and unlikely to result in any significant long­ term risk. In addition, the hydrogen cyanide contaminant is readily and rapidly treated in the wastewater treatment systems, so that any risk is minimized. For example, the tank farm scrubber water from the Tennessee facility is treated through oxychlorination, which rapidly destroys the hydrogen cyanide. As noted earlier, potential hydrogen cyanide releases via the air pathway would be covered by the Hydrogen Cyanide MACT rule. (10) HCN polymer and HCN sump wastes. One facility reported a total volume of 0.7 MT/ year (0.3 MT/ yr polymer and 0.4 MT/ year sump wastes) for these two wastes. The physical description of the wastes was reported as dirt, debris and inert polymer solids. The wastes are disposed of in an off­ site industrial Subtitle D landfill. Very small volumes of these wastes are generated periodically. We did not assess these wastes beyond the characterization provided in the RCRA Section 3007 Survey results because of the unavailability under the sample schedule and because of the low concentrations of toxic constituents expected to be present in this waste. In the RCRA Section 3007 Survey, the one generator reported that total levels of cyanide were 50 mg/ kg for the HCN polymer and 5 mg/ kg for the sump wastes. These levels are unlikely to pose a risk in a landfill scenario for these very small waste volumes. In support of this, we note here, as we did above for the acid spray filter cartridge waste category, leaching test results would be at least 20­ fold less than the total levels. This would mean any leaching from sump waste would be below the HBL for cyanide. While this 20­ fold factor would leave the HCN polymer somewhat above the HBL at 2.5 ppm cyanide, we note that groundwater modeling for cyanide for the ammonia recycle filters indicates similar levels of cyanide in a larger waste volume presents very low levels of risk in a landfill scenario. Therefore, we propose not to list HCN polymer and HCN sump wastes. (11) Sludge from wastewater collection tank. One facility reported a volume of 2.1 MT over a seven year period, or approximately 0.3 MT/ year for this waste. The waste was coded as hazardous (D001), stabilized on­ site and disposed of in an off­ site Subtitle C landfill. The waste is generated approximately every ten years; the volume reported was for 1993 with no generation of that waste since that date. This waste results from sedimentation in a wastewater collection tank. HCN wastewaters managed in this tank only account for ten percent of throughput; the sediment thus is only marginally associated with HCN production. One other facility reported generating 1.8 MT of this waste, and also codes it as characteristically hazardous waste (in this case as D018 for benzene). This VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55724 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules second facility sends the waste off­ site to a Subtitle C incinerator; the facility reported that the benzene was derived from other on­ site processes. We propose not to list these wastes because they are very small volume wastes that are already managed as characteristically hazardous wastes in full compliance with the Subtitle C regulations. In addition, the wastes are generated from the treatment of predominantly non­ HCN wastewater from unrelated petrochemical processes at the facilities. (12) HCN storage tank solids. One facility reported a volume of 0.3 MT/ year for this waste. During periodic shutdowns of this product tank for cleaning, solids are removed after rigorous washing of the tank interior to remove soluble cyanide. The waste consists of polymer and tank scale. The waste is disposed of in an off­ site municipal Subtitle D landfill. A sample of this waste was not collected because of unavailability during the sampling time frame. However, the waste description provided by the facility indicates the waste is similar in composition to the ammonia recycle filters, which we have proposed not to list. Given the much smaller volume here, this waste is not expected to present significant risk. Therefore, we are proposing not to list this waste as hazardous. (13) Wastewater filters. One facility reported a volume of 450 MT/ year for this waste. The waste is managed in a captive, off­ site Subtitle C incinerator as characteristically hazardous waste. The waste is spent filters from the filtration of commingled wastewaters from various on­ site processes prior to on­ site deepwell injection and is generated periodically. A sample of this waste was not available during the sampling time frame. However, the one generator reported that the waste is characteristically hazardous due to benzene, and the facility manages the waste as D018. The source of the benzene is the waste from other nonHCN process wastewaters at the facility. We propose not to list this waste because it is already managed as a hazardous waste in accordance with Subtitle C regulations. (14) Ammonium sulfate filters. One facility reported a volume of 1.1 MT/ year for this waste. The waste is managed in an off­ site industrial landfill. The waste is generated periodically. We did not assess this waste beyond the characterization provided in the RCRA Section 3007 Survey results because of the unavailability of samples under the sample schedule. However, the facility reported concentrations of cyanide (1 mg/ kg) and ammonium sulfate (5,000 mg/ kg). This concentration of cyanide is considered to be very small and is not expected to be of concern (see discussion of cyanide for acid spray cartridge filters). In addition, we collected a sample of the ammonium sulfate by­ product (i. e., the material being filtered to generate this waste) and did not find any constituents of concern. See discussions for ammonium sulfate and ammonium phosphate. Therefore, we propose not to list this waste as hazardous because we do not believe that there are any significant levels of toxic constituents in the waste. (15) Spent ammonium phosphate. One facility reported a volume of 230 MT/ year for this waste. The waste is reused on­ site as a nutrient source in the biological treatment unit or incinerated on­ site in a nonhazardous waste incinerator. The waste is generated in batches one or two times per year. The waste is generated from the scrubbing of the reactor off­ gas stream using aqueous monoammonium phosphate solution in the ammonia recovery process. The resulting diammonium phosphate solution is then purified to recover the ammonia and the resulting spent ammonium phosphate solution is stored in tanks prior to final management. We did not assess this waste beyond the characterization provided in the § 3007 Survey results because of the unavailability of samples under the sample schedule; the characterization indicates the presence of organonitrile compounds in the waste. However, the preferred management method is to reuse the waste as a nutrient source in the biotreatment system, with incineration only when this is not possible due to the solution becoming spent or when the concentrations of phosphate and ammonia are incompatible with the wastewater treatment system. We believe the levels of organonitrile compounds do not pose a risk under either management scenario. The wastewater treatment scenario results in the destruction of the compounds via biodegradation and the incineration scenario would also result in destruction of the volatile organonitriles. Additionally, emissions from the on­ site incinerator would be regulated under the Hydrogen Cyanide MACT standards which will be proposed in 2000. Therefore, we propose not to list this waste as hazardous. (16) Organic layer from wastewater collection tank. One facility reported a volume of 43.3 MT/ year for this waste. The waste is coded as D001 and sent offsite Subtitle C incineration. This waste is generated approximately every ten years; the volume reported was for 1993 with no generation of the waste since that date. Thus, on an annualized basis the waste quantity generated would be approximately 4 MT/ yr. We did not assess these wastes beyond the characterization provided in the RCRA Section 3007 Survey results because of the unavailability of samples under the sample schedule. We propose not to list this waste as hazardous because the waste is managed as characteristically hazardous in accordance with all applicable Subtitle C standards, which adequately protect against mismanagement. Further, the waste is generated from the treatment of predominantly non­ HCN wastewater from other unrelated petrochemical processes at the facility. Only ten percent of the wastewater throughput in the tank generating this waste is associated with HCN production; the percentage contribution from the HCN process to this oily layer is likely to be much lower, because other petrochemical processes on­ site are likely sources of the organic material. 6. Phenyl Mercuric Acetate a. Summary. We propose not to list any wastes from the production of phenyl mercuric acetate (PMA) as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA. PMA currently is not manufactured in the United States, and it is extremely unlikely that it will be manufactured in the United States in the future. Therefore, there are no wastes being generated that could be subject to a listing determination. b. Description of the phenyl mercuric acetate industry. PMA (C8H8Hg O2) is an organic mercury compound, a white to creamy white odorless crystalline powder or clear solution. Prior to 1990 it was the predominant fungicide used in the latex paint industry. In 1990, EPA banned the use of PMA in interior paint (55 FR 26754, June 29, 1990) and subsequently, the paint industry ceased using PMA in paint production. PMA is still used for other limited purposes (e. g., slimicide in paper mills; selective herbicide for crabgrass; fungicide for diseases of turf on golf greens and tees; fungicidal seed dressing for seed­ and soil­ borne diseases of cereals, sorghum, and groundnuts). Based on our research and the results of our RCRA Section 3007 Survey, we conclude that there is no domestic production of PMA. Any domestic demand is met by imports from other countries. See the `` Phenyl Mercuric Acetate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' for details. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55725 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 40 One facility has shut down their phosphoric acid process and reported few wastes generated in 1998. This facility's wastes therefore are not included in the following overview, but were evaluated to determine their potential threat to human health or the environment. The details of this facility's waste generation and management practices are included in the `` Phosphoric Acid Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination''. c. Agency evaluation. PMA is not produced within the United States and is not widely used in domestic manufacturing processes. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that wastes from the production of PMA are generated within the U. S. Given the compound's limited market within the U. S., it is highly unlikely that new production of PMA will occur within the U. S. in the future. As a result of these market conditions, there are no wastes that can be assessed for this sector. Therefore, we propose not to list any PMA production wastes as hazardous. 7. Phosphoric Acid From the Dry Process a. Summary. We have evaluated the wastes from the production of phosphoric acid manufactured via the dry process, and propose not to list any wastes from this process as hazardous wastes. These wastestreams do not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) for listing wastes as hazardous. They do not pose a substantial present or potential threat to human health or the environment. We have identified no risks of concern associated with the current management of these wastes. b. Description of the phosphoric acid industry. Phosphoric acid was produced by the dry process by eight facilities in the United States in 1998. The majority of phosphoric acid is consumed in the manufacture of phosphate salts. These phosphorus­ containing compounds are used in detergents, animal feed supplements, dentifrices, fertilizers, metal treating, water softening, leavening agents, and flame and fire retardants. In the dry process, elemental phosphorous is burned in excess air generating phosphorous pentoxide (P2O5). The resulting phosphorus pentoxide is hydrated with a spray of recycled phosphoric acid and water, forming phosphoric acid that is collected as product. Scrubbers are employed for the hydrator off­ gases to absorb as much phosphoric acid mist as possible from the excess air. The strong phosphoric acid stream from the hydrator is purified with hydrogen sulfide to precipitate out arsenic trisulfide. This sludge is removed by filtration. In some cases, offspecification product is filtered and recycled into the process. The product may also be filtered after it leaves the storage tank and prior to loading in truck and railcars. c. Description of wastes generated by the phosphoric acid process. We have identified fourteen waste categories from the production of phosphoric acid (via the dry process) that required assessment. These waste categories are described briefly and in more detail in the following subsections. 40 ÐArsenic filter cake is the result of filtering the phosphoric acid after the addition of sodium hydrosulfide or hydrogen sulfide gas and a filter aid. The precipitate consists of arsenic trisulfide and other heavy metal sulfides which are essentially insoluble in strong acid. ÐCombustion chamber slag (infrequently generated) is the result of residue buildup on the walls of the chamber. ÐOff­ specification phosphoric acid is generated when the product does not meet color or concentration specifications. ÐSpent filters (from purification) are generated from the units that are used to remove arsenic from the phosphoric acid. ÐCaustic scrubber water is generated when air used to remove hydrogen sulfide gas at the acid purification step is scrubbed. This scrubbing operation controls odor and acid mist before the air is discharged to the atmosphere. ÐPhosphoric acid spills occur around the process or storage tanks area. These materials are collected in contained areas and pumped to management units. ÐClean­ up and washdown water from across the units is collected in a sump and discharged to the wastewater treatment system. ÐProcess acid leaks occur when piping and coupling break, or during equipment maintenance. These materials are collected in contained areas and pumped to management units. ÐSpent mist eliminator packing (filters) are used in the scrubber system to remove gas and acid particulates from the phosphoric acid. The filter packing material is reported to consist of polyester fibers, stainless steel, steel wool or fiberglass. The filters are periodically replaced and the spent packing is washed prior to disposal. ÐRubber liners of product storage tanks are periodically replaced. ÐSpent filters for product are generated when product is filtered prior to loading into tank cars and trucks to remove settled solids. The filters are changed periodically and rinsed with water prior to disposal. ÐSpent activated carbon for offspecification product is generated when carbon is used to remove traces of contaminants from the offspecification product. ÐSpent filters for off­ specification product is generated when filters are used to remove solids from the offspecification product. ÐWastewater treatment sludges are generated when wastewaters from the phosphoric acid and other processes are treated. These sludges are only marginally derived from phosphoric acid wastewaters due to commingling with large volumes of other nonphosphoric acid wastewaters. The solids that are removed by filtration are landfilled or sold. Three facilities reported that they collect phosphoric acid in air pollution control devices (i. e., vent scrubbers, absorbers, mist eliminator). Each site reported that they then recycle these acids into the production process. This material is continuously reused in the production process. Based on our site visits, the material is piped from the generating unit to the production process, minimizing the potential for releases to the environment prior to reuse. We evaluated all wastes generated after the materials are reused and concluded that none merited listing. Consequently, we do not believe that these materials present significant threats. At two of the facilities, the caustic scrubber water, generated from scrubbing the air to remove hydrogen sulfide gas, is returned as makeup solution to the purification process. Based on information from one of the facilities and our site visit, the material is piped from the generating unit to the production process, and there is no significant potential for exposure. Also, process acid leaks are collected in tanks at one facility and piped back to the acid process, with no significant exposure route for this material. As stated above, we evaluated all wastes generated after the materials are reused and concluded that none merited listing. Consequently, we do not believe that these materials present significant threats. We have organized our discussion of these wastes in terms of how they are currently managed: characteristic wastes, wastewaters, and noncharacteristic solid wastes. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55726 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules d. Agency evaluation. (1) Characteristic wastes. The RCRA Section 3007 Surveys show that a number of wastes are managed as RCRA characteristic wastes at all times. These wastes are hazardous wastes because they exhibit the characteristics of corrosivity or toxicity for arsenic. We believe that these wastes are managed according to the applicable RCRA Subtitle C regulations, including LDR standards. The LDR restrictions apply prior to land disposal. Furthermore, these wastes are managed or disposed in Subtitle C management units. Table III± 16 summarizes our information regarding the generation and management of these wastes. TABLE III± 16.Ð CHARACTERISTIC WASTES FROM PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION DISPOSED IN SUBTITLE C UNITS Waste category Number of reported generators 1998 Volume (MT) Reported hazard codes Final management practices 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 waste categories as hazardous wastes under RCRA. All generators of these wastes already report managing these materials as hazardous from the point of generation through disposal, because they exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics. We believe that the rules applying to characteristic wastes adequately protect against mismanagement. (2) Other characteristic waste. TABLE III± 17.Ð OTHER CHARACTERISTIC WASTES FROM THE PRODUCTION OF PHOSPHORIC ACID Waste category Number of reported generators 1998 Volume (MT) Reported hazard codes Sequential management practices Phosphoric acid spills ..................... 2 2.2 D002 ............................................... (1) Neutralized, (2) roll­ off bin, (3) Subtitle D landfill; (1) Tanks, (2) neutralized in surface impoundment, (3) NPDES We assessed the specific management practices employed for this wastestream, as summarized in Table III± 17, and determined that no exposure scenarios of concern exist. One facility reported that the wastestream is managed as hazardous (D002), neutralized, and disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill. These product spills are expected to be mostly phosphoric acid, which is hazardous because it is corrosive. The facility effectively treats and neutralizes these wastes prior to disposal. There is no significant risk expected from the disposal of the small volume (0.5 MT/ yr) of treated spills to the landfill. The second facility reported placing the untreated spills into its wastewater treatment system, which includes both tanks and impoundments. Again, we expect that this waste presents hazards because of its corrosivity, not because it contains hazardous constituents. We do not expect releases to groundwater from tanks because we assume that they function effectively. With regard to the surface impoundment, we note that the facility has estimated that these small volume spills make up less than 0.001% of the total wastewater volumes. We expect that dilution of this magnitude would effectively treat the spills rapidly. Further, the facility reported that the wastewaters in the impoundment are neutralized. Consequently, we do not anticipate that any potential releases from the surface impoundment would pose a significant threat to groundwater. Ultimately, the spills are discharged, along with the much larger volume of wastewaters generated on­ site, to surface waters under a NPDES permit, which provides effective control and an exemption from RCRA regulations. We also note that we expect no release of constituents of concern to the air from either the tank or the impoundments, because the waste contains no volatile constituents. (3) Wastewaters. Wastewaters are generated at various points in the process as a result of scrubbing operations, equipment cleanup, and management of leaks and spills. As reported by the facilities, the primary constituents of concern in these wastewaters are phosphoric acid and traces of hydrogen sulfide, which are readily treated and controlled via neutralization. Phosphoric acid, when neutralized, forms various phosphate salts, none of which are known to pose a significant risk to human health and the environment. Similarly, hydrogen sulfide is neutralized to form nonvolatile salts. All facilities report that these wastewaters comprise very small portions of the overall wastewater treatment throughput, which contains wastewaters from other unrelated onsite processes. Table III± 18 summarizes our information on these wastewaters. TABLE III± 18.Ð WASTEWATERS FROM PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTION Waste category Number of reported generators 1998 Volume (MT) Reported hazard codes Sequential management practices Caustic scrubber water ................................. 1 36 none ................. (1) pretreatment in covered tanks, (2) POTW VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55727 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TABLE III± 18.Ð WASTEWATERS FROM PHOSPHORIC ACID PRODUCTIONÐ Continued Waste category Number of reported generators 1998 Volume (MT) Reported hazard codes Sequential management practices Cleanup water ............................................... 1 small volume (volume not reported) none ................. (1) pretreatment in covered tanks, (2) POTW Process acid leaks ........................................ 1 25 1 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 practices employed for these wastes and determined that no exposure pathway of concern exists. We believe these wastewaters will continue to be managed in existing tank­ based treatment systems. We believe the manufacturers have made a considerable investment in wastewater treatment systems using tanks and will continue to use them. Further, we assumed that wastewater treatment tanks retain sufficient structural integrity to prevent wastewater releases to the subsurface (and therefore to groundwater), and that overflow and spill controls prevent significant wastewater releases. Thus, based on the lack of any significant likelihood of release of the constituents to groundwater, we did not project significant risks to groundwater from these wastes in the tank­ based wastewater treatment scenario. Furthermore, discharges to POTWs and surface waters under NPDES are regulated under the Clean Water Act and are exempt from RCRA Subtitle C regulation and thus were not assessed. We also considered the possibility of air releases from tanks. The only potential volatile constituent of concern in these wastes is hydrogen sulfide. The treatment processes employed are designed to neutralize this compound, reducing the potential for volatilization. In addition, the facilities have installed tank covers, further reducing the likelihood of release to the air. As a result, we did not model releases to air from tanks from the production of phosphoric acid. Thus, we propose not to list these wastewaters as hazardous wastes under RCRA. (4) Non­ characteristic solid wastes. The phosphoric acid sector reported six waste categories that do not routinely exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics and that are often managed in Subtitle D landfills, as summarized in Table III± 19: TABLE III± 19.Ð NON­ CHARACTERISTIC SOLID WASTES Waste category Number of reported generators 1998 Volume (MT) Reported hazard codes Sequential management 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) recycling or disposal in Subtitle C or D landfills Rubber liners ................................................. 2 19.8 None ................. (1) storage in containers, (2) Subtitle C incineration or neutralization before Subtitle D landfill. Spent filters for product ................................. 1 0.5 None ................. (1) storage in containers, (2) off­ site stabilization (3) Subtitle D landfill. Spent activated carbon for off­ specification product. 1 1 3 None ................. (1) storage in containers, (2) off­ site stabilization (3) Subtitle D landfill. Spent filters for off­ specification product ....... 1 0.5 None ................. (1) storage in containers, (2) off­ site stabilization (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 phosphoric acid mist before arsenic trisulfide is precipitated out. The material which condenses in the filters is expected to be corrosive and may contain some arsenic. However, the material used for filter packing in the mist eliminators is typically polyester, fiberglass, or steel wool. The filter packing provides surface area for condensation, not absorption, and is not expected to accumulate waste or constituents. Thus, arsenic is not expected to adhere to the filters as condensate drops back into process. The generators treat the spent filters prior to disposal to remove or immobilize any low levels of constituents that may remain. The rubber liners and spent filters for product are associated with food­ grade products. We expect any contaminant levels to be extremely low due to purity requirements. Consequently, we believe it is unlikely that they contain any constituent at levels of concern (i. e., above health­ based limits for ingestion). We also note that both wastes are treated prior to disposal in landfills. Similarly, we do not expect the spent carbon or spent filters associated with off­ specification product to contain significant levels of constituents of concern. Product is classified as `` offspecification due to color and concentration of acid, rather than VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55728 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules because of the presence of any contaminants. We note again that these wastes undergo treatment prior to placement in landfills. In addition, both the activated carbon, which is infrequently generated, and the offspecification filters are very low volume wastes (on an annualized basis, the spent carbon totals about 1 MT and the spent off­ specification filters equal 0.5 MT). As stated in the wastewater rationale, the wastewater contribution from the phosphoric acid process is insignificant. Therefore, the volumes of treatment sludge (and any constituents of potential concern) attributable to the phosphoric acid process are small and unlikely to present any significant risk. We do not believe any of these materials contain significant concentrations of any contaminants of concern. Therefore, we propose not to list these wastes as listed hazardous wastes under RCRA. 8. Phosphorus Pentasulfide a. Summary. We have evaluated the wastes from the production of phosphorus pentasulfide and propose not to list any wastes from this process as hazardous. These wastestreams do not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) for listing a waste as hazardous. They do not pose a substantial present or potential threat to human health or the environment. We have identified no risks of concern associated with the current management of these wastes. b. Description of the phosphorus pentasulfide industry. Phosphorus pentasulfide was produced by three facilities in the United States in 1998. Phosphorus pentasulfide is used in the manufacture of lubricating oil additives, insecticides, ore flotation agents and specialty chemicals. The production of phosphorus pentasulfide begins by feeding liquid phosphorus and liquid sulfur into a reactor. The reaction is carefully controlled because phosphorus pentasulfide reacts violently with air forming phosphorus pentoxide and sulfur dioxide and because toxic hydrogen sulfide gas forms when phosphorus pentasulfide combines with moisture on exposure to air. To reduce this hazard, the process equipment is continuously purged with nitrogen. The phosphorus pentasulfide vapors are distilled and the liquid from the process is solidified, milled and packaged. One facility operates its entire process under nitrogen blanket. The blanketed vessels, packaging area and tote­ bin wash systems are all vented to a caustic scrubber. A second facility vents the reactor to a caustic scrubber that removes the sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide and generates a blowdown wastestream. The facility has other scrubbers that remove phosphorus pentoxide from the exhaust stream and reacts it with water to produce a dilute phosphoric acid that is routed to their acid plant. The third facility fills the reactor, condenser and packaging equipment with nitrogen to prevent oxidation. This nitrogen stream is scrubbed with recirculating water to remove phosphorus pentasulfide dust. The scrubber liquor is treated and discharged. c. Description of wastes generated by the phosphorus pentasulfide process. We have identified nine waste categories from the production of phosphorus pentasulfide that required assessment. These waste categories are described briefly and in more detail in the following subsections. ÐStill residue/ reactor waste is the result of impurities being left behind when the phosphorus pentasulfide is distilled to remove undesirables (high boilers). This residue consists of glassy phosphates, carbon, and iron sulfide compounds and is removed from the reactor during unit turnaround ÐPhosphorus pentasulfide scrap waste is occasionally generated during certain maintenance operations or equipment failure. This waste can also consist of commercial offspecification material and fugitive dust from the packaging operation. ÐAbsorbents contaminated with phosphorus pentasulfide and Therminol (benzylated ethyl benzene) are generated from cleaning up leaks during maintenance operations. The absorbent material may be in the form of floor dry (a granular material) or an absorbent pillow. ÐWaste Therminol is a spent heat transfer product used for the vessels and pipes to prevent freeze up of the liquid phosphorus pentasulfide. ÐScrubber water is generated as a result of a nitrogen stream being scrubbed to remove phosphorus pentasulfide dust. The packaging equipment is filled with nitrogen to prevent oxidation. ÐCaustic scrubber water is the result of the reactor, packing and tote bin wash system being vented to the scrubber to remove sulfur dioxide and residual hydrogen sulfide. ÐTote bin wash water results from cleaning the shipping containers that hold the product. The phosphorus pentasulfide residue is washed from the returned containers with water and caustic. ÐScrap sulfur is occasionally generated when making or breaking couplings to hoses where sulfur comes into the reaction. One facility reported that they filter elemental phosphorus before feeding it to the reactor. The filter solids, called phosphorus impurities, are managed in tanks and then are piped to that facility's phosphoric acid production furnace for phosphorus reclamation. Because there is low potential for significant exposure from on­ site storage prior to entry in the furnace, we did not evaluate this material further under this sector. Note that wastes generated from the production of phosphoric acid via the dry process, including this facility's phosphoric acid furnace, are addressed in section III. F. 7 of today's proposal. We have organized our discussion of these wastes in terms of how they are currently managed: characteristic wastes, wastewaters, and scrap sulfur. d. Agency evaluation. (1) Characteristic wastes. The RCRA Section 3007 Surveys show that a number of the phosphorus pentasulfide wastes categories are managed as RCRA hazardous wastes at all times. These wastes are hazardous because they exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, reactivity or toxicity for chromium or benzene. The facility that generates the largest volume waste, phosphorus pentasulfide scrap waste, considers it to be a listed hazardous waste (U189). The surveys also show that these wastes are managed as hazardous wastes, with final disposition by incinerated in Subtitle C units. Table III± 20 summarizes our information about these wastes. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55729 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 41 One facility discontinued production as of November 1999 and has no future plans to resume production of phosphorus trichloride. This facility's wastes therefore are not included in the following overview, but were evaluated to determine their potential threat to human health or the environment. The details of this facility's waste generation and management practices are included in the `` Phosphoric Acid Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination. '' TABLE III± 20.Ð CHARACTERISTIC WASTES FROM PHOSPHORUS PENTASULFIDE PRODUCTION DISPOSED IN SUBTITLE C UNITS Waste category Number of reported generators 1998 volume (MT) Reported hazard codes Final management practices Still residue/ reactor waste ............................. 2 4.6 D003, D007 ...... Subtitle C incineration. Phosphorus pentasulfide scrap waste .......... 3 67.75 D001, D003, U189. Subtitle C incineration. 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 waste categories as hazardous wastes under RCRA. All generators of these wastes already report managing these materials as hazardous from the point of generation through incineration because they exhibited one or more of the hazardous waste characteristics. Again, the rules applying to characteristic wastes adequately protect against mismanagement. Furthermore, ninety percent of the waste are already listed as commercial chemical product (U189). Therefore, we propose not to list these wastes. (2) Wastewaters. Wastewaters are generated at various points in the process as a result of scrubbing operations and tote bin washing. As identified by the facilities, the primary constituents of concern in these wastewaters are phosphoric acid and hydrogen sulfide which are readily controlled via neutralization. The management practices for these wastewaters do not allow for the release of phosphoric acid and hydrogen sulfide to the environment in an undiluted or unneutralized state. Table III± 21 summarizes our information on these wastewaters: TABLE III± 21.Ð WASTEWATERS FROM PHOSPHORUS PENTASULFIDE PRODUCTION Waste category Number of reported generators 1998 Volume (MT) Reported hazard codes Sequential management practices 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 ........... (2) none ............ (1) Covered tanks, (2) off­ site treatment, (3) NPDES; (1) Treatment in covered tanks, (2) POTW. We assessed the management practices for these wastes and determined that no exposure pathway of concern exists. Thus, we propose not to list these wastes as listed hazardous wastes under RCRA. The covered tanks employed minimize potential for releases to groundwater and air. Discharges to surface waters under NPDES are exempt from RCRA regulation. Discharges to POTWs via the facility's common sewage line are excluded from RCRA (40 CFR 261.4( a)( 1)( ii)). (3) Scrap sulfur. One facility reported generation of scrap sulfur that occasionally exhibits the characteristic of TC for lead. This sulfur is managed as hazardous in a Subtitle C incinerator. The 1998 waste volume was 0.12 MT. We do not believe this material warrants listing as hazardous waste and, therefore, propose not to list this waste as hazardous under RCRA. While this waste category was reported to periodically exhibit a characteristic, the generator always manages the waste in a Subtitle C incinerator. We believe this management practice is likely to continue because the cost to treat it as hazardous is low for such a small volume wastes, and because the waste may be TC hazardous as generated. This waste is also small volume and highly unlikely to present a significant risk. 9. Phosphorus Trichloride a. Summary. We have evaluated the wastes from the production of phosphorus trichloride and propose not to list any wastes from this process as hazardous wastes. These wastes do not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) for listing a waste as hazardous. They do not pose a substantial present or potential threat to human health or the environment. We have identified no risks of concern associated with the current management of these wastes. b. Description of the phosphorus trichloride industry. Six facilities in the United States reported producing phosphorus trichloride in 1997 or 1998. We are assessing wastes from the five facilities that still produce this product. 41 Phosphorus trichloride is used as an intermediate in the production of a variety of chemicals. These chemicals are used to make pesticides, herbicides, antiscaling additives, corrosion inhibitors for cooling towers and heat exchangers, surfactants, sequestrants, and textile­ treating agents. Phosphorus VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55730 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules trichloride is used as a raw material in the production of chemicals that are used extensively as lubricating oil additives to control corrosion and as antioxidants and flame retardants in plastics. Phosphorus trichloride (PCl3) is a clear, volatile liquid with a pungent, irritating odor. Phosphorus trichloride is produced by one basic process. Liquid phosphorus and chlorine gas are continuously introduced into a reaction vessel. The phosphorus trichloride vapor phase is purified in a packed column and then liquified in a condenser. Most raw material impurities remain in the reactor and are removed as solid waste periodically during unit turnaround. Some facilities filter the product before shipment to ensure there is no dirt or other particles in the final product. A scrubber is used to collect materials from various points in the process. For example, hydrochloric acid and phosphorus acid (H3PO3), the hydrolysis products of phosphorus trichloride vapors are vented to the scrubber from the reactor. Also, phosphorus trichloride vapor generated during transfer of the product into shipping containers is collected and vented to the same scrubber. The wastewater generated from the scrubber( s) is commingled with miscellaneous wastewaters (e. g., reactor washout, spent filter wash, process area wash water) and sent for treatment. Some facilities generate a wastewater treatment sludge from the cleanout of treatment tanks. All of these facilities produce a variety of other products that are outside the scope of today's rule, and they commingle the wastewaters from PCl3 production with wastewaters from other processes. c. What kinds of wastes are generated by this process?. We have organized our discussion of these wastes in terms of how they are currently managed: characteristic wastes, wastewaters, recycled phosphorus, and noncharacteristic non­ wastewaters. The wastes generated by this process include: ÐReactor cleanout sludge consists of impurities from the elemental phosphorus and chlorine raw materials, including high boiling impurities such as arsenic trichloride that are retained in the reactor. These materials are sent to Subtitle C incinerators. ÐInitial washout water from reactor is generated as a result of rinsing out the reactor after sludge removal. In one case, the reactor is cleaned with hot water only and there is no initial sludge removal step. These materials are treated and discharged to an POTW and under a NPDES permit. ÐProduct storage tank cleanout with nonreactive phosphate ester is the rinsate generated from cleaning the storage tank or equipment. When this rinse is done, the rinsate is drummed for off­ site disposal as a hazardous waste. ÐProduct storage tank cleanout with water is generated as a result of additional rinsing that follows phosphate ester rinsing. This potentially acidic rinse water is sent to wastewater treatment for neutralization. ÐSpent filter washwater for product is generated as the result of washing the spent filters used to remove dirt and particles from the product. This wash water is mixed with other wastewaters and sent to wastewater pretreatment. ÐProcess area wash water consists of pad washdown/ rain water and any spilled material collected in contained areas. This wash water is mixed with other wastewaters and sent to wastewater pretreatment. ÐFinal washout water from reactor is the rinsate from additional reactor washing after sludge removal. The one facility reporting this rinsate commingles it with other wastewaters prior to wastewater pretreatment. ÐCaustic scrubber water consists of small amounts of sodium salts and residual caustic. Phosphorus trichloride, acid vapors, traces of chlorine and carbon dioxide are vented from various points of the process. The vent releases mixed with air are scrubbed before the air is released to the atmosphere. The spent scrubber charge is sent along with other wastewaters to wastewater pretreatment. ÐProcess scrubber water consists of a weak acidic solution from scrubbing residual gases from distillation and from various storage tank vents. ÐSpent filters for product are generated due to filtering dirt and other particles from the product before shipment. The filters are washed and dried before disposal. ÐWastewater treatment sludges are generated when wastewaters from the phosphorus trichloride and other processes are biologically treated. These sludges are only marginally derived from phosphorus trichloride wastewaters due to commingling with large volumes of other nonphosphorus trichloride wastewaters. The solids that are removed by filtration are landfilled. One facility reported recycling three secondary materials: phosphorous storage tank sediment; phosphorous transfer water; and absorber residual. The phosphorous storage tank sediment is generated periodically when the phosphorus storage tanks are cleaned. Because the material is stored in containers prior to being sent off­ site for recovery of phosphorus we found low potential for significant exposure from on­ site storage. The phosphorous recovery process is outside the scope of the consent decree so we did not evaluate its wastes. At this same facility, raw material phosphorous is unloaded from rail cars and conveyed through the facility using a closed pressurized piping system that uses water to push the phosphorous in the piping system. To unload the phosphorous from each rail car, water is pumped into the rail car to push the phosphorous out. Because the phosphorous/ water filled rail cars are then returned to the phosphorous manufacturers, where the phosphorous is then recovered, we found no potential for significant exposure, and did not evaluate this material further. The third instance of recycling at this facility, gases vented from the product check, storage tanks, and reflux separator are collected in an absorber. The vapors from the absorber are captured in a caustic scrubber and sent to wastewater treatment (see wastewaters in section d( 2) below). According to the facility, the non­ vapor phosphorous trichloride residual from the absorber is collected and piped to a non­ consent decree production process where the phosphorous trichloride is incorporated into the non­ consent decree product. Because this material is piped from the phosphorous trichloride process to the non­ consent decree process, and there is no significant potential for exposure, we did not evaluate this residual further. d. Agency evaluation. We have organized our discussion of these wastes in terms of how they are currently managed: characteristic wastes, noncharacteristic wastewaters, and noncharacteristic solid wastes. (1) Wastes that are characteristically hazardous wastes. Many of the phosphorus trichloride producers stated that a number of their wastes exhibit RCRA characteristics. These wastes are hazardous wastes because they exhibit the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity. The Toxicity Characteristic was reported for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium or silver. These characteristic wastes are subject to the applicable LDR standards. Furthermore, these wastes are VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55731 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules ultimately disposed in Subtitle C management units or as discharges regulated under the Clean Water Act. We believe that the applicable Subtitle C and Clean Water Act regulations adequately protect against mismanagement. Table III± 22 summarizes our information about these wastes. TABLE III± 22.Ð CHARACTERISTIC WASTES FROM PHOSPHORUS TRICHLORIDE PRODUCTION Waste category Number of reported generators 1998 Volume (MT) Reported hazard codes Sequential management practices Reactor cleanout sludge ............................... 4 1 66 D001± 004, D006± 009, D010, D011. (1) container (2) Subtitle C incineration Initial washout water from reactor ................. 4 1 478 (1) D002, D004, D006, D007. (2) D002, D004 (3) D004, D007 (1) off­ site pretreatment, (2) POTW; (1) neutralized in tanks, (2) surface impoundment, (3) biotreat in tank, (4) NPDES; (1) tank, (2) off­ site biotreatment, (3) NPDES Product storage tank cleanout with nonreactive phosphate ester. 1 10 D002, D003 ...... (1) container (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 above table, the generators report managing these materials as hazardous from the point of generation through disposal (or the point at which they become discharges to surface water regulated under NPDES or POTW regulations). We believe these wastes are sufficiently regulated such that mismanagement is unlikely. Thus, we propose not to list these seven waste categories. One facility appears to treat initial washout reactor water in tanks and then pass it through a nonhazardous waste surface impoundment. (All other units used to manage this waste have RCRA permits or are exempt from permitting.) While we have no analytical data on the treated waste that enters the impoundment, we do not believe this waste is likely to pose significant risk. The waste is generated infrequently (once a year) and combined with wastewaters from other processes. Based on information supplied by the facility, we estimated that the washout water would be diluted at least a hundred­ fold by the daily throughput to the wastewater treatment system. Any potential releases from the impoundment after dilution with other wastewaters would be unlikely to result in any significant long­ term risk. Therefore, we believe that this specific waste also does not pose significant threats to human health or the environment. (2) Non­ characteristic wastewaters. Wastewaters are generated at various points in the process as a result of scrubbing operations, equipment cleanup, and washing the process area. According to the data submitted by the facility, the primary constituents of concern in these wastewaters are hydrochloric acid and phosphorous acid, which are readily controlled via neutralization. The management practices for these wastewaters minimize opportunities for the release of hydrochloric acid or phosphorous acid to the environment in an undiluted or unneutralized state. Table III± 23 summarizes our information on these wastewaters. TABLE III± 23.Ð WASTEWATERS FROM PHOSPHORUS TRICHLORIDE PRODUCTION Waste category Number of reported generators 1998 Volume (MT) Reported hazard codes Sequential management practices 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 facility (1) pretreatment or neutralized in tanks, (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 practices employed for these wastes and determined that no exposure pathway of concern exists that warrants listing. We have determined that plausible management would be continued management in existing tank­ based treatment systems. We believe the manufacturers have made a VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55732 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules considerable investment in wastewater treatment systems using tanks and will continue to use them. Further, we assumed that wastewater treatment tanks retain sufficient structural integrity to prevent wastewater releases to the subsurface (and therefore to groundwater), and that overflow and spill controls prevent significant wastewater releases. Thus, based on the lack of any significant likelihood of release of the constituents to groundwater, we did not project significant risks to groundwater from these wastes in the tank­ based wastewater treatment scenario. Furthermore, discharges to POTWs and surface waters under NPDES are regulated under the Clean Water Act and are exempt from RCRA Subtitle C regulation and thus were not assessed. We also considered the possibility of air releases from tanks. For most wastes, the constituents of concern are nonvolatile metals, making volatilization a very unlikely pathway of release from tanks. In addition, the facilities have installed tank covers, further reducing the likelihood of release to the air. As a result, we did not model releases to air from tanks from the production of phosphorus trichloride. Thus, we propose not to list these wastewaters as hazardous wastes under RCRA. (3) Non­ characteristic nonwastewaters The phosphorus trichloride sector reported two waste categories that do not routinely exhibit any characteristic and that are often managed in Subtitle D landfills; these wastes are summarized in Table III± 24. TABLE III± 24.Ð NON­ CHARACTERISTIC SOLID WASTES Waste category Number of reported generators 1998 Volume (MT) Reported hazard codes Management practices 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 filtered to remove PCl4 and PCl5. These compounds produce a slime on the product and are more viscous than the product. The facility washes the filters before sending them to disposal. The contaminants are easily washed off because of their ready solubility in water. The spent filters are generated in very small volumes. We are proposing not to list them because we do not expect the washed filters to contain significant levels of contaminants of concern. All four of the facilities that generate wastewater treatment sludges commingle wastewaters from PCl3 production with wastewaters from other processes. The wastewater contribution from the phosphorus trichloride process is very small compared to volumes of wastewaters from the other processes. Therefore, the phosphorus trichloride process does not contribute significant amounts of constituents to this sludge. We do not believe any of these materials warrant listing as hazardous wastes from the production of phosphorus trichloride. Therefore, we propose not to list these wastes as hazardous wastes under RCRA in this rulemaking. 10. Potassium Dichromate a. Summary. We evaluated the wastes from the production of potassium dichromate and propose not to list any wastes from this process as hazardous wastes under RCRA. These wastes do not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) for listing as hazardous. They do not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment. b. Description of the potassium dichromate industry. Potassium dichromate, which has a wide variety of industrial uses, was produced by a single facility in the United States in 1998. The U. S. demand for this chemical is very limited and has mostly been replaced by sodium dichromate for industrial use. Any demand not met by the U. S. facility is met by imports to U. S. distributors. Potassium dichromate is produced by reacting chromium trioxide with potassium hydroxide. The reactants are mixed in a reactor along with a crystal modifier. The potassium dichromate is crystallized, sent through a centrifuge to remove any remaining mother liquor, dried and packaged for sale. The single waste is filtered out from the mother liquor. The mother liquor is recycled back into the process. c. What kinds of wastes are generated by this process? There is one waste category generated from this process: filter solids and spent filter media. According to data submitted by the facility, this waste typically contains 12.5 percent chromium. The facility reports the waste as hazardous for chromium and manages it as hazardous (D007). The reported waste volume for 1998 was 0.6 MT. The waste is stored on­ site in drums and is shipped off­ site to a commercial Subtitle C facility for stabilization to meet the land disposal restrictions (40 CFR 268.40 and 268.48) and final disposal in a Subtitle C landfill. Because the total chromium levels are so high, we believe this waste will always exhibit the toxicity characteristic. d. Agency evaluation. We propose not to list this waste as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA. This waste is currently managed as hazardous from the point of generation through ultimate disposal because it is characteristically hazardous. The composition of the waste is such that it is likely to always be characteristic for chromium. The rules applying to characteristic wastes adequately protect against mismanagement. 11. Sodium Chlorate a. Summary. We propose not to list any wastes from the production of sodium chlorate (NaClO3) as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA. Process sludges, spent filters, wastewaters and hydrogen gas are generated from the production of sodium chlorate. These wastes and materials are managed in a variety of ways. After analysis of the management practices and potential exposure pathways of these wastes and materials, we concluded that there are no risk pathways of concern. These wastes and materials do not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) for listing as hazardous. They do not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment. b. Description of the sodium chlorate industry. There were ten facilities producing sodium chlorate in 1999. This industry manufactures sodium chlorate crystals and solutions from electrolysis of a sodium chloride brine. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55733 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules Sodium chlorate is the raw material used for the production of chlorine dioxide, which is replacing chlorine and sodium hypochlorite to be used as an oxidizing bleaching agent by the pulp and paper industry. The replacement of elemental chlorine with chlorine dioxide reduces effluent emissions of dioxin formed in the bleaching process of paper and pulp. Approximately ninety­ eight percent of sodium chlorate is used to generate chlorine dioxide. The other important use of sodium chlorate is as an intermediate in the production of other chlorates, perchlorates, and chlorites. All ten facilities use a similar process in producing sodium chlorate. These facilities dissolve sodium chloride salt in water to create a liquid brine. The brine is treated to remove impurities, such as calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide. The treated brine is filtered and pumped into electrolytic cells. In the cells, sodium chloride is converted to chlorine and sodium hydroxide which further react to form sodium chlorate and hydrogen gas. This reaction is catalyzed by sodium dichromate. Sodium chlorate is then treated with heat and urea to remove residual sodium hypochlorite. Sodium chlorate is then processed further for crystallization, centrifuging, drying, and packaging. A more complete discussion of this process and the industry can be found in `` Sodium Chlorate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' in the docket for today's proposal. c. What kinds of wastes are generated by this process? Wastes generated from the production of sodium chlorate consist of process sludges, spent filters and wastewaters. Based on an evaluation of survey responses from the ten sodium chlorate producers, we divided the wastes further into six general waste categories based on the presence or absence of chromium and lead. The sodium chlorate industry in general characterizes wastes that have been in contact with chromium or lead as hazardous (D007 or D008). Chromium is introduced into the process by the addition of sodium dichromate into electrolytic cells to protect electrodes from corrosion and to improve product yields. The presence of lead in the wastes results from the deterioration of anodes that can be used in the electrolytic cells. The six waste categories are: ÐProcess sludges with chromium or lead. These include electrolytic cells sludge, product filter press sludge, and those brine treatment sludges generated from purification where brine is formed by mixing salts with chrome­ laden wastewaters recycled from various steps of the process. ÐProcess sludges without chromium and lead. These wastes include filter press sludge or drum sludge from treatment of brine, when recycled chrome­ laden wastewater is not used in the brine dissolution step. ÐSpent filters with chromium or lead. The filters are generated at several points in the production process, but most are generated after the electrolysis of the brine solution when the mother liquor is filtered to remove impurities. ÐSpent filters without chromium and lead. Examples include disposable cartridge and sock filters from treatment of brine, when recycled chrome­ laden wastewater is not used in the brine dissolution step. ÐWastewaters with chromium that are not recycled back to the process. ÐOther wastewaters that do not contain chromium or lead and are not recycled (condensate, cooling water, and ion­ exchange wastewater). In addition to these wastes, other materials are produced by all ten facilities during the production of sodium chlorate that are piped directly back to the production process. Scrubber waters and filtrates are piped to on­ site sodium chlorate production units for use. Because these materials are managed prior to reuse in ways that present low potential for releases to the environment, and because we evaluated process wastes generated after they are reused, we do not believe that these secondary materials present significant threats. At all ten facilities, hydrogen gas is produced by the electrolysis units and is either piped to on­ site boilers, vented, or in one case, piped to a compression plant where it is compressed and sold. Because the material is a gas produced from a production unit rather than a waste management unit and is conveyed to its destination via piping, the gas is not a solid waste. RCRA Section 1004( 27) excludes non­ contained gases from the definition of solid waste and thus they cannot be considered a hazardous waste. (See 54 FR 50973) Because the gaseous materials are not solid wastes when produced, we did not evaluate them further for purposes of listing. One facility reports generating a wastewater (sulfate solution) from brine treatment. The wastewater is transported to an off­ site facility and used in their black liquor pulping process. The sulfate solution is added to black liquor for use in a wood digester. The process in the digester is outside the scope of the consent decree and we have not evaluated risks from wastes that it produces. We note, however, that the reuse of black liquor is excluded from regulation (40 CFR 261.4( a)( 6)). The sulfate solution is stored in tanks prior to use in the pulping process, which minimizes the potential for releases. How Are These Wastes Currently Being Managed? Table III± 25 summarizes the six waste categories, waste characteristics, waste volumes, and their current management practices: TABLE III± 25.Ð WASTE FROM SODIUM CHLORATE PRODUCTION Waste category (number of facilities) Reported Waste Codes 1 1998 Volume (MT) Management practices Process sludges with chromium or lead (10). D001, D002, D007, D008 ........................ 28,547 Nine facilities store the waste on site in containers and then send it to Subtitle C landfills or incinerators; one facility decharacterizes the waste in tanks before managing it in on­ site surface impoundments Two facilities did not report hazard codes. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55734 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TABLE III± 25.Ð WASTE FROM SODIUM CHLORATE PRODUCTIONÐ Continued Waste category (number of facilities) Reported Waste Codes 1 1998 Volume (MT) Management practices Process sludges without chromium and lead (5 2 ). none reported .......................................... 1,886 Three facilities store the waste on site in containers and then send it off­ site to municipal Subtitle D landfills; one facility 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 containers 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 Subtitle C landfills or incinerators; one facility decharacterizes the waste on­ site in tanks, stores it in a closed compactor then ships the waste off­ site to an industrial Subtitle D landfill. Spent filters without chromium and lead (4). none reported .......................................... 3.52 Three facilities store the waste on site in containers and send it off­ site to Subtitle 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 recycled back to the process (2). D002, D007 ............................................. 26,736 One facility sends the wastewater to an 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 impoundments Other wastewaters that do not contain chromium or lead and are not recycled (condensate, cooling water, ion­ exchange wastewater). none reported .......................................... 10,744 3 Discharged via NPDES permit or to a POTW. 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 wastes from three facilities for sampling. As described in detail in `` Sodium Chlorate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' in the docket for today's proposal, we selected these facilities and wastes because based on the survey information collected, we believe that the wastes generated by these three facilities are fully representative of the wastes generated by this industry and their management practices. We evaluated the characteristics and current management practices of each of the six waste categories. The details of our evaluation follow. (1) Process sludge with chromium or lead. How Is This Waste Managed? The predominant source of process sludge with chromium or lead is from the periodic cleanout of electrolytic cells used to convert the brine solution to sodium chlorate. All ten facilities generate this waste. Seven facilities classify their wastes as characteristic and send it off­ site to Subtitle C landfills or incinerators. Two facilities do not classify their wastes as characteristic but nevertheless send their wastes to Subtitle C landfills. The tenth facility, located in Hamilton, Mississippi, reports this waste to be characteristic and treats it in tanks to reduce hexavalent chromium to the relatively stable trivalent state. The facility commingles this sludge with wastes from the production of titanium dioxide (TiO2) in these tanks. The treated mixture is subsequently managed in a series of four surface impoundments, three of which are lined with leachate collection systems. Today's proposal separately addresses the titanium dioxide wastes that are commingled with this sodium chlorate sludge (see section III. F. 14. c.( 14)). How Was This Waste Characterized? We collected a total of six samples to assess this waste categories. Three samples of the sludge from electrolytic cells were collected at two facilities where the wastes were destined for Subtitle C treatment and disposal. These two facilities generate and manage this waste as characteristically hazardous. These samples were part of the record characterizing this waste category, but were not used for risk assessment. We collected another three samples from the Hamilton, Mississippi facility that classifies this waste as characteristically hazardous and treats it in tanks to remove the characteristic prior to pumping the effluent to on­ site surface impoundments. One sample (KM± SC± 01) reflects the untreated sodium chlorate sludge collected from a dedicated sump prior to commingling with the titanium dioxide wastewaters. The second sample (KM± SI± 01) is the treated combined wastes collected at the inlet to the surface impoundments. The VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55735 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules third sample (KM± SI± 04) is the treated commingled sludge collected from one of the on­ site surface impoundments. Table III± 26, below, represents the analytical results for the Hamilton, Mississippi samples for total and hexavalent chromium, the primary constituent of concern. Total constituent analyses were conducted for the untreated waste. No other toxicants in the untreated wastewater sample (KM± SC± 01) exceed the health­ based levels. For the treated waste and the sludge collected from the impoundment, total and leaching analyses were conducted to allow us to assess potential releases to the environment. Our analytical data shows that total hexavalent chromium level in the treated sample (KM± SI± 01) is below the HBL for hexavalent chromium, demonstrating the effectiveness of the treatment process. We assessed the treated commingled sludge settled in the impoundments and found that the chromium levels did not exceed the HBLs. TABLE III± 26.Ð ANALYTICAL DATA FOR SODIUM CHLORATE Constituents of concern KM± SC± 01 (Untreated NaC1O3 wastes only) KM± SI± 01 (Treated commingled NaC1O3 and TiO2 wastes) KM± SI± 04 (Treated commingled NaC1O3 and TiO2 sludge in impoundment) HBL Total (mg/ 1) Total (mg/ kg) SPLP (mg/ l) Total (mg/ kg) SPLP (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 the treated waste is higher than the untreated waste due to commingling with other wastes from the titanium dioxide production process. There are other constituents detected in the treated commingled waste sample (KM± SI± 01) that are attributable to the titanium dioxide production process; these constituents are assessed in section III. F. 14. c.( 14) of today's proposal. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We propose not to list this waste category. Seven facilities consider wastes in this category to be characteristically hazardous (for D001, D002, D007 or D008) and manage the wastes under Subtitle C regulations. We believe that these regulations adequately protect against mismanagement. Two facilities do not classify their wastes as characteristic but send them to Subtitle C landfills. We also believe that this practice adequately prevents mismanagement. The remaining facility (which does not identify its sludges as characteristic hazardous wastes) treats the sludge in tanks to reduce hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium prior to placement in on­ site surface impoundments. We found that the waste did not pose risks during treatment because there are no exposure pathways of concern for the on­ site treatment tanks. The wastes are treated in concrete tanks with secondary containment which minimize potential releases to groundwater. We also are not concerned with potential air releases from these tanks as neither volatile contaminants nor airborne particulates are likely to be present in the wastes. As discussed above, the primary constituent of concern in this waste is hexavalent chromium, which is treated to form relatively stable trivalent chromium. The physical form of the wastes (i. e., sludge with high water content) eliminates the potential for a significant release of airborne particulates. Furthermore, our analytical data show that the waste, after treatment, does not contain any constituents of concern at levels exceeding health­ based levels. (2) Process sludge without chromium and lead. How Is This Waste Managed? This sludge is produced as part of the initial purification of the brine solution. Five facilities report generating this type of waste and managing it as nonhazardous. Four facilities manage the waste in an on­ site land farm, offsite municipal Subtitle D landfills, and an industrial Subtitle D landfill. One facility ships their waste off­ site for recycling. We collected a total of four samples of this waste category from two facilities. Two of the four samples (HT± SN± 01 and EC± SN± 03) are representative of wastes that are land disposed. The other two samples (EC± SN± 01 and EC± SN± 02) are representative of wastes that are generally recycled and occasionally also landfilled. Table III± 27 identifies the constituents of concern that we found to be present in the waste at levels exceeding their respective HBLs and/ or soil screening levels. TABLE III± 27.Ð ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SODIUM CHLORATE PROCESS SLUDGE WITHOUT CHROMIUM AND LEAD (PPM) Parameter HT± SN± 01 EC± SN± 03 EC± SN± 01 EC± SN± 02 HBL 1 SSL Total TCLP SPLP Total TCLP SPLP Total TCLP SPLP Total TCLP SPLP Arsenic .............................................. 14.3 2 0.03 <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< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55736 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules What Management Scenarios Did We Aassess? We evaluated wastes managed under the four identified management scenarios: on­ site land farm, municipal Subtitle D landfill, industrial Subtitle D landfill, and recycling. Land farm scenario. One facility reports managing 37 MT/ year of this waste in an on­ site permitted land farm. EPA previously assessed this same land farm as part of the chlorinated aliphatics listing determinations (see proposed rule at 64 FR 46475, August 25, 1999). Today's assessment of sodium chlorate waste placed in the same unit is based on our earlier modeling of this unit for a waste from the production of chlorinated aliphatics (EDC/ VCM sludges). In assessing this management scenario, we first compared the total constituent concentrations of all four record samples to background soil concentrations. The following metals exceeded this screening criteria: arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, and zinc. We then used the metal modeling results generated from the chlorinated aliphatics listing determination to calculate the proportional sodium chlorate risk. The calculated modeling results of arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and zinc for the same land farm are all below a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1 and 10 ´6 risk thresholds for the land treatment scenario. Finally, we compared the total concentrations of copper, lead, mercury, and silver of all samples to the soil ingestion HBL because these constituents were not assessed in the chlorinated aliphatics risk analyses. The maximum total concentrations of lead, mercury, and silver are well below the soil ingestion HBL, and the maximum total concentration of copper in this waste (i. e., 17.2 mg/ kg) is very close to the soil ingestion HBL (i. e., 17 mg/ kg). We believe that after mixing with soil in the land application unit, the copper concentration in the unit will be even lower. We do not believe this waste poses risk via volatilization to the air pathway because it does not contain any significant toxic volatile chemicals. In addition, the comparison described above for this unit, where we determined that the detected waste constituents are present in the waste at levels below or very close to the soil ingestion levels, suggests that any wind blown dust from the unit should not pose risk at levels of concern. Based on our analysis, we conclude that the waste does not present a substantial risk to human health or the environment when land applied. Landfill scenarios. Three facilities manage their wastes in municipal Subtitle D landfills and one facility manages its waste in an industrial Subtitle D landfill. We used the SPLP results of all four relevant samples to evaluate the industrial Subtitle D landfill management scenario. We found that the waste poses no substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment when managed in an industrial Subtitle D landfill because the SPLP leachate concentration of all constituents of the four samples of this waste category are below their respective HBLs. We used the TCLP results of all four relevant samples to assess the municipal Subtitle D landfill scenario. We modeled all three volumes reported being sent to municipal Subtitle D landfills. We focused our assessment on the geological regions in the northwestern and southeastern areas of the country because of the locations of the facilities and the landfills currently being used. The constituents we modeled are arsenic, lead, manganese, nickel, and zinc. The details regarding our modeling inputs and assumptions are provided in `` Sodium Chlorate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' and `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes' in the docket for today's proposal. The results of our risk assessment are summarized below in Table III± 28. TABLE III± 28.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR PROCESS SLUDGE WITHOUT CHROMIUM AND LEAD Percentile Arsenic Manganese Nickel Zinc Adult cancer risk Child cancer 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 results, we conclude that process sludge without chromium and lead does not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment when managed in municipal Subtitle D landfills. We calculated hazard quotients for noncarcinogenic compounds (lead, manganese, nickel, and zinc), and all of these were well below a value of one. We found no adult or child cancer risk for arsenic in excess of 1E± 06 at the 95th percentile. Based on these results we conclude that this waste does not pose risk to human health and the environment. For a more complete description of this analysis, see `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' in the docket for this proposal. Recycling scenario.Ð One facility ships their wastes to an off­ site facility for reuse. The material is added to mined gypsum used to retard the setting of concrete. We assessed this use because it involves land placement, with higher likelihood of releases to the environment. Two samples of this waste category were collected from the facility that produces and manages this waste in such a fashion. We compared this use to a less protective landfarming scenario, which we modeled, and found no risk of concern. The volume of the waste is quite small (< 1%) when compared to the volume of mined gypsum used by the off­ site facility. We believe that the constituent concentrations in the final cement product would be even lower due to mixing with other materials. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale For This Waste? Based on our assessments of the four management scenarios (on­ site land farm, municipal Subtitle D landfill, industrial Subtitle D landfill, and recycling), we found that the wastes do not present a substantial risk to human health or the environment. Therefore, we propose not to list these wastes. (3) Spent filters with chromium or lead. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55737 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules How Is This Waste Managed? Spent filters are generated at several points in the production process but most are generated after the electrolysis of the brine solution. Seven facilities report generating this waste. Six of the seven facilities report this waste to be characteristic and ship it to off­ site Subtitle C landfills or incinerators. The seventh facility generates a very small volume of D007 waste that is acidwashed and decharacterized (to meet UTS) before being landfilled at an offsite industrial Subtitle D landfill. How Was This Waste Characterized? We collected one sample of the spent filter that was decharacterized prior to being sent to an industrial Subtitle D landfill. We did not sample any of the six facilities that already adequately managed the waste under Subtitle C regulations. Table III± 29 presents the analytical results for the total and leaching analyses of the decharacterized spent filter sample (KM± FB± 01) for arsenic, lead, total chromium, and hexavalent chromium. Chromium and lead are the two primary constituents of concern in wastes of this category. The sample was not collected from the facility that uses anodes with lead coating, thus lead was not present in this sample. Arsenic was the only constituent detected in the SPLP analysis of this sample at levels exceeding the HBL. TABLE III± 29.Ð ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SPENT FILTERS WITH CHROMIUM (KM± FB± 01) Parameter Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) SPLP (mg/ l) Drinking water HBLs (mg/ l) Arsenic ............................................................................................................. <0.5 <0.5 1 0.005 0.0007 Chromium ........................................................................................................ 41.0 <0.05 <0.05 20 Hexavalent Chromium ..................................................................................... 16.8 2 NA 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 chromium in TCLP waste leachates were converted to trivalent chromium. The leach test for hexavalent chromium was modified by replacing the typical (TCLP/ SPLP) solution with deionized water. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale For This Waste? As previously noted, six of the seven generators of this waste report managing their wastes in Subtitle C facilities as characteristically hazardous from the point of generation through ultimate disposal. We did not conduct risk assessment on wastes identified as hazardous wastes and managed in Subtitle C facilities because listing would not provide any significant incremental control of wastes already managed under Subtitle C. We evaluated the small volume waste (i. e., 2.3 MT/ yr) generated by the seventh facility that decharacterizes its waste before landfilling in an industrial Subtitle D landfill. Because the volume of this waste is relatively small, we used a screening analysis (described in section III. E. 3) to screen the potential risk to groundwater associated with landfilling this waste. We found that the SPLP data for arsenic screens out because the volume of the waste generated by the facility is insufficient to release arsenic at levels of concern. For a more complete description of this analysis, see `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' in the docket for this proposal. Our analytical data demonstrate that the waste is effectively decharacterized and does not pose risks warranting listing for chromium, the primary constituent of concern in this waste. The result of the screening analysis for arsenic, the only constituent present in the waste's leachate at levels exceeding the HBL, shows that the arsenic in this waste does not pose risk to human health and the environment. Therefore, we propose not to list spent filters with chromium. (4) Spent filters without chromium and lead. How Is This Waste Managed? This residual is usually generated as part of the initial brine purification steps, where impurities are removed from the brine solution, and from filtering of product during packaging. Four facilities report generating this type of waste. Two of these four facilities manage their wastes as nonhazardous in municipal Subtitle D landfills. One facility manages its waste as nonhazardous in an industrial Subtitle D landfill. One facility sends their spent filters along with process sludge off­ site to a Subtitle C facility for stabilization prior to disposal in a Subtitle C landfill. These wastes are generated in very small volumes. How Was This Waste Characterized? We collected two samples (HT± FB± 01 and HT± FB± 02) from one facility. These two samples are representative of wastes in this category that are land disposed. We found that antimony, arsenic, boron, hexavalent chromium, and lead in the TCLP or SPLP waste leachates exceeded their HBLs. We also found that cadmium was not detected in the leachates at a detection level of six times higher than its HBL. The detection limit was high due to dilution to minimize sample matrix interferences. Information on constituents of concern is summarized in Table III± 30. TABLE III± 30.Ð ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SPENT FILTERS WITHOUT CHROMIUM OR LEAD Parameter HT± FB± 01 HT± FB± 02 HBL (mg/ l) Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) SPLP (mg/ l) Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) SPLP (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< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55738 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TABLE III± 30.Ð ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR SPENT FILTERS WITHOUT CHROMIUM OR LEADÐ Continued Parameter HT± FB± 01 HT± FB± 02 HBL (mg/ l) Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) SPLP (mg/ l) Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) SPLP (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 Assessed? We modeled both the industrial (0.6 MT/ year) and municipal (2.8 MT/ year) landfill scenarios, based on the reported management practices. We used the SPLP leachate concentrations to evaluate the industrial landfill scenario. The constituents of concern that exceeded their respective HBLs in the SPLP results were arsenic, hexavalent chromium, and lead. We evaluated these constituents using the de minimis volume screening analysis, as described in section III. E. 3 of today's proposal. The analysis suggests that hexavalent chromium and lead are not of concern. We then modeled arsenic using our standard groundwater model for the industrial landfill scenario. We used the TCLP leachate concentrations to evaluate the municipal landfill scenario. Using the de minimis volume analysis, we screened out boron, hexavalent chromium, and lead. We then conducted full groundwater modeling for the municipal scenario for antimony, arsenic, and cadmium. What Are the Results of EPA's Risk Assessment for This Waste When Managed in an Industrial Subtitle D Landfill? Our risk assessment results for the industrial landfill scenario, summarized below in Table III± 31, suggest that the only constituent of concern that required modeling (arsenic) does not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment. We found no arsenic cancer risk in excess of 1E± 08 at the 95th percentile for either adult or child exposure scenarios. Therefore, we believe that this waste when managed in industrial Subtitle D landfills clearly does not warrant listing. For a more complete description of this analysis, see `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' in the docket for this proposal. TABLE III± 31.Ð RISK RESULTS FOR FILTERS WITHOUT CHROMIUM AND LEADÐ INDUSTRIAL SUBTITLE D LANDFILL SCENARIO Percentile Arsenic Adult cancer risk Child cancer risk 90th ....................... 1E± 09 8E± 10 95th ....................... 5E± 09 4E± 09 What Are the Results of EPA's Risk Assessment for This Waste When Managed in Municipal Subtitle D Landfills? Our risk assessment results for the municipal landfill scenario, summarized below in Table III± 32, suggest that the three constituents of concern (antimony, arsenic, and cadmium) do not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment. The hazard quotients, for both the adult and child exposure scenarios, of antimony are less than 0.01 at the 95th percentile, and of cadmium, are less than 0.001 at the 95th percentile. We found no arsenic cancer risk in excess of 1E± 08 at the 95th percentile for either adult or child exposure scenarios. Therefore, we believe that this waste when managed in municipal Subtitle D landfills does not warrant listing. For a more complete description of this analysis, see `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' in the docket for this proposal. TABLE III± 32. RISK RESULTS FOR FILTERS WITHOUT CHROMIUM AND LEAD MUNICIPAL SUBTITLE D LANDFILL SCENARIO Percentile Antimony Arsenic Cadmium Adult HQ Child HQ Adult cancer risk Child cancer 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 are not recycled back to the process. How Is This Waste Managed and How Is It Characterized? Two facilities report generating this wastewater and characterize it as hazardous (D002 and D007). One facility generates 11 MT per year of this wastewater from its on­ site laboratory testings of the electrolyte in the electrolytic cells, the excess caustic from the hydrogen purification step, and the wastewater from the production of sodium chlorate crystals. The facility stores the wastewater on­ site in closed tanks before sending it off­ site to a hazardous waste facility for treatment and disposal. The other facility generates 26,725 MT per year of this wastewater from acid washing filters and anodes to remove buildup of trace metals on the surface. The facility combines the wastewaters with the wastewaters from its titanium dioxide production process and treats the commingled wastewaters in tanks. The treated wastewater is then discharged to on­ site surface impoundments. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55739 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? One facility identifies the waste as hazardous and manages it in accordance with Subtitle C regulations. We believe that applicable Subtitle C regulations adequately protect against mismanagement, and we did not investigate it further. For the other facility, in Hamilton, Mississippi, we evaluated its combined wastewaters and solids as described above in the `` process sludges with chromium or lead'' category. Today's proposal separately addresses the titanium dioxide wastes that are commingled with this sodium chlorate waste. We propose not to list these wastes. (6) Other wastewaters that do not contain chromium or lead and are not recycled. How Is This Waste Managed? There are other wastewaters generated from several points of the process, including process condensate, cooling waters, and ion­ exchange wastewater. Four facilities reported generating these wastewaters. Two facilities generate process condensates from condensing water vapor from their crystalizers, steam jets, or pad water evaporator. Both facilities store their process condensates in closed tanks. One facility neutralizes the condensate prior to discharging it to an NPDES permitted outfall. The other facility does not treat the condensate, but tests to ensure it meets its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit prior to discharge to a river. One facility generates wastewater from regeneration of the ion­ exchange unit that is used for purification of the brine. The wastewater is collected in a tank for pH neutralization before it is discharged to a POTW. One facility generates wastewater from cooling tower blowdown, chemical storage tank scrubber pad, hydrogen scrubber pad, and water demineralization area. These wastewaters are piped to its on­ site NPDES facility to be processed and discharged. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We propose not to list these wastewaters as hazardous. We evaluated these wastewaters that are stored and treated in tanks or in a NPDES permitted facility. We found that these wastewaters do not pose risks warranting regulation during treatment because there are no exposure pathways of concern. The wastewater treatment tanks and the wastewater treatment facility provide sufficient structural integrity and have secondary containment areas to minimize potential releases to groundwater. We are unlikely to find potential air releases from these tanks or the permitted facility as neither volatile contaminants nor airborne particulates are likely to be present in these wastewaters. 12. Sodium Dichromate a. Summary. We have evaluated the wastes, waste management practices, and potential risk exposure pathways associated with the sodium dichromate production processes and propose not to list any wastes from this industry as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA. These wastes do not meet the criteria listed under 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) for listing a waste as hazardous. They do not pose a substantial present or potential threat to human health or the environment. We have identified no risks of concern associated with the current management of these wastes. Note that certain wastes from this sector are exempt mineral processing wastes which are not within the scope of today's listing proposal. b. Description of the sodium dichromate industry. Two facilities in the United States produce sodium dichromate; one in North Carolina and one in Texas. Both facilities sell their product on the open market in addition to using the material as a feedstock for various manufacturing processes onsite The majority of sodium dichromate is used as a feedstock for the production of chromic acid. It is also used in a wide variety of other uses. For more detailed information concerning this industry, see `` Sodium Dichromate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' in the docket for today's proposal. The two sodium dichromate production facilities use somewhat different manufacturing processes and generate somewhat different wastes. Both facilities use imported chromite ore as their primary feedstock. They dry and grind the ore and feed it into a roasting kiln or hearth with other materials such as soda ash, lime, and sodium hydroxide. The facilities roast, then quench and leach the ore with water, producing sodium chromate solution and solid ore residues. Both facilities return the ore residues to the manufacturing process for further roasting and leaching. The facilities purify the resulting sodium chromate solution product stream by adjusting its pH, treating it with sodium carbonate, and, at the Texas facility, sodium dichromate, and filtering out the resulting solid impurities. The two facilities' processes diverge significantly at this point. At the Texas facility, the sodium chromate solution is either crystallized and sold or processed electrolytically to convert the sodium chromate to sodium dichromate. The electrolytic cell system also produces sodium hydroxide solution which, the facility reports, they sell. The North Carolina facility converts the sodium chromate solution to sodium dichromate through acidification, and the sodium dichromate is then partially evaporated. The acidification process also produces sodium sulfate and lower purity sodium sulfate `` saltcake, '' both of which the facility sells. The sodium dichromate is then either used in liquid form or further evaporated to produce a crystalline product. c. How does the Bevill Exclusion apply to wastes from the sodium dichromate manufacturing processes? The sodium dichromate manufacturing facilities produce two types of residuals which are eligible for the Bevill exemption once disposed: beneficiation wastes (See 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7)( i)) and mineral processing wastes referred to as treated residue from roasting/ leaching of chromium ore (see 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7)( ii)( N)). Under the Bevill exemption, any wastes generated from beneficiation of ores, such as crushing, mixing, and milling, are Bevill exempt. Both facilities beneficiate ore by drying and grinding chromite ore and mixing the ore with other ingredients prior to placement in the roasting kiln and generate air pollution control dusts from these processes. However, the residuals from these processes, which would be Bevill exempt, are not disposed of but rather captured and returned to the process from which they originated for chromium recovery. In terms of when beneficiation stops and mineral processing starts, EPA determined in 1989 that the roasting/ leaching of chromium ore to produce sodium chromate is mineral processing rather than beneficiation. 54 FR 36592 (September 1, 1989) stated: `` A specific exception to the above categorization system applies when the roasting/ leaching sequence produces a final or intermediate product that does not undergo further beneficiation or processing steps (e. g., the leach liquor serves as an input to inorganic chemical manufacturing). In this type of situation, the Agency believes that the operation is most appropriately considered a processing, rather than a beneficiation, operation. In the context of this rulemaking, one candidate Bevill waste (roast/ leach ore residue from primary chrome ore processing) is affected by this distinction; EPA believes that this material is clearly a waste from VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55740 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules processing, rather than beneficiation, of an ore or mineral. '' The wastes generated after mineral processing begins are not Bevill exempt unless and until they become treated residue from the roasting/ leaching of chromium ore as specified in 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7)( ii)( N). The wastes eligible for the exclusion, once they are treated, are referred to later in this preamble and associated background documents as spent post­ leach, spent postneutralization ore residue, and waste heat boiler washout. These wastes are generated from roasting and leaching (including precipitation and filtration to remove the resulting impurities) of chromite ore. Both facilities generate these wastes, treat them in on­ site treatment systems, and dispose of them in on­ site surface impoundments. Note that in the January 23, 1990 Federal Register, EPA stated that the Bevill exemption applies to `` only those solids which are entrained in the slurry as it leaves the treatment facility and which settle out in disposal impoundments. '' Wastes generated following the roasting/ leaching processes to produce sodium chromate for sodium dichromate production are not Bevill exempt because they are not from the roasting/ leaching of chromite ore. Wastes generated at these facilities that are not Bevill exempt include sodium chromate evaporation unit wastewaters (Texas facility), sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewaters (Texas facility), caustic filter sludge (Texas facility), and salt cake drier scrubber wastewater (North Carolina facility). As described below, both facilities in the sodium dichromate manufacturing industry commingle wastes during the treatment process, ultimately producing a commingled treatment residue which is a mixture of Bevill exempt wastes and wastes which do not qualify for the Bevill exemption. In general, the majority of these mixtures consist of Bevill exempt wastes. Mixing Bevill exempt wastes with non­ hazardous wastes does not affect the regulatory status of the Bevill wastes, but it also does not conversely extend Bevill exempt status to the non­ hazardous wastes in the mixture (see 63 FR 28595). Therefore, in this rulemaking we have addressed that portion of the treatment residue mixture which derives from wastes which do not qualify for the Bevill exemption. In addition, in general, if any of the non­ Bevill wastes exhibit a characteristic and is mixed with the Bevill wastes, the entire mixture may become subject to Subtitle C based on the Bevill mixture rule (See 40 CFR 261.3( a)( 2)). d. What kinds of wastes are generated by these processes? Table III± 33 below briefly lists the facility­ reported residuals from the sodium dichromate manufacturing industry, total industry residual volumes generated in 1998, RCRA hazard codes, and residual management practices. TABLE III± 33.Ð SODIUM DICHROMATE PRODUCTION RESIDUALS Waste category 1998 volumes (MT) Reported waste codes Sequential management practices North Carolina Facility Residuals commingled in spent ore residue treatment unit 1 : Spent post­ neutralization ore residue (Bevill exempt after treatment). 146,937 ............ D007 ................. Sent on­ site to tank­ based spent ore residue treatment unit with NPDES permitted discharge. Spent post­ leach ore residue (Bevill exempt after treatment). 25,930 .............. D007 ................. Sent on­ site to tank­ based spent ore residue treatment unit with NPDES permitted discharge. Saltcake drier scrubber wastewater ................... 13,851 .............. D007 ................. Sent on­ site to tank­ based spent ore residue treatment unit with NPDES permitted discharge. Waste heat boiler washout (Bevill exempt after treatment). 70 ..................... D007 ................. Sent on­ site to tank­ based spent ore residue treatment unit with NPDES permitted discharge. Residuals disposed of on­ site: Reduced chromium treatment residues commingled Bevill exempt and non­ exempt residues 129,503 ............ None ................. Sent to on­ site industrial Subtitle D disposal unit. Commingled treated wastewaters (commingled Bevill exempt and non­ exempt residues). 920,161 ............ None ................. Passed through sand filters then discharged directly under NPDES permit or sent to on­ site industrial Subtitle D disposal unit. Residuals disposed of off­ site: Chromium­ contaminated filters, membranes, and other plant waste. 67 ..................... D007 ................. Stored in on­ site roll­ off bin before off­ site treatment and landfill disposal at Subtitle C facility. Spent sand filter sands (commingled Bevill exempt and non­ exempt residues). 21.7 (1997) ....... None ................. Stored in on­ site drums or roll­ off bins before disposal in off­ site industrial Subtitle D landfill. Texas Facility Residuals commingled in spent ore residue treatment unit: Spent post­ neutralization ore residue (Bevill exempt after treatment). 60,000 .............. D007 ................. Sent to on­ site, covered, tank­ based, spent ore residue treatment unit with NPDES permitted discharge Caustic filter sludge ............................................ 80 ..................... D002 ................. Sent to on­ site, covered, tank­ based, spent ore residue treatment unit with NPDES permitted discharge 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< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55741 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TABLE III± 33.Ð SODIUM DICHROMATE PRODUCTION RESIDUALSÐ Continued Waste category 1998 volumes (MT) Reported waste codes Sequential management practices Residuals disposed of on­ site: Reduced chromium treatment residues from spent ore residue treatment unit (commingled Bevill exempt and non­ exempt residues). 60,000 .............. None ................. Sent to on­ site industrial Subtitle D, double­ lined surface impoundment for dewatering and disposal Impoundment has NPDES permitted outflow Reduced chromium treatment residues from wastewater treatment unit (commingled Bevill exempt and non­ exempt residues). ~30,000 (1999) None ................. Sent to on­ site industrial Subtitle D, double­ lined surface impoundment for dewatering and disposal Impoundment has NPDES permitted outflow Commingled treated wastewaters (commingled Bevill exempt and non­ exempt residues). 186,515 ............ None ................. Sent to on­ site industrial Subtitle D surface impoundment filtered through sand filters, then discharged directly under NPDES permit. Residuals disposed of off­ site: Process filters and membranes, baghouse bags, chromium­ contaminated empty containers and other plant wastes. 24 ..................... D007 ................. Stored in on­ site roll­ off box before treatment and landfill disposal at Subtitle C facility. Spent sand filter sands (commingled Bevill exempt and non­ exempt wastes). ~2 MT once every two years. None ................. Placed in on­ site non­ hazardous soil waste bin and then disposed of in off­ site industrial Subtitle D 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 sodium dichromate manufacturers produce residuals which are either piped back to the production process or sold for use in other manufacturing processes. Air pollution control devices capture materials that are returned to their units of origin or to other manufacturing process units. At the North Carolina facility, ore residue washwaters and calcium carbonate residuals are returned to the production process for chromium recovery. Chromium­ bearing solution from the saltcake purification process is directly reused in the roasted ore quench, leach and filter process. At the Texas facility, chromium­ containing residuals from scrubbers on the hearth and on the sodium chromate and dichromate evaporation/ crystallization units are reused in the hearth kiln and quench tank units. Because these materials are reused in production units in ways that present low potential for release, and because we evaluated process wastes generated after the secondary material is reinserted into the process, we do not believe that these materials present significant risk. The North Carolina facility also produces for sale sodium sulfate `` saltcake'' and purified sodium sulfate anhydrous from the sodium dichromate production process. The Texas facility sells hydroxide solution from their sodium dichromate production process. We found no information indicating that the facilities which purchase these materials burn them for energy recovery or incorporate them into products that are used on the land (use constituting disposal). Since these processes are outside the scope of the consent decree we did not evaluate any of these materials further. We did however, evaluate some residuals produced onsite at the North Carolina and Texas facilities during the preparation of the materials that are sold. See the discussions in the sections below of salt cake drier scrubber water and caustic filter sludge. Finally, the North Carolina facility produces some off­ specification product, which it reinserts into the sodium dichromate manufacturing process. Off­ specification product, when reinserted without reclamation into the process from where it originated, is not a solid waste. See the `` Sodium Dichromate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' for more details on these residuals. e. Waste characterization and Agency evaluation. Chromium is the primary constituent of concern in the wastes from both facilities. Chromium occurs in several production wastes at high levels, in some cases exceeding the TC level (5.0 mg/ L) in TCLP leachate samples. These wastes are coded as hazardous (D007). Both facilities treat some of their D007 wastes on­ site and send other D007 wastes off­ site for treatment and disposal at permitted Subtitle C hazardous waste facilities. Various other wastes which fall below D007 regulatory levels are either treated on­ site or sent off­ site for disposal. No other constituents of concern were reported to be present in the wastes at levels of concern. We propose not to list any of the wastes from the sodium dichromate manufacturing industry. Many wastes from this industry are Bevill exempt once treated, and therefore not within the scope of the consent decree requirements. Other wastes are characteristically hazardous and are managed at permitted Subtitle C facilities off­ site. Some wastes did not exhibit constituents at levels of concern for purposes of a listing given the nature of their management and disposal. The main constituent of concern, chromium, is treated on­ site for many of the wastes. Several wastes from each of the facilities are disposed of in a treated form, rather than an as­ generated form. In general, we focused our evaluation on the treated form of wastes because it is ultimately only the treated wastes which are disposed. The sections below describe how wastes are generated and managed at the two sodium dichromate manufacturing facilities, each with its own production process, and our rationale for proposing not to list the wastes. We solicit comments on the proposed listing decisions described below. (1) North Carolina Facility. (a) Residuals Commingled in Spent Ore Residue Treatment Unit. The North Carolina facility commingles and treats several characteristic wastes from sodium dichromate manufacturing in an on­ site, tank­ based treatment unit at the North Carolina facility. These four sodium dichromate manufacturing wastes are: ÐWaste heat boiler washout, which are accumulated solids from the internal VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55742 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules components of the roasting kiln waste heat boilers (Bevill exempt after treatment) ÐSpent post­ leach ore residue (Bevill exempt after treatment) ÐSpent post­ neutralization ore residue (Bevill exempt after treatment) ÐSaltcake drier scrubber wastewater We consider the saltcake drier scrubber wastewater to be a wastestream associated with the production of sodium sulfate at the North Carolina facility, rather than a sodium dichromate manufacturing waste. Nevertheless, we chose to exercise our discretion to evaluate the risk posed by the treated and untreated form of this residue. As explained below, we did not find risks warranting listing. All four wastes catalogued above go directly from their points of generation to the on­ site spent ore residue treatment unit without intervening storage. The facility treats non­ contact cooling tower blowdown, remediation well water, and stormwater in the treatment unit as well. The four manufacturing wastes comprise approximately 60± 65% by volume of the wastes entering the treatment unit. The entire treatment process takes place in a series of tanks with secondary containment. Treatment consists of conversion of hexavalent chromium in the wastes to trivalent chromium with pickle liquor (ferrous chloride reducing agent). Trivalent chromium is a generally less toxic and less soluble form of chromium. Wastes containing a high percentage of solids (waste heat boiler washout, spent post­ leach ore residue, and spent post­ neutralization ore residue) are also neutralized with lime slurry in order to increase precipitation of trivalent chromium compounds out of solution. The treatment sludge is then thickened in a series of clarifier tanks. Limestone is added to the thickened sludge to further stabilize chromium and other metals. All of the tanks in the treatment train have secondary containment and some are covered. Treated wastewaters, after passing through sand filters, discharge from the treatment unit under an NPDES permit or travel with the treated solid residues to the on­ site industrial Subtitle D disposal unit (see section III. F. 12. e( 1)( b) ii below regarding the commingled treated wastewaters). The Bevill exemption applies to the waste heat boiler washout, spent postleach ore residue, and spent postneutralization ore residue only after the wastes are treated. We evaluated the potential for releases from the treatment tanks. We assumed that the tanks were intact structures with minimal potential for releases to groundwater. We do not anticipate significant air releases because the wastes do not contain volatile constituents and have high moisture content. Also, some of the tanks have covers which further reduce the possibility of air releases. We are proposing not to list any of these four wastestreams undergoing treatment in this tank system. (b) Residuals Disposed of On­ Site. (i) Commingled reduced chromium treatment residues. The reduced chromium sludge from the on­ site spent ore residue treatment unit is slurried and conveyed directly from the treatment unit to one of two on­ site industrial Subtitle D disposal units (former limestone quarries). Of the several treatment residues contributing to the final commingled treatment residue, only one falls within the scope of today's listing proposal; residue from treatment of saltcake drier scrubber wastewater (we believe this is not within scope of the consent decree but are evaluating it in this rule making). Residues from the treatment of waste heat boiler washout, spent post­ leach ore residue, and spent postneutralization ore residue are Bevill exempt mineral processing wastes beyond the scope of today's listing proposal (see Section III. F. 12( c)). Stormwater and remediation well water are contaminated media whose treatment residues we also consider to be beyond the scope of the consent decree (see section III. B of today's proposal). Therefore, we do not consider the risks posed by these treatment residues. According to information the facility submitted in their RCRA Section 3007 Survey response, the only potential constituent of concern in the untreated saltcake drier scrubber wastewater is chromium, detected at a level of 6 mg/ L. Therefore, chromium is the only constituent we considered when assessing the level of risk from saltcake drier scrubber wastewater treatment residues. Of the total mass of chromium found in the commingled reduced chromium treatment residues, the saltcake drier scrubber wastewater contributes approximately 0.001%. This estimate is based on calculations using information the North Carolina facility provided to us on chromium contents and tonnages of waste exiting the spent ore residue treatment unit. Both the information and the calculations are further detailed in the `` Sodium Dichromate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination. '' We found the treatment residues from saltcake drier scrubber solution to pose no significant risks to groundwater. After treatment for hexavalent chromium, the commingled reduced chromium treatment residues from 1998 showed weekly TCLP analysis levels of leachable chromium in the range of 0.01± 1.00 mg/ L for composite samples and <0.01± 0.76 mg/ L for grab samples. Assuming that the saltcake drier scrubber wastewater's percent contribution to total chromium in the commingled residues is equal to its percent contribution to total chromium leaching from the commingled residues (0.001%), the saltcake scrubber solution was responsible for TCLP leaching levels of 1´10 ´7 to 1´10 ´5 mg/ L for composite samples and <3´10 ´7 to 2.28´10 ´5 mg/ L for grab samples. The HBL for ingestion of hexavalent chromium is 0.047 mg/ L and 23 mg/ L for trivalent chromium. The AWQC for hexavalent chromium is 0.011 mg/ L and 0.74 mg/ L for trivalent chromium. Even at a maximum leaching level of 1´10 ´5 mg/ L, the leachable chromium contribution of the saltcake drier scrubber wastewater indicates a very low level of risk to groundwater. The treated wastes are disposed in an uncovered disposal unit that resembles a surface impoundment. However, given the inorganic, nonvolatile nature of the treated wastes, we do not believe they pose a risk through airborne pathways. Given the low level of chromium leaching attributable to the one treatment residue within the scope of today's listing proposal and the lack of volatile constituents of concern, we propose not to list residues deriving from the treatment of saltcake drier scrubber wastewater. (ii) Commingled treated wastewaters. The spent ore residue treatment unit described in the sections above has clarifier units which discharge a wastewater stream to tank­ based sand filters. After passing through sand filters, the treated wastewaters discharge through an NPDES­ permitted outfall. These wastewaters are a mixture of nonBevill exempt and Bevill exempt treatment residues, and other treatment residues beyond the scope of the consent decree. The solids suspended in the wastewaters are a mixture of Bevill exempt and non­ Bevill exempt treatment residues. The liquid portion, the majority of this wastestream, is a mixture of non­ Bevill exempt residues, some of which are within the scope of this listing determination, and some of which derive from treatment of contaminated media and are therefore not with the scope of this listing determination. We did not find any VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55743 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 42 http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ index_java. html. 43 As described in Section III. E. 3, we used engineering judgment to screen out constituents with concentrations within a factor of two of the HBL. significant potential for releases from the tanks. (We assess spent filter media from the sand filters separately in section III. F. 12. e( 1)( c) ii below.) We concluded that the NPDES discharge is exempt from RCRA regulation. A portion of the commingled treated wastewaters remains with the commingled reduced chromium treatment residues discharged for disposal to the facility's on­ site industrial Subtitle D disposal units. The facility also adds water to this mixture from either the nearby Northeast Cape Fear River or the quarry in order to help slurry and convey the residues to the disposal units. The liquids which separate from the settled treatment residues in the facility's disposal units are not Bevill exempt wastes (see Section III. F. 12. c). Because these liquids derive from the same treatment unit from which the NPDES­ discharged wastewaters discussed above derive, we are assuming their chemical composition is very similar to that of the wastewaters discharged under the facility's NPDES permit. We used NPDES permit discharge data, available to the public from the EPA's Envirofacts database, 42 as a surrogate for characterization of this wastewater (see discussion of SPLP filtrate in Section III. E. 3). The exposure pathway of concern is the groundwater underlying the facility's disposal units and consumption of the groundwater as drinking water. According to the North Carolina facility's NPDES permit, the facility is allowed to discharge 0.31 pounds per day of hexavalent chromium to the Northeast Cape Fear River. Given the amount of treated wastewater reported to be discharged in 1998 and using the permit loading as an upperbound value, we estimate that the facility produced an NPDES effluent with an average hexavalent chromium concentration of 0.056 mg/ L. This concentration is less than twice the HBL for hexavalent chromium (0.047 mg/ L). 43 However, according to NPDES compliance monitoring data for the facility, no hexavalent chromium was detected in the facility's NPDES effluent in 1998. Therefore, it is likely that the actual concentration of hexavalent chromium in the facility's commingled treated wastewaters is less than the concentration the facility is permitted to release. According to the North Carolina facility's NPDES permit, the facility is also permitted to discharge 2.72 pounds of combined hexavalent and trivalent chromium per day. Making the conservative assumption that all 2.72 pounds of chromium are trivalent chromium and given the amount of treated wastewater discharged in 1998, we estimated that the facility produced an NPDES effluent with an average chromium concentration of 0.49 mg/ L, which is less than 23 mg/ L, the HBL for trivalent chromium. Actual reported levels of total chromium release were well below the permit limit. Given that the levels of chromium present in the on­ site disposal unit liquids are less than or within a factor of two of the HBLs, we do not believe they pose a risk to human health or the environment through groundwater underlying the disposal unit that supports listing these wastewaters as a hazardous waste. (c) Residuals Disposed of Off­ Site. (i) Chromium­ contaminated filters, membranes, and other plant wastes. This waste category from the North Carolina facility includes spent filters, membranes, and various other plant wastes which exceed the TC level for chromium. The wastes are stored in a closed roll­ off bin on­ site before being sent off­ site to a permitted Subtitle C facility for treatment and disposal in a landfill. We feel that applicable Subtitle C regulations adequately prevent mismanagement and therefore propose not to list these wastes. (ii) Spent sand filter sands. The North Carolina facility generates waste sand material from the spent ore residue treatment unit sand filters which filter treated wastewaters prior to their NPDES­ permitted discharge. The purpose of the sand filters is to remove any residual solids which the treatment unit clarifiers fail to remove upstream in the treatment process. Since the clarifiers capture the majority of the solids, the sand filters capture smaller amounts of treatment residue. The most recent disposal of sand from the filters took place in 1997. The facility stores the spent sand in closed drums or rolloff bins on­ site before disposing of them in an off­ site industrial Subtitle D solid waste landfill. According to information submitted to EPA by the North Carolina facility, this residue does not exhibit any constituent above the TC level according to TCLP leachate analysis. The only detected constituent of potential concern was chromium, at a level of 0.2 mg/ L. Residue from treatment of saltcake drier scrubber wastewater is the only residue contributing to the chromium levels in the spent sand filters which also falls within the scope of today's listing proposal. All other wastes are either Bevill exempt wastes or treatment residues from contaminated media or non­ contact cooling water, none of which falls within the scope of the consent decree. As discussed in section III. F. 12. e( 1)( b), the saltcake drier scrubber solution contributes approximately 0.001% of the total chromium exiting the spent ore residue treatment unit. Assuming that a waste's percent contribution to total chromium exiting the treatment unit is equal to its percent contribution to total chromium leaching from waste exiting the unit, the figures above indicate a TCLP leaching level of 2´10 ´6 mg/ L due to the contributions of the saltcake drier scrubber wastewater. The HBL for hexavalent chromium is 0.047 mg/ L and 23 mg/ L for trivalent chromium. The AWQC for hexavalent chromium is 0.011 mg/ L and 0.74 mg/ L for trivalent chromium. At a level of 2´10 ´6 mg/ L, the leachable chromium contribution of the saltcake drier scrubber wastewater presents a very low level of risk. The waste is inorganic in nature and therefore we do not expect it to contain volatile constituents of concern. In addition, the waste is stored before disposal in a closed container. We do not believe, therefore, that this waste poses a risk via airborne pathways. Given the low level of risk posed by the saltcake drier scrubber wastewater treatment residue contribution to leachable chromium levels in the spent sand filters and its nonvolatile nature, we propose not to list this waste. (2) Texas Facility. (a) Residuals Commingled in On­ Site Treatment Units. At the Texas facility, commingling and treatment of four untreated wastes takes place in two different on­ site, tank­ based treatment units. The treatment residues from the two treatment units are then codisposed in an on­ site, Subtitle D treatment surface impoundment. The first treatment unit, the spent ore residue treatment unit, treats the following two sodium dichromate manufacturing wastestreams: Ðspent post­ neutralization ore residue (Bevill exempt after treatment) Ðcaustic filter sludge from filtration of sodium hydroxide We consider caustic filter sludge to be a wastestream associated with the production of sodium hydroxide rather than a sodium dichromate manufacturing waste. Nevertheless, we chose to exercise our discretion to VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55744 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules evaluate the risk posed by the treated and untreated forms of this residue. The spent ore residue treatment unit treatment tanks have both secondary containment and covers. Treatment consists of converting the hexavalent chromium in the units to trivalent chromium. Trivalent chromium is typically a less soluble and less toxic form of chromium. Ore residue wastes are not Bevill exempt and therefore beyond the scope of the consent decree until treatment occurs. Therefore, we have evaluated the potential for releases from these treatment tanks. We assume the tanks are intact structures with minimal potential for releases to groundwater. We believe the covers on the tanks reduce the potential for air releases. Also, the wastes do not contain volatile constituents. The second treatment unit, the wastewater treatment unit, treats the following two sodium dichromate manufacturing wastestreams: Ðsodium chromate evaporation unit wastewaters Ðsodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewaters The wastewater treatment unit also treats remediation well water and stormwater, two types of contaminated media which are outside the scope of the consent decree. The two wastewaters within the scope of the consent decree make up approximately 9% of the total volume of the wastes entering the treatment unit. The facility converts hexavalent chromium to less toxic trivalent chromium during this treatment process. The tanks do not have covers. We evaluated the tanks for potential releases to the environment. We assumed the tank structures were intact and therefore posed minimal potential for releases to groundwater. Since the wastewaters contain no volatile constituents, we found no significant potential for air releases. We are proposing not to list the wastes in these treatment tanks. The facility disposes the treatment materials from the two tank systems described above in an on­ site surface impoundment. We describe that surface impoundment in the next section. (b) Residuals Disposed of On­ Site. (i) Commingled reduced chromium treatment residues. The treatment residues from the two treatment tank systems described in the section above are piped directly to the facility's onsite double­ lined, Subtitle D surface impoundment for co­ disposal and dewatering. Of the several treatment residues contributing to the mass of reduced chromium treatment residue disposed of in the Subtitle D surface impoundment at the Texas facility, only three fall within the scope of today's listing proposal: residue from treatment of caustic filter sludge, residue from treatment of sodium chromate evaporation unit wastewaters, and residue from treatment of sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewaters. Residues from the treatment of post­ neutralization spent ore residue are Bevill exempt mineral processing wastes beyond the scope of today's listing proposal (see section III. F. 12. c). Stormwater and remediation well water are contaminated media whose treatment residues we also consider to be beyond the scope of the consent decree (see section III. B). Therefore, we do not consider the risks posed by these residues. According to information the facility submitted in their RCRA Section 3007 Survey response, the only potential constituent of concern in the untreated sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewater, sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewaters, and the caustic filter sludge is chromium, measured at a level of 0.5 mg/ L, 0.5 mg/ L and 20 mg/ kg, respectively. Therefore, chromium is the only constituent we considered when assessing the level of risk from sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewater, sodium chromate evaporation unit wastewater, and caustic filter sludge treatment residues. Of the total chromium contributed to the co­ disposed reduced chromium treatment residue by all incoming wastes, the sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewater, sodium chromate evaporation unit wastewater, and the caustic filter sludge contribute 5´10 ±5 percent by weight. This estimate is based on calculations using information the Texas facility provided to us on chromium contents and tonnages of wastes entering the spent ore residue treatment unit and the wastewater treatment unit on­ site. Both the information and the calculations are described further in the `` Sodium Dichromate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination. '' The facility did not provide us with TCLP, SPLP, or total constituent analyses for the co­ disposed reduced chromium treatment residues. However, the facility did report to us that reduced chromium treatment residues do not exceed the TC level of 5.0 mg/ L according to TCLP analysis. In addition, the facility reported that for the time period between October 1, 1998 and December 31, 1998, weekly samples of reduced chromium treatment residues from the spent ore residue treatment unit analyzed with a facility­ modified version of the TCLP ranged between 0.16 and 1.75 mg/ L chromium (see `` Sodium Dichromate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' for details). Therefore, conservatively assuming a maximum TCLP chromium leaching level of 4.9 mg/ L and assuming that the percent contribution by the three wastes to total chromium entering the treatment units is equal to their percent contribution to total chromium leaching from treatment residues exiting the treatment units, the caustic filter sludge, sodium chromate evaporation unit wastewaters, and sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewaters were responsible for TCLP chromium leaching levels of 2.45´10 ±6 mg/ L. The HBL for hexavalent chromium is 0.047 mg/ L and 23 mg/ L for trivalent chromium. The AWQC for hexavalent chromium is 0.011 mg/ L and 0.74 mg/ L for trivalent chromium. At a leaching level of 2.45´10 ±6 mg/ L, the leachable chromium contribution of the caustic filter sludge, sodium chromate evaporation unit wastewaters, and the sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewaters indicates a very low level of risk to groundwater from potential releases from the surface impoundment. The waste is metallic and inorganic in nature and therefore we do not expect it to contain volatile constituents of concern. We do not believe, therefore, that this waste poses a risk via airborne pathways. Given the low level of chromium leachate deriving from the three treatment residues within the scope of today's listing proposal and placed into the surface impoundments, we propose not to list residues deriving from the treatment of caustic filter sludge, sodium chromate evaporation unit wastewater, and sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewater. (ii) Commingled treated wastewaters. Treated wastewaters commingled with the commingled reduced chromium treatment residues separate from these solid residues in the Texas facility's surface impoundment disposal unit. These liquids are not Bevill exempt wastes (see Section III. F. 12.3). The solids suspended in the wastewaters are a mixture of Bevill exempt and nonBevill exempt treatment residues. The liquid portion, the majority of this wastestream, is a mixture of non­ Bevill exempt residues, some of which are within the scope of this listing determination, and some of which derive from treatment of contaminated VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55745 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 44 http:// www. epa. gov/ enviro/ index_java. html media and are therefore not within the scope of this listing determination. The commingled treated wastewaters discharge from the surface impoundment through an NPDESpermitted outfall after passing through sand filters to remove residual solids (see discussion below in Section III. F. 12. e( 2)( c)( ii). We therefore assume that the chemical composition of the treated wastewaters in the surface impoundment is very similar to that of the NPDES permitted discharge. We used NPDES permit discharge data, available to the public from the EPA's Envirofacts database, 44 as a surrogate for characterization of this wastewater (see discussion of SPLP filtrate in Section III. E. 3). The exposure pathway of concern is the groundwater underlying the facility's disposal units and consumption of the groundwater as drinking water. According to the Texas facility's 1998 NPDES monitoring data, the facility discharged an average of 0.018 pounds of hexavalent chromium each day through their internal NPDES outfall. Given the amount of treated wastewater the facility reported as discharge from the surface impoundment in 1998, we estimate that the facility produced an NPDES effluent with an average hexavalent chromium concentration of 0.016 mg/ L. This concentration is less than the HBL for hexavalent chromium (0.047 mg/ L). According to the Texas facility's NPDES monitoring data for 1998, the facility released an average of 0.46 pounds of combined hexavalent and trivalent chromium per day. Making the conservative assumption that all 0.46 pounds of chromium are trivalent chromium and given the amount of treated wastewater discharged in 1998, we estimated that the facility produced an NPDES effluent with an average chromium concentration of 0.41 mg/ L, which is less than 23 mg/ L, the HBL for trivalent chromium. Wastes in the surface impoundment dewater and the resulting wastewaters pass out of the surface impoundment and through tank­ based sand filters. From the sand filters, the treated wastewaters then discharge through an NPDES­ permitted outfall. These wastewaters are a mixture of non­ Bevill exempt and Bevill exempt treatment residues, and other treatment residues beyond the scope of the consent decree. We did not find any significant potential for releases from the sand filter tanks. (We assess spent filter media from the sand filters separately in Section III. F. 12. e( 2)( c)( ii) We concluded that the NPDES discharge is exempt from RCRA regulation. (c) Residuals Disposed of Off­ Site. (i) Process filters and membranes, baghouse bags, chromium­ contaminated empty containers, and other plant wastes. The Texas facility reports in their RCRA Section 3007 Survey response that process filters and membranes and baghouse bags from their facility exceed the TC level for chromium and are coded D007. The facility also reports that they produce empty containers and other plant wastes contaminated with chromium which are also coded D007. The facility stores these hazardous wastes in a closed rolloff bin on­ site before sending them off­ site to a permitted Subtitle C hazardous waste facility for treatment and landfill disposal. These wastes are sufficiently managed under current RCRA Subtitle C regulations and therefore we propose not to list these wastes. (ii) Spent sand filter sands. The Texas facility generates waste sand material from the sand filters which filter treated wastewaters prior to their NPDES permitted discharge from the facility's on­ site surface impoundment. The purpose of the sand filters is to remove any residual solids which fail to settle in the surface impoundment. Since the majority of the solids settle in the surface impoundment, the sand filters captures smaller amounts of reduced chromium treatment residue. Approximately 2 MT of spent sand filter sand is disposed of every two years. The facility stores the spent sand in nonhazardous soil bins on­ site before disposing of it at an off­ site Subtitle D industrial landfill. According to the Texas facility, this residue does not exhibit any constituent above the TC level according to TCLP leachate analysis. Residues from treatment of caustic filter sludge, sodium chromate evaporation unit wastewaters, and sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewaters are the only residues contributing to the potential constituent of concern levels in the spent sand filters which also fall within the scope of today's listing proposal. All other wastes are either Bevill exempt wastes or treatment residues from contaminated media, neither of which falls within the scope of the consent decree. Chromium was the only potential constituent of concern detected in the sodium chromate evaporation unit wastewaters, sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewaters and the caustic filter sludge, and is therefore the only potential constituent of concern we considered in the spent sand filter sands. As discussed in the section on commingled reduced chromium treatment residues, the residues contribute 5´10 ±5 percent of the total chromium mass entering the spent ore residue treatment unit. Assuming a maximum TCLP chromium leaching level of 4.9 mg/ L, and assuming that the percent contribution to total chromium by the three wastes entering the treatment units is equal to their percent contribution to total chromium leaching from treatment residues exiting the treatment units, the caustic filter sludge, sodium chromate evaporation wastewaters, and sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewaters were responsible for TCLP chromium leaching levels of 2.4´10 ±6 mg/ L. The HBL for hexavalent chromium is 0.047 mg/ L and 23 mg/ L for trivalent chromium. The AWQC for hexavalent chromium is 0.011 mg/ L and 0.74 mg/ L for trivalent chromium. At a level of 2.4´10 ±6 mg/ L, the leachable chromium contribution of the sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewater, the sodium chromate evaporation wastewaters, and the caustic filter sludge presents a very low level of risk. The waste is metallic and inorganic in nature, and therefore we do not expect it to contain volatile constituents of concern. We do not believe, therefore, that this waste poses a risk via airborne pathways. Given the low level of risk posed by the contribution of constituents in the spent filter sands attributable to caustic filter sludge, sodium chromate evaporation unit wastewaters, and sodium dichromate evaporation unit wastewater treatment residue, the absence of volatile constituents of concern, and the relatively small volume of the total waste, we propose not to list this waste. 13. Sodium Phosphate From Wet Process Phosphoric Acid a. Summary. We propose not to list any wastes from the production of sodium phosphate from wet process phosphoric acid as hazardous under subtitle C of RCRA. Many of these secondary materials are piped back into the production process; other wastes are discharged to a permitted publiclyowned treatment works (POTW). Other materials are sent to Subtitle D industrial landfills. After an analysis of waste management practices and potential exposure pathways, we conclude that there are no risk pathways of concern. These wastes do not meet the criteria set out at 40 CFR 261.11( a)( 3) for listing as hazardous. b. Description of the sodium phosphate industry. Sodium phosphate is the more general chemical name for VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55746 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 45 In this preamble, we often refer to sodium phosphate produced for the food industry as `` food grade. '' The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Department of Health and Human Services, refers to the various sodium phosphates used in the food industry as `` substances generally recognized as safe'' (GRAS). The FDA states that: `` This substance is generally recognized as safe when used as in accordance with good manufacturing practice. '' (See, for example, 21 CFR 182.1778, 182.6290, 182.6778, and 182.8778.) In deciding whether a food additive should be approved, the FDA considers the composition and properties of the substance, the amount likely to be consumed, its probable long­ term effects and various safety factors. a wide variety of salts produced from the neutralization of phosphoric acid. Some of the salts produced by the facilities in this industry are monosodium dihydrogen phosphate (H2NaPO4), disodium monohydrogen phosphate (HNa2PO4), trisodium phosphate (Na3PO4), sodium hexametaphosphate (Na4P 4O12), and sodium tripolyphosphate (Na5P3O10). The various phosphate salts produced are used for a wide variety of purposes, ranging from a water soluble solid acid and pH buffer for acidic cleaners to products manufactured for the food industry 45 . Sodium phosphate is produced from wet process phosphoric acid by two manufacturing companies at four locations in the United States. For more detailed information concerning this industry, see `` Sodium Phosphate Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' in the docket for today's proposal. The processes for monosodium dihydrogen phosphate, disodium monohydrogen phosphate, and trisodium phosphate are similar except for the ratio of phosphoric acid to soda ash at the reactor stage and the type, size and construction of the crystallizing and drying equipment. The raw materials are water, phosphoric acid, soda ash, and caustic. The purified phosphoric acid is manufactured elsewhere through the wet­ acid purification method and is food grade. The process starts with a reaction between phosphoric acid, soda ash, and caustic. The solution is used to make the monosodium dihydrogen phosphate, which passes through a polishing filter before shipment to customers. The sodium to phosphorus ratio of the solution is adjusted with caustic to make disodium monohydrogen phosphate and trisodium phosphate. These solutions are filtered and then crystallized. The crystals from each process pass through dryers. The finished product is packaged or shipped in bulk. Sodium hexametaphosphate and sodium tripolyphosphate are also produced from food­ grade phosphoric acid and soda ash. Both processes start with a reaction between phosphoric acid and soda ash. For the sodium hexametaphosphate process, the product is fed to a furnace which melts the mix and converts it to sodium hexametaphosphate. For the sodium tripolyphosphate process, the reaction discharge is dried and heat treated in a converter to convert it to sodium tripolyphosphate. In both processes, the product is cooled, sized, stored, and packaged for shipment. c. What kinds of wastes are generated by these processes? A brief description of the waste categories, how they are generated, their volumes across the industry, and how they are managed is presented in Table III± 34: TABLE III± 34.Ð SODIUM PHOSPHATE PRODUCTION WASTES Waste category 1998 Volume (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 returns. Recycled or Subtitle D landfill. For those scenarios where secondary materials (filter press cakes, product dust, off­ specification product, and scrubber water) are piped back to the production process, we could identify no potential route for significant exposure prior to reuse. In addition, we evaluated all wastes generated after reinsertion of these materials into the process and we do not believe that these secondary materials present significant threats. Also, off­ specification product, when reinserted without reclamation into the process from where it originated, is not a solid waste. For those scenarios where wastes are discharged via the facility's common sewage line to permitted publiclyowned treatment works (POTWs), these wastes are excluded from RCRA (40 CFR 261.4( a)( 1)( ii)). For those scenarios where wastes are sent to industrial subtitle D landfills, we performed a risk assessment to help us determine whether these risks warranted listing. d. Agency evaluation. (1) Filter press cake and mix area filters. How Was This Waste Characterized? We collected two samples of this residual at one facility. Based on our assessment of the raw materials and production processes used across the industry, we believe these samples are representative of the range of waste characteristics at the other three sodium phosphate production facilities. Constituents detected above their HBLs are summarized in Table III± 35. TABLE III± 35.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF FILTER PRESS CAKES FROM SODIUM PHOSPHATE PRODUCTION Parameter Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) SPLP (mg/ l) HBL (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 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55747 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TABLE III± 35.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF FILTER PRESS CAKES FROM SODIUM PHOSPHATE PRODUCTIONÐ Continued Parameter Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) SPLP (mg/ l) HBL (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 Assessed and How Was the Risk Assessment Established? These wastes go to industrial subtitle D landfills and we therefore determined that we would model the scenario of offsite disposal in an industrial D landfill. We assessed the off­ site landfill scenario using the hydrogeologic properties associated with the geographic areas where the landfills reported in the survey are located. We gave the SPLP results primary consideration as there is no reported management in municipal landfills (where the TCLP results would be relevant). Based on the sampling results summarized above, we decided that modeling was necessary for two constituents of concern: antimony and thallium. For antimony, we used onehalf of the detection limit as a model input for sample RCH± 1± SP± 02. We used the probabilistic approach for an off­ site industrial Subtitle D landfill described in section III. E of today's proposal. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? From the results of the risk assessment, summarized below in Table III± 36, neither antimony nor thallium (the constituents of concern) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment. The hazard quotients for both constituents, for both the adult and child exposure scenarios, are less than 0.008 at the 95th percentile. As a matter of policy, EPA generally does not consider listing wastes with predicted hazard quotients of less than 1.0. We see no special concerns warranting an exception to this policy. Therefore, we believe that these wastes do not warrant listing. For the mix area filters, the location of these filters indicates that any contaminants found would be similar to those of the filter press cake. Given that our evaluation of the much larger volume filter press cake yielded no significant risk, we are also proposing not to list the very small volume mix area filters. For a more complete description of these analyses, see `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. TABLE III± 36.Ð PROBABILISTIC RISK RESULTS FOR FILTER PRESS CAKES Percentile Antimony Thallium Adult HQ Child HQ Adult HQ Child HQ Industrial landfill: 90th ........... 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.003 95th ........... 0.004 0.008 0.004 0.008 (2) Dust collector filter bags. How Was This Waste Characterized? We collected one sample of this residual. Based on our assessment of the raw materials and production processes used across the industry, we believe this sample is representative of similar wastes at the other three sodium phosphate production facilities. The waste constituents detected at levels above their HBLs are summarized in Table III± 37: TABLE III± 37.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF DUST COLLECTOR FILTER BAG FROM SODIUM PHOSPHATE PRODUCTION [Sample RCH± 1± SP± 03] Parameter Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ l) SPLP (mg/ l) HBL (mg/ l) Antimony 48.8 <0.5 0.309 0.006 Arsenic .. <0.5 <0.5 0.0064 0.0007 What Management Scenarios Were Assessed and How Was the Risk Assessment Established? Industry reported that this waste is managed in off­ site industrial D landfills. We assessed this scenario. Antimony and arsenic are the constituents of concern. Because the volume of this waste is relatively small, we first used the de minimis waste quantity screening analysis (described in section III. E. 3) to screen the potential risk to groundwater associated with landfilling this waste. We found that the SPLP data for arsenic screens out because the waste volume is insufficient to release arsenic at levels of concern. For a more complete description of this analysis, see `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. The detected SPLP levels for antimony did not screen out using the de minimis volume analysis. We conducted full groundwater modeling for the industrial landfill scenario for this constituent. We assessed the off­ site landfill scenario using the probabilistic approach for off­ site landfills described in section III. E. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? From the results of the risk assessment, summarized below in Table III± 38, antimony (the constituent of concern) does not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the environment. The hazard quotients for antimony, for both the adult and child exposure scenarios, are less than 0.007 at the 95th percentile. As a matter of policy, EPA generally does not consider listing wastes with predicted hazard quotients of less than 1.0. We see no special concerns warranting an exception to this policy. Therefore, we believe that this waste does not warrant listing. For a more complete description of this analysis, see `` Risk Assessment for the Listing Determinations for Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' in the docket for this proposed rulemaking. TABLE III± 38.Ð PROBABILISTIC RISK RESULTS FOR DUST COLLECTOR BAGS Percentile Antimony Adult HQ Child HQ Industrial landfill: 90th ............................ 0.001 0.002 95th ............................ 0.003 0.003 (3) Scrubber waters and effluents. We did not evaluate scenarios where these secondary materials are piped back into the production process because there is no potential for exposure. For those scenarios where wastes are managed in a tank, the impervious nature of the construction materials (concrete, VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55748 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules fiberglass, or steel) of tanks are unlikely to result in releases to groundwater in all but the most catastrophic scenarios. We also are not concerned with potential air releases from these tanks as neither volatile contaminants nor airborne particulates are likely to be present in these aqueous wastes. For those scenarios where wastes are discharged via the facility's common sewage line to POTWs, these wastes are excluded from RCRA (40 CFR 261.4( a)( 1)( ii)). Furthermore, these discharges are regulated by the Clean Water Act pretreatment standards. They do not warrant listing. We propose not to list this waste. (4) Product dust collected. All collected dust that can be recycled is recycled back into the production process. Due to production constraints, some portion of this collected product dust cannot be recycled back to the process and is instead sent to an industrial Subtitle D landfill. However, this landfilled product is still food­ grade product. Because this `` waste'' is, in fact, food­ grade product, we believe it unlikely that it contains any constituent exceeding health­ based limits based on ingestion. Therefore, we propose not to list this waste. (5) Off­ specification product. Much of this material is reused in the production process with no potential for exposure. However, because of production constraints, they cannot always work all of this material back into the process, and it must be disposed in an industrial subtitle D landfill. In all cases, product is rejected by a customer because of physical property problemsÐ i. e., particle sizeÐ rather than chemical problems or contaminants. Because this `` waste'' is, in fact, food­ grade product, we believe it unlikely that it contains any constituent exceeding health­ based limits based on ingestion. Therefore, we propose not to list this waste. 14. Titanium Dioxide a. Summary. We evaluated wastes from the production of titanium dioxide and propose to list one waste and not to list all of the others. Certain wastes from titanium dioxide production are exempt mineral processing wastes and were not assessed as part of today's listing determination because they are outside the scope of the consent decree. We are proposing to list nonwastewaters from the chloride ilmenite process (unless otherwise exempted). K178 Nonwastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide by the chloride­ ilmenite process. (T) [This listing does not apply to chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production exempt under section 261.4( b)( 7)] We propose not to list the remainder of the wastes generated by this sector. We do not believe these wastes pose threats to human health or the environment that warrant listing. We have not identified risks of concern associated with the current management of these wastes that support a listing determination. Our findings, however, do not change the applicability of existing standards and regulations, such as the hazardous waste characteristics, to these wastes and this industry. b. Description of the titanium dioxide industry. There are nine facilities producing titanium dioxide. There are three distinct processes currently in use: the chloride process, the sulfate process, and the chloride­ ilmenite process. Six facilities use the chloride process. Two of these six facilities also produce titanium dioxide via the sulfate process. Three separate facilities use only the chloride­ ilmenite process. Chloride Process. In the chloride process, rutile or high­ grade ilmenite is converted to titanium tetrachloride (TiCl4). The conversion takes place in a chlorinator in the presence of chlorine gas with petroleum coke added as a reductant. All U. S. producers of TiCl4 use fluidized bed chlorinators. Vent gases from the chlorinator are scrubbed prior to venting to the atmosphere. Nonvolatile metal chlorides and unreacted coke and ore solids are removed from the gaseous product stream. The facilities also generate waste acid, which they mingle with coke and ore solids before treatment. Vent gases from the chlorinator are scrubbed prior to venting to the atmosphere. The volatile TiCl4 and other volatile metal compounds such as vanadium oxychloride, exit the chlorinator as overhead vapor. The gaseous product stream is purified to separate the titanium tetrachloride from other metal chloride impurities using processes such as partial condensation and chemical treatment. Finally, vanadium compounds, which have boiling points close to that of TiCl4, are removed from the titanium tetrachloride by complexing with mineral oil and reducing with hydrogen sulfide, or by complexing with copper. The purified TiCl4 is then oxidized to TiO2, driving off chlorine gas, which is recycled to the chlorinator. The pure TiO2 is slurried and sent to the finishing process which includes milling, addition of inorganic and organic surface treatments, and/ or spray drying of the product TiO2. The product can be sold as a packaged dry solid or a water­ based slurry. Sulfate Process. In the sulfate process, ilmenite ore or slag with high TiO2 content is digested with sulfuric acid, forming a porous cake; this cake is further dissolved by dilute acid to form titanyl sulfate (TiOSO4). Iron may be added to the digestion process to ensure that iron impurities remain in the ferrous (Fe 2¶ ) state so that the eventual TiO2 product can be easily washed. The titanyl sulfate solution is then clarified, yielding a waste sulfate digestion sludge, and then concentrated through vacuum evaporation. The filtered titanyl sulfate solution is vacuum­ evaporated a second time and hydrolyzed to precipitate hydrated titania (TiO( OH) 2). The titania hydrate is then filtered and washed, yielding filtrate waste and wastewater, respectively, before being calcined at 1,000°C to produce the TiO2 product. Chloride­ Ilmenite Process. In the chloride­ ilmenite process, ilmenite ore is converted to titanium tetrachloride. As in the chloride process, the chlorideilmenite process takes place in a chlorinator in which the ore is chlorinated in the presence of coke as a reducing agent. Vent gases from the chlorinator are scrubbed prior to venting to the atmosphere. Non­ volatile metal chlorides and unreacted coke and ore solids are removed from the gaseous product stream. The gaseous product stream then is purified further to separate the titanium tetrachloride from other volatile metal chloride impurities, including ferric chloride (FeCl3) which is present in higher concentrations than the chloride process due to the high iron content in the ore. The separation is done via condensation and chemical treatment. The process for converting the purified TiCl4 product stream to TiO2 is similar to that used in the chloride process, as described above. c. What kind of wastes are generated by these processes?. The wastes generated by the titanium dioxide sector are described in overview below, organized by process. Additional detail on these wastes is provided in the background document for this sector. The wastes generated by the chloride process include: ÐCommingled wastewaters, including process and non­ process wastewaters from chlorinator coke and ore solids recovery, reaction and chemical tank storage scrubbers, product finishing operations, wastewater treatment and chlorinator solids decantation, and on­ site landfill leachate. ÐChloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production (exempt as mineral processing wastes, see 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7)). VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55749 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules ÐWastewater treatment sludges generated by facilities that have chloride­ only processes (exempt mineral processing wastes at those facilities with no contribution of solids from oxidation and finishing) ÐWaste sands from finishing (milling) of the titanium dioxide product and scouring of oxidation process units. ÐVanadium wastes generated in the purification process. The wastes generated by the sulfate process (used at two plants that also use the chloride process) include: ÐPrimary and secondary gypsum, which is produced when the waste sulfuric acid generated from the filtering of titanium dioxide hydrate solution is neutralized with calcium carbonate. ÐDigestion sludge from the clarification of the titanyl sulfate liquor that is produced during the acid digester step. ÐWastewaters from the sulfuric acid digestion scrubber which removes acidic components and entrained solids from reaction gases, evaporator condensate from the precipitation unit, the calciner scrubber, the sulfate waste sludge settling pond supernatant, and the primary and secondary gypsum precipitation units. These wastewaters are commingled with wastewaters from the chloride process. ÐWastewater treatment sludges. These wastewater treatment sludges are generated from commingled chloride process and sulfate process wastewaters by facilities that have both processes. The wastewater treatment consists of elementary neutralization and precipitation or filtration. ÐAcids from intermediate titanium product filtration/ bleaching units and product calciner overhead scrubbers. ÐProduct milling sand from finishing operations. The wastes generated by the chlorideilmenite process include: ÐCoke and ore solids (exempt as mineral processing wastes, see 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7)) that are not consumed by the chlorination process. These solids are conveyed through the process as part of various wastestreams. ÐWaste acid (metal chloride) solution, usually called ferric or iron chloride, that is separated from the gaseous titanium tetrachloride product stream and acidified. ÐProcess and non­ process wastewaters from reaction and oxidation scrubbers, reactant and treatment chemical storage scrubbers, product finishing, HCl storage vent scrubber, oxidation unit tank and equipment vents, supernatant or filtrate from coke and ore solids management and wastewater treatment disposal impoundments. The wastewaters are commingled prior to being introduced into the wastewater treatment system. ÐOther spent scrubber waters from the reaction fume disposal system. The wastewaters are pretreated and are subsequently commingled with other wastewaters prior to being introduced to the wastewater treatment system. ÐNon­ exempt non­ wastewaters, including the portion of wastewater treatment solids derived from the neutralization of process and nonprocess wastewaters from oxidation and finishing, and solids from ferric chloride filtration. ÐHCl from the reaction scrubber. ÐAdditive feeder vent filter solids generated in the oxidation process. ÐVanadium waste generated in the purification process. ÐOff­ specification titanium dioxide product. ÐRail car product washout wastewater. ÐWaste sand removed from a reactor purge stream (coke and ore solids) Table III± 39, below, summarizes our information about the wastes generated rom the production of titanium dioxide. TABLE III± 39.Ð TITANIUM DIOXIDE WASTES Waste category Number of generators 1998 volumes (MT) Reported hazard codes Management practices Commingled chloride process wastewaters .. 4 7,614,358 ......... D002, D007 ...... Neutralization, solids settling, NPDES discharge Chloride process solids (Bevill exempt) ........ 6 1,200,000 ......... none ................. On­ site impoundments, on­ site Subtitle D landfills. Waste sands from oxidation, milling and scouring. 3 9,485 ................ none ................. On­ site industrial Subtitle D landfill; off­ site 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 and sulfate process. 2 16,184,031 ....... none ................. Neutralization, solids settling in unlined surface impoundments, NPDES discharge. Wastewater treatment sludges from commingled chloride and sulfate process (partially Bevill exempt). 2 159,121 ............ none ................. Dewatering, on­ site industrial Subtitle D landfill. Waste acid (ferric chloride) from chloride­ ilmenite process. 3 1,883,000 ......... D002, D007, D008. On­ site hazardous waste underground injection 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 exempt 3 not reported ...... none ................. On­ site dewatering; on­ site Subtitle D industrial landfill; on­ site unlined impoundment; various reuses. Non­ exempt nonwastewaters from the chloride ilmenite process. 3 14,600 .............. none ................. On­ site dewatering; on­ site Subtitle D industrial landfill; on­ site unlined impoundment; various reuses. HCl from reaction scrubber, chloride­ ilmenite process. 3 not reported ...... D002 ................. On­ site wastewater treatment, on­ site reuse. Commingled wastewaters from the chlorideilmenite process. 3 13,556,000 ....... none ................. On­ site neutralization, solids settling, NPDES discharge. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55750 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 47 All sulfate process waste solids and liquids are non­ exempt mineral processing wastes (see 55 FR 2322, January 23, 1990). 55 FR 2392 noted that all sulfate process waste solids and wastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide do not meet the high volume/ low hazard criteria established in the September 1, 1989 Bevill rule and therefore were not eligible for continued coverage under the Bevill exclusion (see 54 FR 36592). TABLE III± 39.Ð TITANIUM DIOXIDE WASTESÐ Continued Waste category Number of generators 1998 volumes (MT) Reported hazard codes Management practices Additive vent filter solids from chloride­ ilmenite process. 1 < 1 .................... none ................. Off­ site Subtitle D industrial landfill. Vanadium waste from the chloride­ ilmenite and chloride process. 4 not reported ...... none ................. Returned to reaction area for TiCl 4 recovery remaining vanadium wastes are incorporated 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 impoundment on­ site wastewater treatment. 46 Additional volumes are used as products. The manufacturers also produce materials that are reused in other processes that are outside the scope of the consent decree. With one exception described below, we did not evaluate these materials, or wastes generated during co­ product production for the purposes of today's listing determinations, because they were outside the scope of the consent decree. One facility produces sulfur from the treatment of off­ gases. Because the offgas is produced from a production unit rather than a waste management unit and is conveyed to its destination via piping, the gas is not a solid waste. RCRA Section 1004( 27) excludes noncontained gases from the definition of solid waste and thus they cannot be considered a hazardous waste. (See 54 FR 50973) Because this gas is not a solid waste when produced, we did not evaluate it further for purposes of listing. d. What wastes from these processes are exempt mineral processing wastes? In July of 1988, the U. S. Court of Appeals, for the D. C. Circuit in Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA (EDF II), 852 F. 2d 1316 (D. C. Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U. S. 1011( 1989), ordered EPA to restrict the scope of the Bevill mining waste exclusion, as it applied to mineral processing wastes. In response, EPA promulgated rules on September 1, 1989 (54 FR 36592) and on January 23, 1990 (55 FR 2322), issued a Report to Congress on Wastes from Mineral Processing on July 31, 1990, and published a regulatory determination published on June 13, 1991 (56 FR 27300). The list of Bevill exempt wastes is set out at 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7). We relied on these Bevill rulemakings to determine the Bevill status of waste streams in the titanium dioxide sector. The production of titanium dioxide results in the generation of 2 categories of exempt waste: beneficiation wastes and exempt mineral processing wastes. These categories are described below. The industry reported a number of wastes generated from the storage and handling of various raw materials which are exempt because they are associated with beneficiation. Solid wastes from the extraction/ beneficiation of ores and minerals are Bevill exempt solid wastes (see 51 FR 24496, July 3, 1986 and 54 FR 36592, September 1, 1989). These wastes are described in the background document for this sector. We have not assessed these wastes because they are exempt under 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7). The only relevant mineral processing waste exemption consists of `` chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production'' (see 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7)( ii)( S)). The consent decree mandating today's proposal states in paragraph 1. g that Bevill exempt wastes are not within the scope of the consent decree as it applies to the inorganic chemical listing determinations, and specifically that `` chloride process waste solids'' need not be assessed within the titanium dioxide sector. Titanium tetrachloride production occurs in both the chloride and chloride­ ilmenite processes. 47 The chloride process waste solids are generated during the chlorination reaction of the titanium ore in the reducing presence of coke at elevated temperatures, and are generated from both the chloride process and the chloride­ ilmenite process. The majority of these solids are removed from the reaction area as a mass and are quenched, neutralized, settled and disposed as exempt materials. Additional solids from the reactor are carried overhead with the TiCl4 product gas stream and are subsequently removed in various scrubbing units. Although EPA has not previously discussed these solids, we believe that they also fall within the exemption. While they are removed from the product stream and various other wastes at points other than where the majority of the solids are separated from the TiCl4 gas stream, they are similarly composed of unreacted ore and coke solids from the chlorination reactor. They fit within the plain language of the exemption. Solids also are generated from the oxidation and finishing stages of titanium dioxide production. These solids are non­ exempt solid wastes (not covered by the exemption). Most titanium dioxide producers commingle wastewaters from titanium tetrachloride production with wastewaters from oxidation and finishing. To the extent that the resultant sludges contain nonexempt solids, we have assessed that portion of those solids. Due to process variations, each facility using the chloride or chlorideilmenite process generates its exempt solids in slightly different ways. The general principles that we used to determine the Bevill status of these wastes include the following: ÐExtraction and beneficiation ends just before chlorination occurs. Wastes generated prior to this point are Bevill exempt, outside the scope of the consent decree and therefore not addressed in this rulemaking. The chlorinator marks the beginning of mineral processing because the ore undergoes a physical/ chemical change (see 54 FR 36619, September 1, 1989). 54 FR 36621 further notes, `` Likewise, EPA considered titanium tetrachloride produced during the titanium chloride [sic] process to be a saleable product; any further processing subsequent to its production is considered to be chemical manufacturing. '' ÐMineral processing ends when titanium dioxide is produced in the oxidation unit. Further steps are chemical manufacturing. The Agency defines the beginning of oxidation as the beginning of chemical manufacturing because the facility is using a saleable mineral product, titanium tetrachloride, to produce titanium dioxide (see 54 FR 366211). VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55751 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 48 `` If EPA finds that this exemption is not protective of human health and the environment and if an examination of titanium tetrachloride waste management shows any continuing or new problems, the Agency will reconsider this subtitle D determination for chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production. '' 56 FR 273000, June 13, 1991. ÐThe mineral processing exemption only covers solids from the production of titanium tetrachloride. These solids, therefore, are outside of the consent decree. At least six streams of solid­ bearing material leave the chlorination reaction area. The status of these streams is as follows: (1) Titanium tetrachloride going on for further production. All wastes formed during further processing of this gaseous product stream are chemical manufacturing wastes that are outside the scope of the Bevill exemption. (2) Solids removed from the gaseous titanium tetrachloride stream. These solids are associated with the production of titanium tetrachloride. These solids are typically slurried to impoundments for storage or disposal and are Bevill­ exempt (with one exception described below). (3) Waste acids. In 1990 and 1998 rulemakings for LDR Phase IV (see 63 FR 28601), EPA took the position that the waste acids do not meet the high­ volume, lowtoxicity test and thus are not exempt mineral processing wastes. (4) Gases going to scrubbers. Offgases from the chlorinators pass through various air pollution control systems which generate scrubber waters. In 1998, EPA stated that scrubber waters and sludges from scrubber waters were not Bevill­ exempt. However, as a result of the information collection activities associated with today's proposal, it is now clear to EPA that gases from the chlorinator contain some solids from the chlorinator. We are interpreting the exemption today to cover these particles when they drop out of scrubber waters to form sludges. (Gas streams and wastewaters are not Bevill exempt, even when they are carrying solid particles from chlorinator.) (5) Solids purged from the reactor. A purge stream from the reactor may be taken to reduce silica levels in the reactor. This stream is Bevill exempt. (6) Recovered solids from the reaction area. Housekeeping results in the collection of coke and ore solids from the vicinity of the reaction area. These wastes are Bevill exempt. In one case, the facility conducts some processing of their ferric chloride waste acid (which is subsequently sold as a water and wastewater reagent), and generates a solids stream. We consider the processing that this facility conducts to be either an ancillary process or chemical manufacturing, and thus the subsequent solids stream is not generated from mineral processing and therefore is not exempt. What Is The Status of the Mineral Processing Exemption for `` Chloride Waste Solids From Titanium Tetrachloride Production'? As part of our waste characterization of the titanium dioxide sector, we conducted analyses for chlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxins (CDDs) and dibenzop furans (CDFs). We were concerned that these compounds might be present in the wastes as a result of the chlorination step which occurs in the presence of coke, and in fact we found measurable levels of these compounds in wastes from the chloride and chloride­ ilmenite processes. These data are presented in the Titanium Dioxide Listing Background Document and associated analytical data reports in the docket for today's notice. As explained in this background document, we believe that these compounds are formed in the chlorinator, and are predominantly associated with the exempt mineral processing solids (additional details regarding this conclusion are provided in the referenced background document). These compounds were not assessed, however, as part of the rulemakings which established the mineral processing exemptions, and so these results could present new issues for these wastes if such compounds were found to pose unacceptable risks. During the development of the mineral processing exemption, EPA anticipated certain conditions might suggest the appropriateness of re­ opening these exemptions. 48 We are considering whether we should re­ assess the status of these wastes as exempt mineral processing wastes. Any reassessment of these wastes would involve a separate analysis and opportunity for notice and comment. How Did EPA Assess Mixtures of Exempt and Non­ Exempt Wastes From the Production of Titanium Dioxide? There are a number of wastes from the titanium dioxide sector that remain partially within the scope of the consent decree because they are composed of both exempt and non­ exempt solids. Because they are not `` 100 percent exempt'' in composition, we have assessed their potential impacts on the environment, and attempted to isolate the risks associated with the nonexempt solids and wastewaters. Any assessment of the CDD and CDF loading in exempt wastes will involve a separate analysis and opportunity for notice and comment. Finally, we are assessing one nonexempt waste generated at the Delaware facility, non­ exempt non­ wastewaters from the chloride­ ilmenite process, which contains some CDDs and CDFs at levels exceeding our initial screening criteria. We did not, as part of today's listing determination, conduct sufficient risk assessment to fully evaluate the potential for risks. See section III. F. 14. e( 10) below. 5. Agency Evaluation (1) Commingled wastewaters from the chloride process, including wastewaters from coke and ore recovery, scrubber water, finishing wastewaters and sludge supernatants. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? Four facilities generated commingled wastewaters from the chloride process. (As will be discussed further in III. F. 14. e( 7), two additional facilities generate the same wastewaters and commingle them with wastewaters from the sulfate process.) Three of the four `` chloride only'' facilities treat their wastewaters in surface impoundmentbased treatment systems; the fourth facility uses a tank­ based wastewater treatment system. Each of the impoundment systems include unlined units. These large volume wastes are generated in excess of 29 million metric tons per year. These wastewaters are not Bevill­ exempt (but convey exempt solids into the wastewater treatment system where those solids are removed to form sludges that are comprised of exempt solids and non­ exempt solids, depending on the specific piping of the plants). Many facilities commingle waste hydrochloric acids (generated as scrubber water) with their combined wastewaters. Three other facilities, however, return waste acids on site or sell the acids for reuse. Because these materials have no exposure route of concern, we did not further evaluate risk scenarios associated with reuse of this material. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? For this rulemaking, we determined that the surface impoundment scenario poses a more significant potential risk than the tank scenario, and thus assessed the groundwater pathway for surface impoundments. We assessed potential groundwater releases to both surface water and drinking water wells. We concluded that the air pathway does not present significant risks for these wastes because the wastes do not contain volatile organics or other constituents that pose risk due to air releases. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? One of the four facilities, located in Hamilton, Mississippi, was selected for sampling and analysis. This facility's VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55752 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 49 This facility also commingles wastewaters from sodium clorate production, which account for approximately 1.7 percent of the total 4aste volume. 50 U. S. EPA RCRA Facility Assessment of Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation; Hamilton, MS. June 16, 1995. waste is representative of the four chloride­ only facilities. The sample was collected at the inlet to this facility's surface impoundment train. 49 This sample contained a high level of solids, reflecting the facility's practice of managing all waste solids (including Bevill­ exempt solids) and process wastewaters in the same units which serve as settling ponds. To isolate the impact of the wastewater on the environment from that of the sludge, we conducted the SPLP on the waste matrix, and separately analyzed the filtrate and the leachate generated from the leaching step. We are proposing to use the filtrate analysis as representative of the wastewater portion of the commingled waste matrix (see III. E. 2 and 3 for further discussion on the use of SPLP filtrate). The analytical results for the constituents found to be present in the filtrate at levels exceeding HBLs and/ or AWQC are presented below in Table III± 40 (the Titanium Dioxide Listing Background Document contains the full set of analytical results). TABLE III± 40.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Detected levels in Sample KM± SI± 01 (mg/ L) HBL AWQC Total SPLP 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 Water Risk Assessment Established? We assumed that surface impoundments present greater risks to the environment than tanks. Therefore we focused on the 3 facilities that manage wastewaters in impoundments. We selected the sampled facility for modeling because (1) its management practices (i. e., treatment in surface impoundments) are representative of 3 of the 4 chloride­ only facilities, (2) the analytical data for this waste were obtained from this site, and (3) its setting is similar to the other 2 facilities that use surface impoundments. The facility selected for modeling is bounded on two sides by a river, tributary creeks, and swamps. The RCRA Facility Assessment 50 for this site provides maps showing distances to these potential receptors and groundwater flow directions in the vicinity of the surface impoundments and plant­ wide flow directions, with the overall flow being toward the river. We calculated infiltration rates for the unlined impoundment, and divided this flow rate into the flow rate of the river to determine potential concentrations of the five metals of concern in the river as a result of recharge with contaminated groundwater. The results of this screening (see `` Risk Assessment Support to the Inorganic Chemical Industry Listing: Background Information Document'') demonstrate that concentrations of the constituents of concern are likely to be well below risk thresholds for both human health and aquatic life in surface water. How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established? We were able to collect specific information regarding the physical setting of the modeled facility, and thus used primarily site­ specific data as input to the risk assessment. We chose this site for modeling because the amount of available information best supported our data requirements for modeling and because we believe this facility is representative of other generators of this waste category in terms of hydrogeological setting and waste characterization. Based on information presented in the RFA for the facility of concern, as well as from the U. S. Geological Survey Groundwater Site Inventory, there are groundwater wells north of the plant. The RFA also indicates that groundwater flow direction in the localized vicinity of the surface impoundments is to the northwest. We modeled the potential impact of the unlined portion of the surface impoundment train on drinking water wells located within 2,000± 5,000 feet (based on well locations and the closest facility property lines). The resultant concentrations are presented below in Table III± 41. TABLE III± 41.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Risk or hazard quotient 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 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55753 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 51 This waste volume includes the non­ exempt sulfate solids generated at one of the 2 facilities that commingle wastes from the chloride and sulfate processes. 52 The sodium chlorate wastewaters account for only 1.7% of the total volume of managed wastewater, and for only 4.4% of the solids generated. The predominant potential constituent of concern in the sodium chlorate solids is chromium; analytical data for the commingled solids (KM± SI± 04) show that the SPLP concentration is <0.05 mg/ L and not of concern. See section III. F. 11 for further discussion of this facility's sludge. TABLE III± 41.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDEÐ Continued Constituent of concern Risk or hazard quotient 90th% 95th% Adult Child Adult Child Thallium HQ ..................................................................................................................... 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.07 What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We propose not to list commingled wastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide via the chloride process. The results of our risk assessment show that this waste category does not pose significant risk to human health and the environment. Our assessment of the air and surface water exposure pathways shows no risk of concern. Our assessment of the groundwater exposure pathway similarly shows no risk of concern for the constituents of concern. (2) Chloride process solids (Bevill exempt). Six facilities generate waste solids from the chloride process. As previously discussed, the Agency determined at 56 FR 27312 (June 13, 1991) that chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production are Bevill exempt mineral processing wastes (40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7)( ii)( S)). Five of the six facilities generate their solids in surface impoundments; the sixth, located in Louisiana, uses tank­ based settling to segregate the solids from their wastewaters. All six facilities dispose of their solids in their surface impoundments or on­ site landfills. Approximately 1.2 million MT of this waste was generated in 1998. 51 The waste solids at each of these sites contains contributions from Bevill exempt solids ranging from 100% to 40%, as discussed further below. At the two facilities located in Georgia and Louisiana, coke and ore solids are generated as entirely segregated wastes that are not commingled with nonexempt solids; these exempt wastes are clearly outside the scope of the consent decree dictating today's proposal and have not been assessed further. At three other facilities, the facilities conduct some commingling of their wastewaters, resulting in small potential contributions of non­ exempt solids to their waste solids. Two of these facilities, both located in Ohio, commingle wastewaters from oxidation and finishing (i. e., generated after the production of titanium tetrachloride and therefore potentially bearing nonexempt solids) with the wastewaters from titanium tetrachloride production that bear exempt solids. Neither facility reported any solids in their oxidation and finishing wastewaters, although data from similar wastewaters from the chloride­ ilmenite process indicate that very low levels of solids can be present in similar wastewaters. (We assess solids from the chloride­ ilmenite process in section III. F. 14. e( 10) of this proposal.) At the third facility (located in Mississippi), which operates a slightly different process, there were no reported wastewaters or solids from oxidation and finishing. Note that the wastewaters bearing the exempt solids at this facility are commingled with comparatively small volumes of wastewaters from sodium chlorate production (described in section III. F. 11 of today's proposal). 52 We believe that the contribution of any non­ exempt solids to the volume of exempt solids from these three facilities would be very small. Thus, we have chosen not to attribute any risks to the nonexempt portion of these commingled solids. Two of the six facilities generating chloride process waste solids also operate sulfate­ based titanium dioxide production lines. These plants are sited in Georgia and Maryland. Wastewaters from the chloride process and sulfate processes are commingled and results in commingled wastewater treatment solids that are partially composed of exempt solids. The non­ exempt wastewater treatment solids are described separately in section III. F. 14. e( 8). They contain significant volumes of non­ exempt solids (> 35%). (3) Various sands from oxidation, milling and scouring. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? Two facilities using the chloride process reported disposal of 250 MT of milling sand in off­ site and dedicated on­ site Subtitle D landfills. One facility also reported landfilling over 2,300 MT of scouring sand. One facility reported 6,935 MT/ yr of waste oxidation sand that is managed in an on­ site industrial Subtitle D landfill. All of these sands are similar and are associated with titanium dioxide finishing operations. All of these sands are produced after the beginning of chemical manufacturing and therefore are not exempt. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We assessed the off­ site industrial landfill scenario for milling sand and a dedicated on­ site landfill for scouring sand, reflecting the types of management reported for these wastes. We assessed the groundwater ingestion pathway for these landfills. The on­ site landfill scenario for scouring sand screened out when we compared the SPLP results for this waste directly to the HBLs. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? We collected samples of both the milling sand and the scouring sand. We conducted total, TCLP and SPLP analyses on the waste matrix. We used the SPLP results (rather than the TCLP) to assess potential releases to groundwater because there is no contact with municipal landfill leachate in the reported management practices, and no indication that other practices are likely. The SPLP analytical results of concern for the milling sand are presented below in Table III± 42. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55754 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 53 Additional volumes are used as products. 54 See `` Update of the Hazardous Waste Groundwater Task Force'', April 1998. Maryland Department of the Environment. RCRA Operation and Maintenance Inspection of SCM Chemicals (now Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, Inc.); Hawkins Point Plant; Baltimore, MD. October 1994. TABLE III± 42.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF MILLING SAND FROM TITANIUM DIOXIDE PRODUCTION Constituent of concern Detected SPLP levels in KP± SO± 05 (mg/ L) HBL (mg/ L) Antimony ....................... 0.024 0006 How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established? As described in Section III. D. 4. we used our standard distance­ to­ well assumptions for an off­ site landfill, and assumed hydrogeologic conditions would be comparable to those for the reported off­ site landfill. As shown in Table III± 43, the resultant risks were calculated. TABLE III± 43.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR MILLING SAND FROM TITANIUM DIOXIDE PRODUCTION Antimony HQ Percentile Adult risk Child risk 90th ....................................... 0.003 0.006 95th ....................................... 0.008 0.02 What is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We propose not to list this waste because the modeled and screening risk for antimony, the sole constituent of concern, is well below a hazard quotient of unity. (4) Gypsum from the sulfate process. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? The Maryland and Georgia facilities generate this waste. Both sites pipe their acid directly to their gypsum plants where it is neutralized to form gypsum. We found no significant potential for release of this acid waste prior to its treatment in the gypsum plant. The two facilities reported production of 69,500 MT/ yr of gypsum that is landfilled. 53 We chose to look further at this material because it is disposed of in a landfill and used in a manner constituting disposal (i. e., as fertilizer), and because the generators conduct on­ site land placement (piles). Specifically, the Georgia facility places their gypsum in piles prior to sale for use in agricultural chemicals, cement, chemical products, and wall board. The Maryland facility generates primary and secondary gypsum, both of which are also placed in piles prior to use in wall board manufacture or disposal in an on­ site landfill. As described above, the gypsum is not an exempt mineral processing waste because this sulfate process wastestream did not meet the high volume/ low toxicity criteria noted in 54 FR 36592 (September 1, 1989). What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We assessed each of the reported management scenarios that involve land placement: agricultural chemicals, cement, piles and landfills. We evaluated potential releases to both air and groundwater. Samples were collected at both facilities, and included both primary and secondary gypsum samples at the Maryland site. The management scenarios were assessed using the appropriate sample for the type of gypsum reported for that scenario. All pathways screened out except for the landfill scenario at the Maryland site. For the Maryland landfill we found constituent concentrations at levels of potential concern for the groundwater and surface water pathways. The primary gypsum contained lower levels of leachable metals than the secondary gypsum; we focused our modeling efforts on the higher volume secondary gypsum as it was more likely to show risk when modeled and the management scenarios are identical (they are placed in the same on­ site industrial landfill). The screening results are discussed further in the `` Titanium Dioxide Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination, '' available in the docket for today's notice. We assessed the landfill scenario for potential impacts to both surface water and drinking water wells. The facility selected for modeling is bounded to the north and east by the Patapsco River, which is an estuary. The expected groundwater flow, while not characterized definitively, is expected to be eastward, toward the river. 54 How Was This Waste Category Characterized? We collected three samples of this waste for analysis. We conducted total, TCLP and SPLP analyses on the waste matrices. We used the SPLP results (rather than TCLP) to assess potential releases to groundwater and surface water because there is no contact with municipal landfill leachate in the reported management practices. We used total results to assess potential air releases, and this pathway screened out. The SPLP analytical results for the secondary gypsum that we used to assess groundwater releases from landfilling are presented below in Table III± 44. TABLE III± 44.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF SECONDARY GYPSUM FROM SULFATE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Detected SPLP levels in MI± SO± 03 (mg/ L) HBL (mg/ L) AWQC (mg/ L) Antimony .................................................................................................................................................. 0.055 0.006 0.014 Arsenic ..................................................................................................................................................... <0.0035 0.0007 0.000018 Manganese .............................................................................................................................................. 3.1 0.73 0.05 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55755 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules How Was the Groundwater­ to­ Surface Water Risk Assessment Established? We calculated infiltration rates for the unlined landfill, and divided this flow rate into the flow rate of the river to determine potential concentrations of the three metals of concern (see Table III± 44) in the river as a result of recharge with contaminated groundwater. The results of this screening (available in the Risk Assessment Background Document) demonstrate that concentrations of the constituents of concern are expected to be well below risk thresholds for human health and aquatic life in surface water. How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established? While we are not aware of any actual drinking water wells in the vicinity of the Maryland facility, we were unable to determine definitively that there are not private wells in use in the residential area to the south of the facility, or that potentially contaminated groundwater would not reach this neighborhood. We thus decided to model potential exposure at this neighborhood. We modeled the potential impact of the unlined landfill on drinking water wells located within 2,500± 5,000 feet (based on distances to the nearest residential area). The resultant risks were calculated and are summarized in Table III± 45. TABLE III± 45.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR SECONDARY GYPSUM FROM SULFATE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Antimony HQ ArsenicÐ cancer 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 Waste? We propose not to list gypsum from the sulfate process. The results of our risk assessment demonstrate that there is no significant risk associated with this material, and that it does not warrant control as a listed hazardous waste. At the 95th percentile, the risks for antimony (HQ= 0.75) and arsenic (1E ´6 ), approach levels at which EPA considers listing wastes (HQ= 1.0 and cancer risk> 10 ´6 , respectively). We believe that our modeled exposure scenario, while plausible, contains a number of conservative assumptions that likely overstate these marginal risks. In particular, our assumptions regarding groundwater flow direction (i. e., that a contaminated plume from the landfill would flow to the south toward the nearest residences, rather than due west toward the river) and the use of groundwater for drinking water at these residences (records indicate this community uses public water) may overstate actual risks. (5) Digestion scrubber water from the sulfate process. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? The Maryland and Georgia facilities reported generation of digestion scrubber water from the sulfate process. The Maryland facility manages this wastewater in a dedicated surface impoundment after neutralization. The other facility commingles this wastewater with other wastewaters from their chloride and sulfate processes. As described above, the gypsum is not an exempt mineral processing waste because this sulfate process wastestream did not meet the high volume/ low toxicity criteria noted in 54 FR 36592 (September 1, 1989). (See 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7)( ii).) What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We assessed the waste in its commingled form as managed by the Maryland facility, as described below in section III. F. 14. e( 7). We also modeled the dedicated surface impoundment scenario using the physical parameters describing the dedicated Georgia impoundment. This impoundment is placed directly on the banks of a river, and thus we were primarily concerned with potential releases to surface water. We did not model a drinking water well scenario because there are no constituents of concern in this wastewater at levels exceeding HBLs. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? We collected one sample of this waste for analysis. We conducted total analyses (leaching was not conducted given the low levels of percent solids in this waste), which are summarized below in Table III± 46 for the constituents of potential concern. TABLE III± 46.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF DIGESTION SCRUBBER WATER FROM SULFATE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Detected levels in MI± WW± 03 (mg/ L) HBL (mg/ L) AWQC (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 Water Risk Assessment Established? We calculated infiltration rates for the unlined surface impoundment, and divided this flow rate into the flow rate of the river to determine potential concentrations of the three metals of concern (see Table III± 46) in the river as a result of recharge with contaminated groundwater. The results of this screening (available in the Risk Assessment Background Document) demonstrate that concentrations of the constituents of concern are likely to be VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55756 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules well below risk thresholds for human health and aquatic life in surface water. What is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We propose not to list digestion scrubber water from the production of titanium dioxide via the sulfate process. The results of our risk assessment show that this waste category does not warrant listing as a hazardous waste. (6) Sulfate process digestion sludges. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? The Maryland and Georgia facilities generate this sludge. The Georgia facility manages it in a dedicated surface impoundment and the Maryland facility places it in an on­ site landfill. As described above, the waste is not an exempt mineral processing waste because this sulfate process wastestream did not meet the high volume/ low toxicity criteria noted in 54 FR 36592 (September 1, 1989). (See 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7)( ii).) What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We assessed both management scenarios using the respective samples collected at each facility. The surface impoundment scenario screened out; the levels of constituents in the wastewater were below HBLs and AWQC. We modeled the landfill scenario for potential releases to both groundwater drinking wells and surface water. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? We collected one sample of this waste for analysis at the Maryland facility. We conducted total, TCLP, and SPLP analyses. We used the SPLP results as inputs to the on­ site landfill, which are summarized below in Table III± 47 for the constituents of potential concern. TABLE III± 47.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF DIGESTION SLUDGE FROM SULFATE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Detected SPLP Levels in MI± SO± 02 (mg/ L) HBL (mg/ L) AWQC (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 Water Risk Assessment Established? We calculated infiltration rates for the landfill, and divided this flow rate into the flow rate of the river to determine potential concentrations of the three metals of concern (see preceding table) in the river as a result of recharge with contaminated groundwater. Note that this is the same Maryland landfill described elsewhere in III. F. 14. e( 4) and (8). The results of this screening (available in the Risk Assessment Background Document) demonstrate that concentrations of the constituents of concern are likely to be well below risk thresholds for human health and aquatic life in surface water. How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established? See the comparable discussion for the gypsum (III. F. 14. e( 4)). The groundwater ingestion scenario was assessed for antimony and vanadium because the detected SPLP concentrations exceeded their respective HBLs. We did not assess the iron HBL exceedence because the HBL is at or above the solubility limit in ground water under most conditions. The resultant risks were calculated and are summarized in Table III± 48. TABLE III± 48.Ð GROUNDWATER 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 Waste? We propose not to list this waste. The results of our risk assessment modeling show that this waste does not contain mobile metals that are likely to pose risk to human health and the environment due to transport through the subsurface. (7) Commingled wastewaters from the chloride and sulfate process. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? The Maryland and Georgia facilities generate this waste category. Both facilities neutralized their commingled wastewaters and manage them in surface impoundments prior to NPDES discharge (but convey exempt solids into the wastewater treatment system where those solids are removed to form sludges that are comprised of exempt solids and non­ exempt solids, depending on the specific piping of the plants). What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We collected samples at both facilities at the influent to their surface impoundment trains. We screened the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55757 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 55 Although wastes from calcining are generally treated as Bevill exempt extraction/ beneficiation wastes, wastes from titanium dioxide calcination are post­ mineral processing, chemical manufacturing wastes. The Agency noted at 54 FR 36619, `` As discussed in the April NPRM, the Agency considers any operations following the initial [mineral] processing operation to be [mineral] processing operations, regardless of whether the activity was included on the list of RTC beneficiation activities or has traditionally been considered beneficiation. '' Therefore, since mineral processing ends and chemical manufacturing starts at the beginning of oxidation, and the calcining step occurs after oxidation, all wastes generated from the calcining step are non­ exempt wastes. risk at both facilities using the analytical data describing their respective wastes. We concluded that the Georgia facility was not a modeling candidate because none of the constituents detected in its waste exceeded our health­ based levels or the ambient water quality criteria. At the Maryland facility, we modeled the surface impoundment scenario using the physical parameters describing their unlined impoundment. We assessed both the surface water and drinking water well scenario. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? The sample contained a high level of solids, reflecting the facility's practice of managing all waste solids and process wastewaters in the same unit. To isolate the impact of the wastewater on the environment from that of the sludge, we conducted the SPLP on the waste matrix, and separately analyzed the filtrate and the leachate generated from the leaching step. We are proposing to use the filtrate analysis as representative of the wastewater portion of the commingled waste matrix. The analytical results for the constituents found to be present in the filtrate at levels exceeding HBLs and/ or AWQC are presented below in Table III± 49. TABLE III± 49.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE AND SULFATE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE [mg/ L] Constituent of concern Detected levels in sample 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 Water Risk Assessment Established? We calculated infiltration rates for the surface impoundment, and divided this flow rate into the flow rate of the river to determine potential concentrations of the two metals of concern (see preceding table) in the river as a result of recharge with contaminated groundwater. The results of this screening (available in the Risk Assessment Background Document) demonstrate that concentrations of the constituents of concern are likely to be well below risk thresholds for human health and aquatic life in surface water. How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established? See the comparable discussion for the gypsum (III. F. 14. e( 4)). The resultant risks were calculated and are summarized in Table III± 50. TABLE III± 50.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE AND SULFATE PROCESSES, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern 90th percentile 95th percentile 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 Waste? We propose not to list commingled wastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide from the chloride and sulfate processes. The results of our risk assessment demonstrate that this waste category does not pose risks warranting listing as hazardous waste. Arsenic levels at the receptor result in cancer risks well below 1E± 06, and manganese levels at the receptor are similarly well below a hazard quotient of one. (8) Wastewater treatment sludges from commingled chloride­ and sulfateprocess wastewaters. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? Two facilities, sited in Georgia and Maryland, generate this waste category, and after de­ watering, place their sludges in on­ site landfills. Over 159,000 MT of this waste was generated in 1998. What Is the Bevill Exemption Status of This Waste Category? As discussed above, the chloride process waste solids are exempt mineral processing wastes, to the extent that they are associated with the titanium tetrachloride process. Data provided by these two facilities, however, show that these waste contain at least 35% nonexempt solids. Our quantitative assessment of the potential risk associated with these non­ exempt solids is provided here. The wastewater treatment solids at the Maryland site are derived from at least four primary sources. Two residuals from the chloride process contribute exempt solids (i. e., solids slurry and scrubber water from the reaction area) as identified in 261.4( b)( 7)( ii)( S) and discussed above in III. F. 14. e( 2). Two scrubber waters from the calcination 55 and finishing portion of the sulfate process contribute nonexempt solids to the wastewater treatment solids (sulfate process wastes VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55758 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules are not exempt because, as described above, the sulfate process wastestreams did not meet the high volume/ low toxicity criteria noted in 54 FR 36592 (September 1, 1989)). Additional potential sources of minor amounts of solids are other wastewaters that are treated in this facility's wastewater treatment system, including cooling water, stormwater, drainage water and landfill leachate. Based on the information reported in this facility's § 3007 survey response, we estimate that their wastewater treatment solids are more than 35% non­ exempt. The wastewater treatment solids at the Georgia site are derived from at least six sources. Two residuals from the chloride process contribute exempt solids (i. e., waste acid from the chloride reaction area and supernatant from the chloride solids impoundment) (261.4( b)( 7)( ii)( S)). Finishing wastewaters from the chloride process contribute non­ exempt solids (these wastewaters are generated from the chemical manufacturing end of the production process). At least three wastewaters from the sulfate process contribute non­ exempt solids. Based on the information reported in this facility's § 3007 survey response, we estimate that their wastewater treatment solids are significantly more than 35% non­ exempt. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We collected samples of both facilities' wastes and therefore assessed the management practices at the two sites individually. The Maryland facility treats its wastewater in surface impoundments; the sludge is generated from a filter press, and the facility then places the sludge in an on­ site landfill. We assessed potential groundwater releases to both surface water and drinking water wells from this landfill. The Georgia facility dredges its sludge from its surface impoundments, filter presses the solids, places the filter solids in piles for further drainage and air drying, and then places the filter solids in an industrial on­ site landfill. We assessed the groundwater pathways for the landfill and pile, and the air pathway for the pile. (Note that we elsewhere assess the groundwater impact of the Maryland surface impoundments using sampling data for the wastewater in that unit. See III. F. 14. e( 7)). All pathways for the Georgia facility screened out and are not discussed further in this notice (see the `` Titanium Dioxide Listing Background Document for the Inorganic Chemical Listing Determination'' for details of this screening). How Was This Waste Category Characterized? Both facilities were selected for sampling and analysis. Both samples were collected from filter cake discharge of the filter press. We conducted total, TCLP and SPLP analyses on the waste matrix. We used the SPLP results (rather than the TCLP) to assess potential releases to groundwater and surface water because there is no potential for contact with municipal landfill leachate in the reported management practices for these two facilities. Given the large waste quantities reported for this category, we believe it would be prohibitively expensive for off­ site disposal to occur. We used total results to assess potential air releases from the piles, and found no significant risks. The SPLP analytical results used to assess groundwater releases at the Maryland facility that generates commingled chloride/ sulfate wastewater treatment sludge (as described in the previous paragraph) are presented below in Table III± 51. TABLE III± 51.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGES FROM CHLORIDE AND SULFATE PROCESSES, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Detected SPLP levels in MI± SO± 01 (mg/ L) HBL (mg/ L) AWQC (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 above, our analytical data show that this waste contains polychlorinated dioxins and furans (PCDD/ F). These data are provided in the background document for the titanium dioxide sector. As discussed previously (III. F. 14. d), we believe that these contaminants are clearly associated with the exempt solids contained in this waste, and thus we did not assess them. Samples collected at these two facilities bear out this association with the exempt solids. The Maryland facility, which does not segregate any of its exempt solids from other wastewater treatment solids, has significantly higher PCDD/ F levels than the Georgia facility (i. e., several orders of magnitude), which segregates the majority of its exempts solids from its wastewater treatment solids. How Was the Groundwater­ to­ Surface Water Risk Assessment Established? The Maryland facility selected for modeling this scenario was also modeled for several other wastes, and is described further in section III. F. 14. e( 5) above. We calculated infiltration rates for the unlined landfill, and divided this flow rate into the flow rate of the river to determine potential concentrations of the four metals of concern (see preceding table) in the river as a result of recharge with contaminated groundwater. The results of this screening (available in the Risk Assessment Background Document) demonstrate that concentrations of the constituents of concern are likely to be well below risk thresholds in surface water. How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established? The facility selected for modeling this scenario was also modeled for several other wastes, and is described further in section III. F. 14. e( 4) above. The resultant risks were calculated and are summarized in Table III± 52. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55759 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 56 Surface impoundments pose essentially inherent risks of groundwater contamination due to the hydraulic pressure created by the contained liquids. Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 919 F. 2d 158, 166 (D. C. Cir. 1992). Material that is placed in a surface impoundment, where it is capable of posing a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed, `` by leaching into the ground, is `discarded material' and hence a solid waste. '' (AMC II, 907 F. 2d) Although secondary materials may have value and be reused, their value does not protect them from being considered solid wastes for the purposes of RCRA regulation if they are discarded prior to use (API, 906 F. 2d at 741 n. 16). 57 54 FR 36616, September 1, 1989. 58 All wastes from ancillary activities are not uniquely associated with extraction/ beneficiation and processing of ores and minerals (see 45 FR 76619, November 19, 1980, and 63 FR 28590, May 26, 1998). TABLE III± 52.Ð GROUNDWATER 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 Waste? We are proposing not to list commingled wastewater treatment sludges from chloride and sulfate processes because our modeling of potential groundwater releases shows no risk at levels which warrant listing this waste as hazardous. No scenario modeled (groundwater­ to­ surface water and groundwater­ to­ drinking water wells) showed risk at levels of regulatory concern. (9) Waste acid (ferric chloride) from the chloride­ ilmenite process. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? All three facilities that utilize the chloride­ ilmenite process generate this waste category. The DeLisle, Mississippi facility identifies the waste as characteristic for corrosivity, chromium and lead and disposes of its waste in an on­ site underground injection well. The Tennessee facility pipes its ferric chloride to an on­ site sodium chloride plant. Both the Mississippi and Tennessee facilities generate the majority of their exempt­ mineral processing solids from the filtration of this waste acid. The Delaware facility's process is slightly different in that the majority of their exempt solids are generated prior to the generation of the waste acid, and only a relatively small portion of their solids are generated from the removal of solids from this waste. The Delaware facility adds a processing chemical to their waste acid, removes solids, stores the acid in tanks (as well as an on­ site surface impoundment when their tank capacity is exceeded), and sells the acid to a broker for resale as a wastewater and drinking water treatment reagent. However, EPA is not at this time assessing whether the ferric chloride is a legitimate product. We did not attempt to address this complex and site­ specific issue in this proposal. We note that the Delaware facility uses a surface impoundment to store a portion of the ferric chloride prior to its sale as a water and wastewater treatment reagent. EPA has often considered land­ based units, and impoundments in particular, to be associated with the discard of wastes, rather than the storage of products, because of their potential for releases to the environment. 56 In addition, we sampled the ferric chloride at the Delaware facility and found that it contains a variety of metals, as well as some chlorinated dioxins and furans. (See the background document for this sector for more details on this sampling and analysis). These factors may lead to concerns about the legitimacy of the use of this material as a drinking water and wastewater treatment reagent. However, as explained below, we do not need to resolve this issue to make a decision about listing ferric chloride. This waste routinely exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity and the toxicity characteristic for chromium and lead. All three generators of the ferric chloride waste acid acknowledge the hazardous nature of this waste. Each generator reported pH levels at 1 or less, and the one facility that disposes of this waste via deep well injection assigns three separate characteristic codes to this material. EPA sampled the ferric chloride at the Delaware facility, and both EPA and the facility analyzed the waste. The results showed that this material exhibits the characteristics of D001, D007, and D008. What Is the Bevill Status of This Waste? Ferric chloride waste acid is a liquid mineral processing waste that did not meet the high volume/ low toxicity criteria for determining eligibility for the Bevill exemption and therefore is not Bevill­ exempt (see 63 FR 28601). What Is the Bevill Status of Solids Removed From This Waste? Prior to disposal or reuse of their waste acids, both the Mississippi and Tennessee plants filter their waste acid to remove the exempt solids. At the Delaware site, however, the waste acid is processed via the addition of a chemical prior to solids removal. The purpose of the chemical addition is to modify the properties of the waste acid to enhance its value as a saleable potable water and wastewater treatment reagent. The addition of this chemical at the Delaware plant marks the end of titanium tetrachloride production (i. e., mineral processing) and the beginning of ferric chloride production (assuming ferric chloride is a legitimate product). Ferric chloride production can be considered either chemical manufacturing 57 or an ancillary process. 58 Consequently, as explained below in section III. F. 14. e( 10), solids removed from the ferric chloride at the Delaware plant are not Bevill­ exempt. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We are proposing to not list this waste and rely instead on the existing regulatory controls provided by the hazardous waste characteristics. Data from all three facilities clearly demonstrates that this waste exhibits several of the characteristics. At this time we have not determined whether any of the facilities are out of compliance. State and EPA authorities are examining these sites in detail for compliance with the existing regulations. Listing would not serve to better establish this jurisdiction. The Mississippi facility that injects this waste identifies the waste as hazardous and manages it as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C regulations. Within the context of this consent decree, we did not investigate in depth the Tennessee facility's use of this material in production of sodium VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55760 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules chloride (an inorganic chemical not identified as one of the 14 products of concern in the consent decree) because there was no known exposure route associated with the management of the material prior to inserting it into a nonconsent decree production process. As discussed previously, the Delaware facility stores the material in a surface impoundment. EPA can address concerns, if appropriate, by the use of enforcement, based on the existing characteristics associated with this material. In addition, the questions framed above about the potential legitimacy of this facility's use of ferric chloride as a product and its storage in a surface impoundment are equally relevant whether the ferric chloride is listed as a hazardous waste or is known to exhibit the characteristics of hazardous waste. Therefore we have decided to not list this waste as a hazardous waste and rely on the hazardous characteristics of the material for any necessary control. (10) Non­ exempt nonwastewaters from the chloride­ ilmenite process. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? All three chloride­ ilmenite facilities generate wastes that contain commingled exempt and non­ exempt components. Depending on the specific configuration of the individual plants, these wastes are composed to different degrees of exempt and non­ exempt solids, as described further below. Solids are generated in several places in the chloride ilmenite process: ÐCoke and ore solids are removed from the gaseous titanium tetrachloride product stream, quenched and neutralized. While the Agency believes this stream is largely exempt, we note that any contributions to this stream from the disposal of the vanadium waste is non­ exempt. ÐSolids are generated during wastewater treatment and are nonexempt to the extent they are generated from oxidation and finishing wastewaters. ÐCoke and ore solids can also be generated from the removal of solids from waste acid. These residuals may contain a non­ exempt portion if they are partially comprised of vanadium waste. These solids cannot be exempt if they are removed from the waste acid after the initiation of chemical manufacturing and/ or ancillary operations. We assessed these various sources of non­ exempt materials as one waste category because of the expected similarities among these materials and the commingled management practices used by these facilities. The total nonexempt portion of this waste category is approximately 10% with variations among the three sites. The specific sources of non­ exempt materials for each of the three chloride­ ilmenite facilities is described below. All three facilities generate nonexempt vanadium waste when they separate vanadium compounds from titanium tetrachloride. The facilities reinsert these materials into the reaction area. Titanium tetrachloride is recovered and maybe reused; however, the remainder of this waste is not reused and is incorporated into the unreacted coke and ore solids stream from the reaction area, the solids separated from the ferric chloride, or the ferric chloride. This vanadium waste is not exempt because it is not a solid. However we were not able to determine the volume contribution of this vanadium waste to the various wastes into which it is ultimately incorporated. Hence, the estimates of total exempt solids provided below are likely to be underestimated. (This waste is also discussed in III. F. 14. e( 14) below.) The Delaware facility combines and neutralizes three sources of solids (reactor solids, solids removed from ferric chloride waste acid, and solids from wastewater treatment), and markets the resulting material as `` Iron Rich'' material. As asserted by the company, uses of Iron Rich include structural fill, landfill caps and covers, and construction of dikes for containment of dredged spoils on the Delaware River. The facility may also stabilize some portion of the Iron Rich with fly ash prior to sale. Each component of the Delaware commingled residuals is described in the following paragraphs. The majority of the commingled Delaware solids are unreacted coke and ore materials that are removed from the gaseous titanium tetrachloride product stream after the reactor. These `` reactor solids'' make up more than 80% of the volume of commingled `` Iron Rich'' at this facility. This stream is comprised of exempt chloride process solids and nonexempt vanadium waste. The Delaware facility also removes solids from its ferric chloride. This solids removal step takes place after the facility incorporates a chemical additive into the ferric chloride. We have concluded that the use of this chemical constitutes chemical processing that is outside the scope of the Bevill exemption (see 54 FR 36592, September 1, 1989 and previous waste acid discussion in III. F. 14( e)( 9)). In addition, this stream is partially derived from the Delaware facility's non­ exempt vanadium waste. These ferric chloride solids are not exempt. They make up approximately 10% of the commingled `` Iron Rich''. The Delaware facility also uses scrubbers at various points in its process. Some solids make their way into scrubber waters. When the facility treats these wastewaters, the solids precipitate and the resultant wastewater treatment solids are added to the two wastes described above to form `` Iron Rich''. Solids from the scrubber used to treat gasses from the titanium tetrachloride reactor are Bevill­ exempt. Solids from scrubbers associated with oxidation and finishing (steps that take place after the formation of titanium tetrachloride) are not exempt. Based on facility data, we estimate that approximately 1.5% of the total volume of `` Iron Rich'' consists of non­ exempt solids from wastewater treatment. The Tennessee facility generates solids from ferric chloride filtration and from wastewater treatment. The filter solids are exempt (261.4( b)( 7)( ii)( S)) because such filtration simply removes exempt solids. Unlike the processing that occurs at the Delaware plant, no chemical manufacturing is taking place at this step at the Tennessee plant. The facility landfills these ferric chloride solids as a discrete wastestream; we do not assess this exempt waste further in this rule. This facility commingles wastewaters from both the titanium tetrachloride and titanium dioxide sides of the process, and the resultant wastewater treatment sludge is thus comprised of exempt and non­ exempt sources. The Tennessee facility reported estimated percent solids data for most of their wastewaters. We reviewed these data and determined that a significant portion (74%) of the resultant sludge would be nonexempt (see Titanium Dioxide Listing Background Document for calculations). These nonexempt solids are within the scope of today's proposal. We sampled the commingled exempt and nonexempt waste and describe our assessment of this material in this section. The Mississippi facility also generates exempt solids from filtering ferric chloride prior to deep well injection. No chemical manufacturing occurs. These solids are placed in a dedicated on­ site landfill, and are not assessed further in this rule. The facility also operates a wastewater treatment system which is similar to the Tennessee facility in that it commingles wastewaters from condensation and purification (associated with the titanium tetrachloride production process), as well as oxidation and finishing VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55761 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules (associated with the titanium dioxide production process). The commingled wastewaters are managed in on­ site surface impoundments and the dredged solids from these units (comprised of exempt and nonexempt materials) are placed in an on­ site landfill. The facility provided detailed information regarding the amounts of solids present in each of the wastewaters managed in this system, demonstrating that there is a small contribution (~3%) of non­ exempt solids (i. e., solids in wastewaters from oxidation and finishing) in the wastewater treatment sludge. We did not select this facility for site visits and thus did not sample this waste. We believe our sampling and modeling of the Tennessee and Delaware sites is an appropriate surrogate for this waste given the similar nature of the processes at the three facilities (with particular similarities between the wastewater treatment facilities at Mississippi and Tennessee). Furthermore, the percentages of non­ exempt solids in the commingled wastes at the Tennessee and Delaware sites are higher than at the Mississippi site. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? The Delaware facility asserts that there are a variety of end uses for the Iron Rich. The predominant recent use has been for the construction of dikes to contain dredged river sediments at U. S. Army Corp of Engineer disposal sites in the vicinity of the titanium dioxide plant. We assessed this scenario as comparable to an industrial D landfill scenario. The Iron Rich has also been used as daily cover at a municipal landfill (demonstration project) and as final cover for a closed on­ site landfill. These uses clearly constitute disposal. Other proposed uses include use as subsidence fill at a closed municipal landfill, structural fill by the local Port Authority, surcharge for road bed compaction, and construction of a wildlife refuge at the site of the closed on­ site industrial landfill. These uses all involve placement on the ground and also appear to also be uses that constitute disposal (see 40 CFR 266.20). We chose to model risks for disposal in an off­ site industrial D landfill because this seemed to fit the largest number of the varied potential disposal or landbased use scenarios. We believe the municipal landfill scenario is also relevant. Our assessment addresses the municipal scenario qualitatively. These scenarios were assessed for potential releases to drinking water wells and air releases. In addition, we modeled the on­ site landfill at the Tennessee facility for potential releases to surface water. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? We collected samples of this waste at the Tennessee and Delaware facilities. For the Tennessee facility, we collected the sample directly from a holding/ dewatering pond where the dredged wastewater treatment solids are dewatered prior to landfilling on site. We collected the sample from the Delaware facility directly from the Iron Rich dewatering unit press; this sample consisted of commingled chlorinator solids, ferric chloride solids, and wastewater treatment solids. This material is sometimes mixed with fly ash prior to use; our sample was collected prior to fly ash addition. Both samples were analyzed for total, TCLP and SPLP constituent analyses. These data are summarized below in Table III± 54 for the constituents of concern that were present in the wastes at levels exceeding the health­ based levels and/ or ambient water quality criteria. TABLE III± 54.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT SOLIDS FROM THE CHLORIDE­ ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Detected levels, Delaware site Detected levels, Tennessee site HBL (mg/ L) AWQC (mg/ L) Soil screening levels (mg/ kg) 1 Total (mg/ kg) TCLP (mg/ L) SPLP (mg/ L) Total (mg/ kg) SPLP (mg/ L) Human health Aquatic life 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< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55762 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules In addition, our analytical data show that chlorinated dioxins and furans are present in these wastes. As discussed previously, we believe these compounds are associated with the exempt solids. However, the Delaware waste contains the ferric chloride solids; these solids have lost their exempt status because of the facility's chemical manufacturing/ ancillary activities necessary for the production of ferric chloride for sale as a water and wastewater treatment reagent. As a result, we have considered the chlorinated dioxin and furan content of the waste as part of today's listing determination. The PCDD/ PCDF analytical results for the Delaware site are summarized below (detected homologs only) in Table III± 55. TABLE III± 55.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT SOLIDS FROM THE CHLORIDE­ ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE CHLORINATED DIBENZO­ P­ DIOXINS (CDD) AND FURANS (CDF) Constituent of concern Total Detected levels in Delaware waste (ng/ kg, wet basis) 2378­ TetraCDF ......................... 12.2 12378­ PentaCDF ...................... 21.8 23478­ PentaCDF ...................... 48.1 123478­ HexaCDF ..................... 237 123678­ HexaCDF ..................... 8.1 234678­ HexaCDF ..................... 2.5 123789­ HexaCDF ..................... 5.6 1234678­ HeptaCDF .................. 189 TABLE III± 55.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT SOLIDS FROM THE CHLORIDE­ ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE CHLORINATED DIBENZO­ P­ DIOXINS (CDD) AND FURANS (CDF)Ð Continued Constituent of concern Total Detected levels in Delaware waste (ng/ kg, wet basis) 1234789­ HeptaCDF .................. 126 OctaCDF ................................... 24,000 OctaCDD .................................. 22.2 2378± TetraCDD Equivalent 1 .... 57.2 1 12378± TetraCDD equivalent calculated using the World Health Organization Toxic Equivalency Factors (WHO± TEF). Van den Berg, et al. 1998. Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for Human and Wildlife. Environmental Health Perspectives v. 106, n. 12, pp. 775± 792. December. How Was the Groundwater­ to­ Surface Water Risk Assessment Established? The Tennessee facility is bounded to the west by the Tennessee River. The facility indicated that the overall groundwater flow is toward the river. There have been several projects to determine placement of down gradient monitoring wells for individual on­ site landfill units. These borings indicate that the groundwater elevation declines to the northwest towards the river. In addition, a contract geologist familiar with the local hydrogeology has indicated that shallow groundwater flow will generally follow the natural topography. A ridgeline running north and south is located just east of the facility boundary. This ridge is approximately 200 feet higher in elevation than the elevation at the facility. Based on this topography, we expect that the groundwater flow direction is to the west towards the river. We calculated the concentrations in the river that would result from discharge of contaminated ground water by estimating the infiltration rate for the unlined landfill, and (given the area of the landfill) diluting the resulting leachate volume into the river under various design flow conditions. The results of this screening level analysis (available in the Risk Assessment Background Document) demonstrate that concentrations of the constituents of concern in the river are likely to be well below the national AWQC for human health and aquatic life for these constituents. How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established? The Delaware facility reported actual or contemplated use of the Iron Rich at a variety of landfills and land placement usages in the general vicinity of the plant. We used our usual distance­ towell assumptions for an off­ site landfill, and assumed hydrogeologic conditions that are representative of the principal soil and aquifer types present regionally (within a 100 mile radius) of the facility. The resultant risk assessment results are presented below in Table III± 56. TABLE III± 56.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR NON­ WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDEILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituents of concern Hazard quotient or cancer risk 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 Waste? We propose to list as hazardous the non­ exempt portion of the solid wastes generated from the production of titanium dioxide via the chlorideilmenite process. This listing covers the non­ exempt portions of the wastewater treatment solids generated at all three facilities, any non­ exempt portions of the chlorinator solids (e. g., any mass derived from the vanadium wastes), and ferric chloride solids generated at the Delaware facility. To the extent that these listed materials remain commingled with solids that would otherwise be exempt, the entire commingled mass is subject to the listing (see § 261.3( b)( 2)). Our risk results indicate that metals in these materials leach at levels that may pose a risk to human health and the environment. Specifically, in the commingled wastes, the risks exceed an HQ of one for both manganese (3.3) and thallium (2.4) at the 95th percentile; the risks similarly exceed an HQ of one for both manganese (1.6) and thallium (1.4) at the 90th percentile. In addition, the management practices reported for this waste, particularly as reported for the Delaware site, are expected to provide less control than the scenario modeled (i. e., an industrial landfill). Potential future management practices include use at municipal landfills for interim and final cover, as well as subsidence fill at a closed municipal landfill. These scenarios, particularly the interim cover scenario, indicate that the waste may come in contact with municipal landfill leachate in the future, if not listed. The TCLP results for this waste indicate even VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55763 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 59 EPA is currently evaluating the health risks from 2,3,7,8­ TCDD and once the review process is completed, EPA may re­ examine the soil ingestion HBL. See http:// www. epa. gov. ncea. dioxin. htm for additional information. 60 See information in EPA's IRIS database, which may be found at http:// www. epa. gov/ iris, and `` Risk Assessment Support to the Listing Determinations for the Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Wastes'' (August 2000) in the docket for today's rule. higher mobility of metals than those modeled for the industrial landfill scenario using the SPLP. The TCLP concentrations of manganese and thallium exceed the SPLP levels by factors of 15­ fold and 23­ fold, respectively. We expect, therefore, that HQs resulting from disposal in a landfill with municipal waste would likely be higher by an order of magnitude than the industrial landfill scenario we modeled. The modeling presented above uses the entire waste volume reported for the Delaware facility's Iron Rich. We used this volume because it corresponds to the sample that we collected of this material, and there is considerable uncertainty on the portion of the waste that would be Bevill exempt. (This uncertainty is related to the estimated nature of the solids contributions provided by the facilities and the variability reported between the facilities.) We conducted a supplemental analysis to determine how sensitive our modeling results are to changes in volume, in recognition that we are only proposing at this time to list approximately 10% of the current Iron Rich volume (the balance of the Delaware site's waste being exempt and outside the scope of today's listing determination). These results, presented below in Table III± 57, show that the risks are somewhat sensitive to the volume modeled, but the risks are not reduced below EPA's HQ threshold of one for noncarcinogens. In other words, if the facility were to segregate all exempt solids from the materials being proposed for listing prior to disposal, the remaining volume could still pose risk to human health and the environment. Further, as noted above, based on the TCLP results, the manganese and thallium HQs would be an order of magnitude higher in a municipal landfill scenario. TABLE III± 57.Ð REDUCED VOLUME ANALYSIS; GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR NONWASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE­ ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituents of concern Hazard quotient or cancer risk 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 equivalents. This concentration exceeds the background level in soils (8 ppt) and the soil ingestion HBL of 45 ppt 59 . We were not able to compare this concentration with a screening level from the Air Characteristics Study because the study did not establish levels for TCDD. While we did not conduct a risk assessment of the detected TCDD TEQ, the presence of TCDD equivalents in the wastes is an additional factor that supports a listing determination, particularly in light of the fact that the management practices reported by the facility were varied and, in many cases, would constitute releases to the circulating environment with a greater potential for a variety of exposure pathways than would occur from a well managed landfill. The proposed listing address all nonwastewaters that are not covered by the mineral processing waste exemption, and is not limited to non­ exempt wastewater treatment solids. The listing therefore would cover non­ exempt nonwastewaters from the removal of vanadium wastes from the product titanium tetrachloride stream that are currently returned to the reaction area and ultimately commingled with the exempt reactor solids or ferric chloride (these solids were part of the Iron Rich sample collected by EPA to support this listing determination). Similarly, at the Delaware facility, solids that collect in the ferric chloride product storage tanks and impoundments would be covered by the listing as these solids are ineligible for the mineral processing exemption (because they are generated after the initiation of chemical manufacturing and/ or ancillary operations), they are comparable to the ferric chloride solids that are commingled in the Iron Rich, and they are derived to some degree from nonexempt vanadium materials. The proposed listing, therefore, reads: K178 Non­ wastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide by the chlorideilmenite process. (T) [This listing does not apply to chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production exempt under section 261.4( b)( 7)] We are also proposing to add manganese and thallium to Appendix VII to Part 261, which designates the hazardous constituents for which K178 would be listed. In addition, we are proposing to add manganese to the list of hazardous constituents in Appendix VIII to Part 261. We believe the available studies clearly show that manganese has toxic effects on humans and other life forms. 60 (11) HCl from reaction scrubber, chloride­ ilmenite process. All three chloride­ ilmenite facilities reported generating HCl from scrubbing reactor off­ gasses. These wastes are stored in covered tanks with vent scrubbers and are re­ used on site, predominantly as pH control in wastewater treatment systems. We assessed this waste as part of the following category, `` Commingled wastewaters from chloride­ ilmenite process''. (12) Commingled wastewaters from the chloride­ ilmenite process. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How Is It Managed? All three chloride­ ilmenite facilities commingle their wastewaters and treat them on­ site. The Delaware facility utilizes a tank­ based system, with final NPDES discharge through an unlined cooling pond to the adjacent river. Both the Tennessee and Mississippi facilities utilized surface impoundment based wastewater treatment systems. These wastewaters are not Bevill­ exempt (but convey exempt solids into the wastewater treatment system where those solids are removed to form sludges that are comprised of exempt solids and non­ exempt solids, depending on the specific piping of the plants). VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55764 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 61 Draft RCRA Facility Investigation Report; DuPont DeLisle, NS. December 7, 1999. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We modeled the surface impoundment scenarios at both the Tennessee and Mississippi sites. (We assumed any releases from the unlined cooling pond at the Delaware facility would be intercepted by the river, and would be comparable in concentration, but much less volume than the actual NPDES discharge point.) At the Tennessee site, we assessed the potential releases from the impoundment system to the adjacent river. We do not believe any drinking water wells could possibly be impacted by these impoundments given their placement on the river banks and within the facility property. We sampled at this facility at the headworks to the impoundment train. We assessed the Mississippi facility's impact on both surface water and potential drinking water wells. The RFI 61 for this site indicates that the local groundwater flow is generally toward the south and east. It is unclear what the patterns are off site and how these patterns might change seasonally, but the groundwater elevation maps included in the RFI indicated that the direction of groundwater flow does vary seasonally and that a shift to a more westerly direction may occur under some conditions. Information from the U. S. Geological Survey's Ground­ water Site Inventory, available in the docket for today's proposal, shows numerous drinking water wells in the vicinity of the plant, both to the east and southwest. The facility also reported wells on their property which they believe are cross­ gradient and, in some cases, unused. We chose to model the groundwater scenario because of potential impacts on these known wells. We also assessed the potential impact of the Mississippi facility's surface impoundments on surface water because the facility is bounded to the south by the Bay of St. Louis. We did not conduct sampling and analysis at the Mississippi facility. Our risk assessment inputs for this facility used the combined analytical data set for the Delaware and Tennessee facilities, which are sister plants of the Mississippi plant. We used the physical parameters for the Mississippi site to describe wastewater flows, surface impoundment sizes, and distances to potential receptors for this modeling. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? The analytical results for the constituents found to be present in the wastewaters at levels exceeding HBLs and/ or AWQC are presented below in Table III± 58. TABLE III± 58.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE­ ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Detected levels in Delaware sample (mg/ L) Detected levels in Tennessee sample (mg/ L) HBL (mg/ L) AWQCÐ Aquatic life (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 Water Risk Assessment Established? The Tennessee facility is bounded to the west by a river. As noted above, the facility indicated that the overall groundwater flow is toward the river. The Mississippi facility is bounded to the south by the Bay of St. Louis, which is fed by 2 rivers to the east and west of the plant. Additional details are available in the docket. We calculated the concentration in the river that would result from discharge of contaminated groundwater by estimating the infiltration rate for the unlined surface impoundment, and (given the area of the impoundment) diluting the resulting leachate volume into the river under various design flow conditions. The results of this screening level analysis (available in Risk Assessment Support to the Inorganic Chemical Industry Listing: Background Information Document'') demonstrate that concentrations of the constituents of concern in the river are likely to be well below the human health and aquatic life AWQC for these constituents. How Was the Groundwater Ingestion Risk Assessment Established? Based on information presented in the RFI for the Mississippi facility, as well as from the U. S. Geological Survey Ground­ water Site Inventory, there are groundwater wells to the east and southwest of the plant within 2,000± 5,000 feet. We modeled the potential impact of the unlined surface impoundment train on drinking water wells located within this range. The results are presented below in Table III± 59. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55765 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TABLE III± 59.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR COMMINGLED WASTEWATERS FROM CHLORIDE­ ILMENITE PROCESS, TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Hazard quotient 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 Waste? We propose not to list commingled wastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide via the chlorideilmenite process. The results of our risk assessment demonstrate that this waste category poses no risks that warrant listing as hazardous waste. The concentrations of the constituents of concern at the modeled exposure points are well below an HQ of one. (13) Additive vent filter solids from the chloride­ ilmenite process. One facility reported production of vent filter solids from additive handling. This material is placed in an off­ site industrial D landfill. Small amounts of this waste are generated (< 1 MT). This material is not Bevill exempt. Handling of this additive is an ancillary activity. All wastes from ancillary activities are not uniquely associated with extraction/ beneficiation and processing of ores and minerals (see 45 FR 76619, November 19, 1980, and 63 FR 28590, May 26, 1998). Information from the facility indicates that a constituent of concern in this material is aluminum. The drinking water HBL for aluminum is higher than the solubility limit in ground water and, therefore, contamination of ground water is not likely to pose a significant risk to human health. Based on this fact, and the very small volume generated by one facility, we propose not to list this material as a hazardous waste. (14) Vanadium waste from the chloride­ ilmenite and chloride process. Vanadium containing material is generated from the production of titanium dioxide via the chloride and the chloride­ ilmenite processes. This is not an exempt mineral processing waste because it is not a solid (see also 63 FR 28602). This waste is generally returned to the reaction area where titanium tetrachloride is recovered and the remainder of the vanadium waste is incorporated into the mass of the unreacted coke and ore solids (i. e., the exempt solids) and/ or the waste acid. There is no potential for exposure prior to mixing with the exempt waste or waste acid. We assessed the mixtures of exempt and non­ exempt wastes as discussed above in III. D. 14. e( 8) and (10). Specifically, we assessed the wastewater treatment solids at the Maryland facility, the Iron Rich material at the Delaware facility, and the waste acid. (15) Off­ specification titanium dioxide product. How Many Facilities Generate This Waste Category and How is it Managed? Two facilities reported generating this waste, although we believe that all titanium dioxide manufacturers may generate this waste at some time. The two reporting facilities both describe off­ site Subtitle D landfills that accept both municipal and industrial wastes as the final management practice for this waste. As noted in the September 1, 1989 Bevill rulemaking, offspecification commercial product wastes are non­ exempt solid wastes. What Management Scenarios Were Assessed? We modeled the off­ site municipal D landfill scenario using the regional locations of the reported landfills. How Was This Waste Category Characterized? We collected one sample of this waste and conducted totals, TCLP, and SPLP analyses. The analytical results for the one constituent found to be present in the waste TCLP sample at a level exceeding its HBL are presented below in Table III± 60 (no constituent exceeded HBLs in the SPLP). TABLE III± 60.Ð CHARACTERIZATION OF OFF­ SPECIFICATION TITANIUM DIOXIDE PRODUCT Constituent of concern Detected levels in sample 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 Risk Assessment Established? The facilities reported use of landfills in the vicinity of their plant. We used our usual distance­ to­ well assumptions for an off­ site landfill, and assumed hydrogeologic conditions that are representative of the principal soil and aquifer types present regionally (within a 100 mile radius) for the particular landfill sites that were reported for these wastes. The resultant groundwater concentrations were very low and are presented below in Table III± 61. TABLE III± 61.Ð GROUNDWATER PATHWAY RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR OFF­ SPECIFICATION TITANIUM DIOXIDE Constituent of concern Predicted well concentrations (mg/ L) HBL (mg/ L) 90th% 95th% Lead ............................................................................................................................................. 2.5E± 08 1.1E± 06 0.015 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55766 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules The modeled levels of lead were so far below the HBL that we determined it was unnecessary to further assess the risks from lead. Clearly those risks would be well below an HQ of one. What Is EPA's Listing Rationale for This Waste? We propose not to list offspecification titanium dioxide as a hazardous waste. Our risk analysis shows that this waste does not pose risks that warrant listing. (16) Railcar/ trailer product washout. One facility reported generation of this residual (< 10,000 MT). The washwater, containing titanium dioxide, is placed in a surface impoundment. This waste is not Bevill exempt because it is a liquid and it is associated with the chemical manufacturing part of the process. The water from this pond is subsequently sent to wastewater treatment where it is commingled with all other chloride­ ilmenite wastewaters (assessed in III. D. 14. e( 12)). The titanium dioxide product that settles to the bottom of this pond is mechanically recovered and returned to the production process. We assessed the potential impact of this impoundment via the SPLP analytical data collected for off­ specification product (previously discussed in III. D. 14. e( 15)). These data are available in the background document for this sector, and show no constituents of concern. We chose the SPLP to assess this management scenario because there is no potential for contact with municipal landfill leachate. We therefore do not propose to list this waste. G. What Is the Status of Landfill Leachate From Previously Disposed Wastes? Leachate derived from the treatment, storage, or disposal of listed hazardous wastes is classified as a hazardous waste by virtue of the `` derived­ from'' rule in 40 CFR 261.3( c)( 2). The Agency has been clear in the past that hazardous waste listings apply to wastes disposed of prior to the effective date of a listing, even if the landfill ceases disposal of the waste when the waste becomes hazardous. (See 53 FR 31147, August 17, 1988). We also have a wellestablished interpretation that listings apply to leachate derived from the disposal of listed hazardous wastes, including leachate derived from wastes meeting the listing description that were disposed before the effective date of a listing. We are not reopening any of these issues with this proposed rulemaking. Of course, as set out in detail in the August 1988 notice, this does not mean that landfills holding wastes that are listed now as hazardous become subject to Subtitle C regulation. However, previously disposed wastes now meeting a listing description, including residues such as leachate that are derived from such wastes, and that are managed actively do become subject to Subtitle C regulation. See 53 FR at 31149, August 17, 1988. In many, indeed most, circumstances, active management of leachate would be exempt from Subtitle C regulation because the usual pattern of management is discharge either to POTWs via the sewer system, where leachate mixes with domestic sewage and is excluded from RCRA jurisdiction (see RCRA Section 1004( 27) and 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 1)), or to navigable waters, also excluded from RCRA jurisdiction (see RCRA Section 1004( 27) and 40 CFR 261.4( a)( 2)). In addition, management of leachate in wastewater treatment tanks prior to discharge under the CWA is exempt from RCRA regulation (40 CFR 264.1( g)( 6)). If actively managed, landfill leachate and gas condensate derived from the newly­ listed wastes proposed for listing in today's proposal could be classified as K176, K177, or K178. In such circumstances, we would be concerned about the potential disruption in current leachate management that could occur, and the possibility of redundant regulation. This issue was raised to the Agency in the context of the petroleum refinery waste listings (see 63 FR 42173, August 6, 1998). A commenter expressed concern that, because some of the commenter's non­ hazardous waste landfills received newly­ listed petroleum wastes prior to the effective date of the listing decision, the leachate that is collected and managed from these landfills would be classified as hazardous. The commenter argued that this could lead to vastly increased treatment and disposal costs without necessarily any environmental benefit. After examining and seeking comment on this issue, we published a final rule that temporarily defers regulation of landfill leachate and gas condensate derived from certain listed petroleum refining wastes (K169­ K172) that were disposed before, but not after, the new listings became effective, provided certain conditions are met. See 64 FR 6806, February 11, 1999. Since then, we have published proposed rules for wastes from the dye and pigment industries (64 FR 40192, July 23, 1999) and the chlorinated aliphatics industry (64 FR 46476, August 25, 1998) that also propose deferrals for similar wastes derived from landfills. At the time this issue was brought to the Agency's attention in the context of the petroleum refinery waste listings, EPA's Office of Water had recently proposed national effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for wastewater dischargesÐ most notably, leachateÐ from certain types of landfills. See 63 FR 6426, February 6, 1998. In support of this proposal, EPA conducted a study of the volume and chemical composition of wastewaters generated by both subtitle C (hazardous waste) and subtitle D (non­ hazardous waste) landfills, including treatment technologies and management practices currently in use. Most pertinent to finalizing the temporary deferral for the petroleum refining wastes, EPA did not propose (or subsequently finalize) pretreatment standards for subtitle D landfill wastewaters sent to POTWs because the Agency's information indicated that such standards were not required (see 65 FR 3008, January 19, 2000). The conditions included in the temporary deferral we published on February 11, 1999 are that the leachate is subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act, and the leachate cannot be stored in surface impoundments after February 13, 2001. See 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 15). We believe that it was appropriate to temporarily defer the application of the new waste codes to such leachate in order to avoid disruption of ongoing leachate management activities while the Agency decides if any further integration is needed of the RCRA and CWA regulations consistent with RCRA Section 1006( b)( 1). We believe that it is still appropriate to defer regulation and avoid leachate management activities, and to permit the Agency to decide whether any further integration of the two programs is needed. As such, we would be concerned about forcing pretreatment of leachate even though pretreatment is neither required by the CWA, nor needed. Therefore, we are proposing to temporarily defer the regulation of landfill leachate and gas condensate derived from the wastes we are proposing for listing in today's rule, with the same conditions as described in 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 15) for petroleum wastes. We seek comment on our proposed decision to extend the temporary deferral to include the wastes proposed for listing in today's notice. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55767 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules IV. Proposed Treatment Standards Under RCRA's Land Disposal Restrictions A. What Are EPA's Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)? RCRA requires us to establish treatment standards for all wastes destined for the land disposal. These are the `` land disposal restrictions'' or LDRs. For any hazardous waste identified or listed after November 8, 1984, we must promulgate these LDR treatment standards within six months of the date of identification or final listing (RCRA Section 3004( g)( 4), 42 U. S. C. 6924( g)( 4)). RCRA also requires us to set as these treatment standards ``* * * levels or methods of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so that short­ term and long­ term threats to human health and the environment are minimized. '' (RCRA Section 3004( m)( 1), 42 U. S. C. 6924( m)( 1)). Once a hazardous waste is prohibited from land disposal, the statute provides only two options for legal land disposal: Meet the treatment standard for the waste prior to land disposal, or dispose of the waste in a land disposal unit that satisfies the statutory no migration test. A no migration unit is one from which there will be no migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains hazardous. RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e), (f), and (g)( 5). Each waste identified for listing as hazardous in this rule will be subject to all the land disposal restrictions on the same day their respective listing becomes effective. We gathered data on waste characteristics and current management practices for wastes proposed to be listed in this action. These data can be found in the administrative record for this rule. An examination of the constituents that are the basis of the proposed listings shows that we have previously developed numerical treatment standards for most of the constituents. We have determined that it is technically feasible and justified to apply existing universal treatment standards (UTS) to the hazardous constituents in the wastes proposed to be listed as K176, K177, and K178 that were found to be present at concentrations exceeding the treatment standards, because the waste compositions are similar to other wastes for which applicable treatment technologies have been demonstrated. Also see LDR Phase II final rule, 59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994, for a further discussion of UTS. A list of the proposed regulated hazardous constituents and the proposed treatment limits can be found in the following preamble sections and in the proposed regulatory Table 268.40Ð Treatment Standards for Hazardous Wastes. If we make a final decision to list the identified wastes, these constituents and treatment standards would apply. We have provided in the BDAT background document a review of technologies that can be used to meet the proposed numerical concentration limits for K176, K177, and K178, assuming optimized design and operation. Where we are proposing numerical concentration limits, the use of other technologies capable of achieving the proposed treatment standards would be allowed, except for those treatment or reclamation practices constituting land disposal or impermissible dilution (see 40 CFR 268.3). B. What Are the Treatment Standards for K176 (Baghouse Filters From Production of Antimony Oxide)? The constituents identified to require treatment in this waste are antimony, arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury. We are proposing to apply the UTS levels to these constituents as the treatment standards. Therefore, the nonwastewaters treatment standard proposed for antimony is 1.15mg/ L TCLP; arsenic is 5.0 mg/ L TCLP; cadmium is 0.11 mg/ L TCLP; lead is 0.75 mg/ L TCLP; and, mercury is 0.025 mg/ L TCLP. In the event that there are wastewater treatment residuals from treatment of K176 (which under the derived­ from rule would also be considered as K176), the wastewater treatment standards are as follows: Antimony is 1.9 mg/ L; arsenic is 1.4 mg/ L; cadmium is 0.69 mg/ L; lead is 0.69 mg/ L; and, mercury is 0.15 mg/ L. We are requesting data and comment on the stabilization of antimony. Available stabilization data for antimony show effective treatment for wastes with initial antimony concentrations below those found in K176. Therefore, based on the available data, we are uncertain if stabilization will be effective for the antimony in this waste. C. What Standards Are the Treatment Standards for K177 (Slag From the Production of Antimony Oxide That is Disposed of or Speculatively Accumulated)? The constituents identified to require treatment in this waste are antimony, arsenic, and lead. We are proposing to apply the UTS levels to these constituents as the treatment standards. Therefore, the nonwastewater treatment standard for antimony is 1.15 mg/ L TCLP, for arsenic is 5.0 mg/ L TCLP, and for lead is 0.75 mg/ L TCLP. In the event that there are wastewater treatment residuals from treatment of K177 (which under the derived­ from rule also would be considered K177), the wastewater treatment standard for antimony is 1.9 mg/ L, for arsenic is 1.4 mg/ L, and for lead is 0.69 mg/ L. We are requesting data and comment on the stabilization of antimony. Available stabilization data for antimony show effective treatment for wastes with initial antimony concentrations below those found in K177. Therefore, based on the available data, we are uncertain if stabilization will be effective for the antimony in this waste. D. What Are the Treatment Standards for K178 (Nonwastewaters From the Production of Titanium Dioxide by the Chloride­ Ilmenite Process)? The constituents of concern in this waste are the chlorinated congeners of dibenzo­ p­ dioxin and dibenzofuran, thallium and manganese. We are proposing to apply the UTS levels to the chlorinated congeners of dibenzo­ pdioxin and dibenzofuran, and thallium, as indicated in Table V± 1. In addition we are also proposing the option of complying with the technology standard of combustion (CMBST) for the chlorinated dibenzo­ p­ dioxin and dibenzofuran (dioxins and furans) constituents present in K178. We note at the outset that we typically promulgate numerical performance standards to allow facilities maximum flexibility in determining for themselves how best to achieve compliance with the LDR treatment standards. By promulgating combustion as an alternative compliance option, we are not disturbing the degree of flexibility afforded to facilities; rather, we are enhancing it. However, when we specify a treatment technology like CMBST as the treatment standard, the analytical elements of compliance change. Typically, with specified technologies, no testing and analysis of treatment residuals is required because we are confident that use of the specified technology will reduce the level of target organic constituents to levels that minimize threats to human health and the environment. For K178, the regulated organic constituents of concern are dioxin/ furan congeners. If combustion in well designed and operated units is used to treat K178, the dioxin/ furan congeners in the K178 should be substantially destroyed. By VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55768 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules prescribing CMBST, we ensure that the units treating K178 will be units subject to the standards in Part 264 Subpart O or Part 266 Subpart H, or from interim status incinerators which have made a specific demonstration that they operate in a manner equivalent to a Part 264 or Part 266 combustion unit. The practical effect of this change will be to limit the type of facilities that can combust K178 to well­ regulated RCRA units (or, after the current transition period, Clean Air Act permitted units subject to MACT standards). This will ensure that combustion is done in a closelyregulated facility and in a manner that provides protection for human health and the environment. Furthermore, by restricting combustion of K178 to these units, combustion will only occur in units subject to the recently upgraded dioxin/ furan emission standards of the MACT Hazardous Waste Combustion Rule as well as standards for other hazardous air pollutants, such as metals (64 FR 52828, September 30, 1999). K178 does have metal constituents of concern, which would not be treated by the combustion process and that would remain in the combustion treatment residuals (e. g., ash and scrubber water). We therefore are retaining metal treatment standards for all circumstances, i. e., whether or not the treatment used by a facility involves combustion. When combustion is used to treat the organics to achieve LDR compliance, facilities will still need to conduct compliance testing and analysis for all regulated metal constituents in the combustion treatment residuals prior to disposal. This approach is patterned after EPA's promulgation of a similar alternative treatment standard for F024 (wastes from production of chlorinated aliphatics) and also for F032 (wastes from wood preserving processes). See 55 FR 22580± 81, June 1, 1990. See also 62 FR 26000± 3, May 12, 1997. For both solid and wastewater treatment residuals, we are proposing use of the Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) for all constituents of concern except manganese. Universal treatment standards have not been developed for manganese, although we are proposing standards below. We did not study this constituent in the development of F039 treatment standards in 1990 or UTS in 1994. Furthermore, we lack studies demonstrating treatment effectiveness for highly concentrated manganese nonwastewaters, such as those containing manganese at levels such as those found in K178. We did, however, identify treatability data for less concentrated manganese waste in our treatability database. These data show that solidification offers promising results in reducing the mobility of manganese, at least in less concentrated manganese waste. Such treatment yielded concentrations of 0.002, 0.003, and 0.46 mg/ L TCLP. Under the LDR program, we typically apply a variability factor of 2.8 to the treated waste data, to account for variations arising from mechanical limitations in the treatment equipment. Therefore we calculated potential treatment standards based on solidification treatment from our treatability database as 0.006, 0.008, and 1.29 mg/ L TCLP. We are unsure whether these treatment standards would be achievable in a waste with the significantly higher concentrations of manganese found in K178. Therefore, we are not proposing treatment standards based on solidification. Rather, to propose a more achievable standard, we based it on a technology which results in higher post­ treatment manganese levels. High temperature metals recovery (which vitrifies the manganese in the slag) resulted in a treated manganese concentration of 1.3 mg/ L TCLP. Using this datum and our typical variability factor of 2.8, we calculated a proposed manganese treatment standard of 3.6 mg/ L TCLP. We request comment and data on this proposed treatment standard, and we request anyone who has an interest in the treatment standard for manganese to comment to that effect. We may use the list of commenters on this topic as the only individuals notified of potential changes to this proposed treatment standard, so it is important for you to comment if you are in any way interested. Because it is possible that commenters may submit data showing that this treatment option is inappropriate for K178, we request comment on the option of setting a treatment standard for manganese that is identical to the current UTS level for thallium, the other metal found in proposed K178. The thallium treatment level of 0.20 mg/ L TCLP is based on stabilization. We also request any information regarding the similarity of manganese nonwastewater treatment to the treatment of other RCRA­ regulated metals that now appear in the UTS, both from a structural or physico­ chemical perspective as well as from a treatment performance perspective. We have some treatment data for manganese in wastewater matrices derived from wastes other than K178 in our treatability database. It has been difficult to determine whether these treatment data are relevant because we have no examples of wastewaters derived from K178. We are therefore unsure if the wastes in our database are more or less concentrated than actual K178 wastewaters. To account for this uncertainty, we selected treatment data representing relatively high initial concentrations (up to 1000 mg/ L), but also representing full scale operation and satisfactory treatment (at least 90 percent reduction in concentration). We found that sedimentation technology, the most effective treatment method in our database, resulted in a final effluent concentration of 6.1 mg/ L and chemical precipitation technology resulted in final effluent concentrations of 2.4 and 4.8 mg/ L (both operated at full scale and resulted in greater than 90 percent reduction). We have selected, to be conservative, the highest concentration (6.1 mg/ L) to calculate a K178 wastewater standard. We applied a variability factor of 2.8 to obtain a proposed K178 LDR treatment standard of 17.1mg/ L. Again, we request comments on and data relevant to this proposed treatment standard for wastewater forms of K178, both from those who support the standard and those who believe the standard is not achievable. We also request any information regarding the similarity of manganese wastewater treatment to the treatment of other RCRA­ regulated metals that now appear in the UTS, both from a structural or physico­ chemical perspective as well as from a treatment performance perspective. Only commenters on this subject may be notified of future changes we may make based on newly submitted data. Because we typically include the same treatment standards for new listings into those for F039 (multisource leachate) to maintain equivalence within the LDR regulatory structure, we are also proposing to add the manganese treatment standard to the F039 section of the 268.40 table. The F039 waste code applies to hazardous waste landfill leachates in lieu of the original waste codes when multiple waste codes would otherwise apply. F039 wastes are subject to numerical treatment standards equivalent to UTS. We are proposing this addition to the constituents regulated by F039 to maintain the implementation benefits of having one waste code for multisource leachate. We are also proposing to add manganese to the UTS Table at 40 CFR 268.48. Manganese represents significant risk to human health and the environment, as shown in the risk assessment accompanying this rule. Its presence in other hazardous wastes VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55769 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules should be mitigated by effective treatment to avoid similar risks after land disposal. Furthermore, when manganese is added to the UTS list, all characteristic wastes that have this constituent as an underlying hazardous constituent above the UTS levels will require treatment of manganese before land disposal. We solicit comments on these proposed conforming changes and especially on the impacts that they may have on other wastes beyond just K178. We request comment on the full set of proposed standards for K178 listed in the following table. TABLE IV± 1.Ð TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K178 Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters Common name CAS 1 No. Concentration in mg/ L 2 , or technology code 3 Concentration in mg/ kg4 unless noted as `` 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 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. 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 Proposed to Apply? 1. Debris. We propose to apply the regulations at 40 CFR 268.45 to hazardous debris contaminated with K176, K177 or K178. Debris contaminated with these wastes would have to be treated prior to land disposal, using specific technologies from one or more of the following families of debris treatment technologies: extraction, destruction, or immobilization. Hazardous debris contaminated with a listed waste that is treated by an immobilization technology specified in 40 CFR 268.45 Table 1 is a hazardous waste and must be managed in a hazardous waste facility. Residuals generated from the treatment of debris contaminated with K176, K177, or K178 would remain subject to the treatment standards proposed today. See 57 FR 37277, August 18, 1992, for additional information on the applicability, scope, and content of the hazardous debris provisions. 2. Soil. In addition, we propose to apply the regulations at 40 CFR 268.49 to hazardous soil contaminated with K176, K177, or K178. Soil contaminated with these wastes would have to be treated prior to land disposal, meeting either alternative treatment standards (i. e., 10 times UTS or 90 percent reduction in initial constituent concentrations) or the standards at 40 CFR 268.40 being proposed today. Nonsoil residuals generated from the treatment of soil contaminated with K176, K177, or K178 would remain subject to the treatment standards proposed today. See 63 FR 28602, May 26, 1998, for additional information on the applicability, scope, and content of the alternative soil treatment standard provisions. 3. Underground Injection Wells that can be found in the administrative record for this rule. Finally, because land disposal also includes placement in injection wells (40 CFR 268.2( c)) application of the land disposal restrictions to K176, K177, and K178 requires the modification of injection well requirements found in 40 CFR 148. We propose that K176, K177, and K178 be prohibited from underground injection. Therefore, these wastes could not be underground injected unless they have been treated in compliance with the LDR treatment standards being proposed today, or if they are disposed in a deep injection well that has been granted a no migration petition for those wastes. E. Is There Treatment Capacity for the Proposed Wastes? 1. What Is a Capacity Determination? EPA must determine whether adequate alternative treatment capacity exists nationally to manage the wastes subject to LDR treatment standards. RCRA section 3004 (h)( 2). Thus, LDRs are effective when the new listings are effective (typically 6 months after the new listings are published in the Federal Register), unless EPA grants a national capacity variance from the otherwise­ applicable date and establishes a different date (not to exceed two years beyond the statutory deadline) based on ``* * * the earliest date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity which protects human health and the environment will be available'' (RCRA section 3004( h)( 2), 42 U. S. C. 6924( h)( 2)). Our capacity analysis methodology focuses on the amount of waste VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55770 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules currently disposed on the land, which will require alternative or additional treatment as a result of the LDRs. The quantity of wastes that is not disposed on the land, such as discharges regulated under NPDES, discharges to a POTW, or treatment in a RCRA­ exempt tank, is not included in the quantities requiring additional treatment as a result of the LDRs. Also, land­ disposed wastes that do not require alternative or additional treatment are excluded from the required capacity estimates (i. e., those that currently are treated to meet the LDR treatment standards). Landdisposed wastes requiring alternative or additional treatment or recovery capacity that is available on site or within the same company also are excluded from the required commercial capacity estimates. The resulting estimates of required commercial capacity then are compared to estimates of available commercial capacity. If adequate commercial capacity exists, the waste is restricted from further land disposal. If protective alternative capacity does not exist, EPA has the authority to grant a national capacity variance. In making the estimates described above, the volume of waste requiring treatment depends on the current waste management practices employed by the waste generators before this proposed regulation is promulgated and becomes effective. Data on waste management practices for these wastes were collected during the development of this proposed rule. However, we realize that as the regulatory process proceeds, generators of these wastes may decide to minimize or recycle their wastes or otherwise alter their management practices. Thus, we will monitor changes and update data on current management practices as these changes will affect the volume of wastes ultimately requiring commercial treatment or recovery capacity. The commercial hazardous waste treatment industry may change rapidly. For example, national commercial treatment capacity changes as new facilities come on line or old facilities go off line, and as new units and new technologies are added at existing facilities. The available capacity at commercial facilities also changes as facilities change their commercial status (e. g., changing from a fully commercial to a limited commercial or `` captive''Ð company ownedÐ facility). Thus, we also continue to update and monitor changes in available commercial treatment capacity. For wastes required to meet today's proposed treatment standards, we request data on the annual generation volumes and characteristics of wastes affected by this proposed rule, including proposed hazardous wastes K176, K177, and K178 in wastewater and nonwastewater forms. We also request data on soil or debris contaminated with these wastes, residuals generated from the treatment or recycling of these wastes, and the current and planned management practices for the wastes, waste mixtures, and treatment residuals. For available capacity to meet the LDR requirements, we request data on the current treatment or recovery capacity capable of treating these wastes, facility and unit permit status related to treatment of the proposed wastes, and any plans that facilities may expand or reduce existing capacity or construct new capacity. In addition, we request information on the time and necessary procedures required for permit modification for generators or commercial treatment or disposal facilities to manage the wastes, required changes for operating practices due to the proposed listings or proposed additional constituent to be regulated in the wastes, and any waste minimization activities associated with the wastes. Of particular interest to us are chemical and physical constraints of treatment technologies for these wastes and any problems for disposing of these wastes. Also of interest are any analytical difficulties associated with identifying and monitoring the regulated constituents in these wastes. F. What are the Capacity Analysis Results? This preamble only provides a summary of the capacity analysis performed to support this proposed regulation. For additional and more detailed information, please refer to the `` Background Document for Capacity Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions: Inorganic Chemical Production Wastes (Proposed Rule), '' August 2000 (i. e., the Capacity Background Document). For this capacity analysis, we examined data on waste characteristics and management practices gathered for the inorganic chemical hazardous waste listing determinations. We also examined data on available treatment or recovery capacity for these wastes. The sources for these data are the RCRA Section 3007 Survey distributed in the spring of 1999, record sampling and site visits (see the docket for today's rule for more information on these survey instruments and facility activities), the available treatment capacity data submission that was collected in the mid­ 1990's, and the 1997 Biennial Report. For K176 and K177 wastes, the information from the surveys, sampling, and site visits indicates that there is no quantity of the wastewater form of K176 or K177 that is expected to be generated and therefore, there is no quantity of the wastewater form of K176 or K177 that will require alternative commercial treatment. These wastes are typically present in a nonwastewater form. Based on the RCRA § 3007 Survey information presented in the Capacity Background Document, required alternative treatment capacity for K176 nonwastewaters is estimated to be eight tons per year. Required alternative treatment capacity for K177 nonwastewaters is estimated to be 22 tons per year. As described in the section of proposed LDR treatment standards above, we are proposing that numerical treatment standards be applied to K176 and K177 nonwastewaters. We anticipate that commercially available stabilization, as well as other technologies, can be used in meeting these treatment standards. We estimate that the commercially available stabilization capacity is at least eight million tons per year based on the 1995 Biennial Report. Thus we expect there is sufficient capacity to treat the proposed K176 and K177 hazardous wastes that would require treatment. Therefore, we are proposing not to grant a national capacity variance for K176 or K177 wastewaters or nonwastewaters. For K178 waste (chloride­ ilmenite nonexempt nonwastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide), our data indicate that the waste is typically generated as a nonwastewater. We did not identify any wastewater forms of these wastes and therefore do not anticipate that alternative management for wastewaters is required. We found that the wastes are currently land disposed. We estimated that approximately 7,300 tons per year (derived from public information since data on amounts of treatment solids are confidential as reported in § 3007 Survey) may require alternative treatment. In our assessment, we assumed that facilities can segregate wastestreams and separately manage the newly­ proposed hazardous waste. Although the generation quantity (and therefore, the quantity requiring treatment) may be higher due to the derived from rule, we expect that available treatment capacity still exists. As discussed earlier for K178 treatment standards, we are proposing that numerical treatment standards be applied to K178 wastes. We anticipate that commercially available incineration, followed by stabilization if VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55771 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62 A unretrofitted impoundment is one not satisfying the minimum technology requirements (MTR) specified in sections 3004( o) and 3005( j)( 11). 63 See RCRA § 3004( m)( 1) `` Simultaneously with the promulgation of regulations under subsection (d), (e), (f), or (g) prohibiting one or more methods of land disposal of a particular hazardous waste * * * promulgate regulations specifying those levels or methods of treatment * * *'' necessary, or high temperature metals recovery if applicable, can be used to meet these treatment standards. We also propose the technology standard of combustion (CMBST) as an alternative compliance option for hazardous organic constituents in the K178 wastes. The units treating the waste by using CMBST will be subject to certain standards, and facilities will need to meet treatment standards for all regulated metal constituents prior to disposal, as discussed in the earlier section on K178 treatment standards. We assume that facilities would achieve treatment standards using incineration, stabilization, or both. The quantity of commercially available combustion capacity for sludge and solid is a minimum of 300,000 tons per year and the quantity of commercially available stabilization capacity is at least eight million tons per year based on 1995 Biennial Report. We have identified that there exist facilities managing K178 waste in surface impoundments (i. e., in wastewater treatment systems that contain land based units). If the waste is managed in unretrofitted impoundments, 62 it would thus be land disposed in a prohibited manner. These impoundments can be retrofitted, closed or replaced with tank systems. If the impoundment continues to be used to manage K178 waste, the unit will be subject to Subtitle C requirements. In addition, any hazardous wastes managed in the affected impoundment after the effective date of today's rule are subject to land disposal prohibitions. 63 However, facilities may continue to manage newly listed K178 in surface impoundments, provided they are in compliance with the appropriate standards for impoundments (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 subpart K) and the special rules regarding surface impoundments (40 CFR 268.14). EPA notes that those provisions require basic groundwater monitoring (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 Subpart F), management, and recordkeeping, but (in keeping with RCRA section 3005( j)( 6)( A)) are afforded up to 48 months to retrofit to meet minimum technological requirements. Based on the foregoing, we expect that sufficient capacity to treat the proposed K178 hazardous wastes that would require treatment. Therefore, we are proposing not to grant a capacity variance for wastewater and nonwastewater forms of K178. With respect to the revisions to the F039 and UTS lists, as discussed earlier in the section on K178 treatment standards, we are proposing to add manganese to the list of regulated constituents in F039 (§ 268.40) and the UTS table (§ 268.48). We have estimated what portion of the F039 or characteristic wastes (which require treatment of underlying hazardous constituents to UTS levels) may be required to meet these new treatment standards. We request comments on the estimates, the appropriate means of treatment (if necessary), and the sufficiency of available treatment capacity for the affected wastes by the addition of manganese to the F039 and UTS lists. When changing the treatment requirements for wastes already subject to LDR (including F039 and characteristic wastes), EPA no longer has authority to use RCRA § 3004( h)( 2) to grant a capacity variance to these wastes. However, EPA is guided by the overall objective of section 3004( h), namely that treatment standards which best accomplish the goal of RCRA § 3004( m) (to minimize threats posed by land disposal) should take effect as soon as possible, consistent with availability of treatment capacity. We expect that only a limited quantity of hazardous waste leachate may be generated from the disposal of newlylisted K176, K177, and K178 wastes (due to the small number of generators) and added to the generation of leachates from other multiple restricted hazardous wastes already subject to LDR. For the amount of characteristic wastes or leachates generated from those previously regulated hazardous wastes that would be subject only to the new treatment standards for manganese, we evaluated the universe of wastes that might be impacted by revisions to the lists of regulated constituents for F039 and UTS based on limited information. Based on 1997 Biennial Report data and some assumptions of waste compositions and their potential for land disposal, we were able to estimate the potential need for additional treatment. For example, we estimated an upper bound of 70,000 tons per year of nonwastewaters mixed with other waste codes, the F039 leachate from which would be potentially impacted by the revision to the F039 treatment standards. In a similar fashion, we estimated that no more than 520,000 tons per year of characteristic nonwastewaters potentially might be affected by the proposed changes (i. e., the addition of manganese to the F039 and UTS lists). These upper bound estimates are most likely very overstated since only a portion of each estimated waste volume may contain manganese at concentrations above the proposed level specified in the UTS table and the F039 list. The estimates assume that manganese is present at levels above the proposed treatment standards in all of these wastes and require alternative treatment, when it is likely that this may be true in only a small sets of the cases. Furthermore, EPA does not anticipate that waste volumes subject to treatment for F039 or characteristic wastes would significantly increase because waste generators already are required to comply with the treatment requirements for other metals that may be present in the wastes. The volumes of wastes for which additional treatment is needed solely due to the addition of manganese to the F039 and UTS lists are therefore expected to be very small. See the Capacity Background Document for detailed analysis. However, even though our volume estimates are highly conservative and overstated, we find that there still would be no shortage of treatment capacity. Based on data submittals in the mid­ 1990's and the 1997 Biennial Report, EPA has estimated that approximately 37 million tons per year of commercial wastewater treatment capacity are available, and well over one million tons per year of liquid, sludge, and solid commercial combustion capacity are available. Also, as discussed earlier in this section, there exist several million tons of available stabilization capacity. These are well above the quantities of F039 or characteristic wastes potentially requiring treatment for manganese even under the conservative screening assumptions described above. Therefore, we are proposing a decision not to delay the effective date for adding manganese to the lists of constituents for F039 and UTS. We request comment on its proposed decision not to delay the effective date for adding manganese to the lists of constituents for F039 and UTS. We request data on the annual generation volumes and characteristics of wastes potentially affected by the proposed changes to UTS and F039 in wastewater and nonwastewater forms (if any), and the current and planned management practices for the wastes, waste mixtures, and treatment residuals. We also request data on the current treatment or recovery capacity capable of treating the affected wastes. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55772 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules Further, for soil and debris contaminated with the newly listed wastes (K176, K177, and K178), we believe that the vast majority of contaminated soil and debris contaminated with these wastes will be managed on­ site and therefore will not require substantial commercial treatment capacity. Therefore, we are not proposing to grant a national capacity variance for hazardous soil and debris contaminated with these wastes covered under this proposal. Based on the 1999 RCRA § 3007 Survey followed by record sampling and site visits, there are no data showing the newly listed wastes managed by underground injection wells. Also, based on the 1999 RCRA § 3007 Survey followed by record sampling and site visits, there are no data showing mixed radioactive wastes associated with the proposed listings. EPA is proposing to not grant a national capacity variance for underground injected wastes, mixed radioactive wastes, or soil and debris contaminated with these mixed radioactive wastes, if such wastes are generated. Therefore, we propose that LDR treatment standards for the affected wastes covered under today's rule thus become effective when the listing determinations become effectiveÐ the earliest possible date (see RCRA section 3004( h)( 1)Ð land disposal prohibitions must take effect immediately when there is sufficient protective treatment capacity for the waste available). However, we may need to revise capacity analyses or capacity variance decisions if final listing determinations are changed or if we receive data and information to warrant any revision. Finally, we request comments on the estimated quantities requiring alternative treatment and information on characteristics of the affected wastes, management practices for these wastes, and available treatment, recovery or disposal capacity for the wastes. We also request comments concerning alternative management for any of these wastes managed in surface impoundments, including new piping or tank systems, and the length of time required for such activities. In addition, we solicit comments on our decision not to grant a national capacity variance or delay the effective date for any of the affected wastes. We will consider all available data and information provided during the public comment period and revise our capacity analysis accordingly in making the final capacity determinations. Please note, the ultimate volumes of wastes estimated to require alternative or additional commercial treatment may change if the final listing determinations change. Should this occur, we will revise the capacity analysis accordingly. V. Compliance Dates We seek comment on the proposed decisions in this section. A. Notification Under the RCRA Section 3010 any person generating, transporting, or managing a hazardous waste must notify EPA (or an authorized state) of its activities. Section 3010( a) allows us to waive, under certain circumstances, the notification requirement under Section 3010 of RCRA. If these hazardous waste listings are promulgated, we propose to waive the notification requirement as unnecessary for persons already identified within the hazardous waste management universe (i. e., persons who have an EPA identification number under 40 CFR 262.12). We do not propose to waive the notification requirement for waste handlers who have neither notified us that they may manage hazardous wastes nor received an EPA identification number. Such individuals will have to provide notification under RCRA Section 3010. B. Interim Status and Permitted Facilities Because HSWA requirements are applicable in authorized states at the same time as in unauthorized states, we will regulate the newly identified wastes listed under HSWA until states are authorized to regulate these wastes. Thus, once this regulation becomes effective as a final rule, we will apply Federal regulations to these wastes and to their management in both authorized and unauthorized states. VI. State Authority A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized States Under Section 3006 of RCRA, we may authorize qualified states to administer and enforce the RCRA program within the state. (See 40 CFR Part 271 for the standards and requirements for authorization.) Following authorization, we retain enforcement authority under Sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized states have primary enforcement responsibility. Before the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) amended RCRA, a state with final authorization administered its hazardous waste program entirely in lieu of the Federal program in that state. The Federal requirements no longer applied in the authorized state, and we could not issue permits for any facilities located in the state with permitting authorization. When new, more stringent Federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the state was obligated to enact equivalent authority within specified time­ frames. New Federal requirements did not take effect in an authorized state until the state adopted the requirements as state law. By contrast, under Section 3006( g) of RCRA, 42 U. S. C. 6926( g), new requirements and prohibitions imposed by the HSWA (including the hazardous waste listings in this proposal) take effect in authorized states at the same time that they take effect in nonauthorized states. EPA is directed to implement those requirements and prohibitions in authorized states, including the issuance of permits, until the state is granted authorization to do so. While states must still adopt HSWArelated provisions as state law to retain final authorization, the Federal HSWA requirements apply in authorized states in the interim. B. Effect on State Authorizations Because this proposal (with the exception of the actions proposed under CERCLA authority) will be promulgated pursuant to the HSWA, a state submitting a program modification is able to apply to receive either interim or final authorization under Section 3006( g)( 2) or 3006( b), respectively, on the basis of requirements that are substantially equivalent or equivalent to EPA's requirements. The procedures and schedule for state program modifications under 3006( b) are described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be noted that all HSWA interim authorizations are currently scheduled to expire on January 1, 2003 (see 57 FR 60129, February 18, 1992). Section 271.21( e)( 2) of EPA's state authorization regulations (40 CFR Part 271) requires that states with final authorization modify their programs to reflect federal program changes and submit the modifications to EPA for approval. The deadline by which the states must modify their programs to adopt this proposed regulation, if it is adopted as a final rule, will be determined by the date of promulgation of a final rule in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21( e)( 2). If the proposal is adopted as a final rule, Table 1 at 40 CFR 271.1 will be amended accordingly. Once we approve the modification, the state requirements become RCRA Subtitle C requirements. States with authorized RCRA programs already may have regulations similar to those in this proposed rule. These state regulations have not been assessed against the Federal regulations being proposed to determine whether they meet the tests for authorization. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55773 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules Thus, a state would not be authorized to implement these regulations as RCRA requirements until state program modifications are submitted to EPA and approved, pursuant to 40 CFR 271.21. Of course, States with existing regulations that are more stringent than or broader in scope than current Federal regulations may continue to administer and enforce their regulations as a matter of state law. It should be noted that authorized states are required to modify their programs only when EPA promulgates Federal standards that are more stringent or broader in scope than existing Federal standards. Section 3009 of RCRA allows states to impose standards more stringent than those in the Federal program. For those Federal program changes that are less stringent or reduce the scope of the Federal program, states are not required to modify their programs. See 40 CFR 271.1( I). This proposed rule, if finalized, is neither less stringent than nor a reduction in the scope or the current Federal program, and, therefore, states would be required to modify their programs to retain authorization to implement and enforce these regulations. VII. Designation of Inorganic Chemical Wastes under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) All hazardous wastes listed under RCRA and codified in 40 CFR 261.31 through 261.33, as well as any solid waste that is not excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.4( b) and that exhibits one or more of the characteristics of a RCRA hazardous waste (as defined in 40 CFR 261.21 through 261.24), are hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended (see CERCLA Section 101( 14)( C)). CERCLA hazardous substances are listed in Table 302.4 at 40 CFR 302.4 along with their reportable quantities (RQs). If a hazardous substance is released in an amount that equals or exceeds its RQ, the release must be reported immediately to the National Response Center (NRC) pursuant to CERCLA Section 103. A. Reporting Requirements Under CERCLA Section 103( a), the person in charge of a vessel or facility from which a hazardous substance has been released in a quantity that is equal to or exceeds its RQ must immediately notify the NRC as soon as that person has knowledge of the release. The tollfree telephone number of the NRC is 1± 800± 424± 8802; in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, the number is (202) 267± 2675. In addition to this reporting requirement under CERCLA, Section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right­ to­ Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) requires owners or operators of certain facilities to report releases of extremely hazardous substances and CERCLA hazardous substances to State and local authorities. Immediately after the release of an RQ or more of an extremely hazardous substance or a CERCLA hazardous substance, EPCRA Section 304 notification must be given to the community emergency coordinator of the local emergency planning committee for any area likely to be affected by the release, and to the State emergency response commission of any State likely to be affected by the release. Under Section 102( b) of CERCLA, all hazardous substances (as defined by CERCLA Section 101( 14)) have a statutory RQ of one pound, unless and until the RQ is adjusted by regulation. In today's proposed rule, we propose: (1) to list the following three wastestreams as RCRA hazardous wastes; (2) to designate these wastestreams as CERCLA hazardous substances, and (3) to adjust the onepound statutory RQs for two of these wastestreams. The proposed wastestreams are as follows: K176 Baghouse filters from the production of antimony oxide K177 Slag from the production of antimony oxide that is disposed of or speculatively accumulated K178 Nonwastewaters from the production of titanium dioxide by the chloride­ ilmenite process. [This listing does not apply to chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production exempt under 40 CFR 261.4( b)( 7).] B. Basis for Proposed RQ Adjustment Our methodology for adjusting the RQs of individual hazardous substances begins with an evaluation of the intrinsic physical, chemical, and toxicological properties of each hazardous substance. The intrinsic properties examinedÐ called `` primary criteria''Ð are aquatic toxicity, mammalian toxicity (oral, dermal, and inhalation), ignitability, reactivity, chronic toxicity, and potential carcinogenicity. Generally, for each intrinsic property, we rank the hazardous substance on a five­ tier scale, associating a specific range of values on each scale with an RQ value of 1, 10, 100, 1,000, or 5,000 pounds. Based on the various primary criteria, the hazardous substance may receive several tentative RQ values. The lowest of the tentative RQs becomes the `` primary criteria RQ'' for that substance. After the primary criteria RQ is assigned, the substance is evaluated further for its susceptibility to certain degradative processes, which are used as secondary RQ adjustment criteria. These natural degradative processes are biodegradation, hydrolysis, and photolysis (BHP). If a hazardous substance, when released into the environment, degrades relatively rapidly to a less hazardous form by one or more of the BHP processes, its primary criteria RQ is generally raised one level. Conversely, if a hazardous substance degrades to a more hazardous product after its release, the original substance is assigned an RQ equal to the RQ for the more hazardous substance, which may be one or more levels lower than the RQ for the original substance. The standard methodology used to adjust the RQs for RCRA hazardous wastestreams differs from the methodology applied to individual hazardous substances. The procedure for assigning RQs to RCRA wastestreams is based on an analysis of the hazardous constituents of the wastestreams. The constituents of each RCRA hazardous wastestream are identified in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix VII. We determine an RQ for each constituent within the wastestream and establish the lowest RQ value of these constituents as the adjusted RQ for the wastestream. In today's proposed rule, we propose to assign a one­ pound adjusted RQ to the K176 wastestream and 5,000 pounds to the K177 wastestream. The proposed adjusted RQs for both of these wastestreams are based on the lowest RQ value of the constituents present in each wastestream, are presented in Table VII± 1 below. We seek comment our proposed adjustments to the RQ values for these wastes. We are not adjusting the RQ for K178 at this time because we have not yet developed a `` waste constituent RQ'' for manganese, one of the constituents of concern in this waste. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55774 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TABLE VII± 1.Ð PROPOSED ADJUSTED RQS FOR WASTESTREAMS K176, K177, AND K178 Wastestream Wastestream constituent Wastestream constituent RQ (lb.) Wastestream RQ (lb.) K176 ....................................................................................... arsenic ....................................................................... 1 1 lead ........................................................................... 10 ..................... K177 ....................................................................................... antimony .................................................................... 5,000 5,000 VIII. Administrative Assessments A. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 51,735 (October 4, 1993)] the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel, legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. The Agency estimated the costs of today's proposed rule to determine if it is a significant regulation as defined by the Executive Order. The analysis considered compliance costs and economic impacts for inorganic chemical producers affected by this rule. We estimate the total cost of the rule to be $3 million annually. This analysis suggests that this rule is not economically significant according to the definition in E. O. 12866. The Office of Management and Budget has deemed this rule to be significant for novel policy reasons and has reviewed this rule. Detailed discussions of the methodology used for estimating the costs, economic impacts and the benefits attributable to today's proposed rule for listing hazardous wastes from inorganic chemical production, followed by a presentation of the cost, economic impact and benefit results, may be found in the background document: `` Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule For Listing Hazardous Waste From Inorganic Chemical Production, '' which was placed in the docket for today's proposed rule. We seek comment on the methodology used, the projected economic impacts, and the benefits assumed for the proposed listings. 1. Methodology Section To estimate the cost, economic impacts to potentially affected firms and benefits to society from this proposed rulemaking, We evaluated § 3007 Survey responses from inorganic chemical producers, firm financial reports, and chemical production data. The Agency has developed model facilities that represent composite information about inorganic chemical producers at both the facility and firm level. We also evaluated two scenarios. The first scenario evaluates the cost of listing all wastes that we propose to list in today's proposal. The second scenario includes not only wastes that EPA has proposed to list but also any waste that has exceeded risk screens (or other screening criteria) and had quantitative risk assessment completed. Analysis of these scenarios allows the public to understand what costs would have resulted from this rule making if all of the quantitative risk assessments involving fate and transport modeling had shown risk to human health. To estimate the incremental cost of this rule making, we reviewed baseline management practices and costs of potentially affected firms. Where more than one baseline management method was used (e. g. municipal incineration and landfilling), we either modeled more than one form of baseline management or selected the least expensive form of baseline management (which would overestimate rather than underestimate the cost of the rule). The Agency has modeled the most likely post­ regulatory scenario resulting from the listing (e. g., disposal in a Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill, recycling) and estimated the cost of complying with it. The difference between the baseline management cost and the post­ regulatory cost is the incremental cost of the rulemaking. To estimate the economic impact of today's proposed rulemaking, we compared the incremental cost of the rulemaking with model firm sales and either net profit or product value. The Agency has also considered the ability of potentially affected firms to pass compliance costs on in the form of higher prices. To estimate the benefits of today's proposal, we evaluated risk assessment results and as well as a qualitative assessment of benefits including natural resource protection of groundwater. 2. Results a. Volume Results. Data reviewed by the Agency indicates that there are 9 inorganic chemical producers potentially affected by today's proposed rule. The data report that these firms generated 700,000 tons of inorganic chemical production waste annually that are potentially affected by today's proposed rule and modeled under Scenario 1. Data also indicate that there are 26 inorganic chemical producers who have generated wastes that are either being listed because they exhibit a characteristic or have been evaluated for quantitative risk assessment involving fate and transport modeling by the Agency to evaluate their potential effect on human health and the environment. These wastes are being modeled under Scenario 2. b. Cost Results. For today's proposed rule, we estimate the total annual incremental costs from today's proposal to be $ 2.5 million for all facilities. Sectors costs are summarized in Table 2. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55775 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 64 Because profit information is often either unavailable or more variable from year to year than sales measures, the Agency has chose to use a profit surrogate in completing the economic impact analysis of this proposal. According to Dun and Bradstreet's Industry Norms and Key Business Indicators (1995) the average net after tax profit for inorganic chemical producers in the 2819 SIC code was 6.3 percent. This percentage is applied to reported sales of affected firms in order to estimate their profits. 65 The Small Business Administration has classified firms in the manufacturing sector (SIC Codes 20± 39) and wholesale trade sector (SIC Codes 50± 51) as small businesses within the sector based on the number of employees per firm. See Small Business Size Standards, 61 FR 3280, 3289 (January 31, 1996). Thus, to determine if a inorganic chemical producer is a small business, the primary SIC code of the firm would have to be determined. The small entities in today's rulemaking are in two SIC codes: (1) 2812 Alkalies and Chlorine, size standard 1000 employees and (2) 5082 Construction and Mining (except Petroleum) Machinery and Equipment size standard 100 employees. TABLE VIII± 1.Ð ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL COST BY INORGANIC CHEMICAL SECTOR Sector Estimated incremental annual costs $ 000s (1999 $) Number of affected facilities Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Antimony Oxide ................................................................................................. 1.6 (recycling), 35 (disposal). 1.6 (recycling), 35 (disposal). 3 3 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 estimate potential economic impacts resulting from today's proposed rule, we used first order economic impacts measures such as the estimated incremental costs of today's proposed rule as a percentage of both affected firms' sales and estimated profits 64 . We applied these measures to affected inorganic chemical producers. For affected inorganic chemical producers in the antimony oxide and sodium chlorate sectors, we estimated the costs to be less than 3 percent of a typical firm's sales and less than 2 percent of a firm's estimated profits. For affected inorganic chemical producers in the hydrogen cyanide sector, we estimated the cost to be less than 1 percent of a typical firm's sales and estimated profits. More detailed information on this estimate can be found in the economic analysis placed into today's docket. d. Benefits Assessment. EPA has not conducted a quantitative assessment of actual benefits from this proposed rule. Because today's proposed rule results in new hazardous waste management requirements for K176, K177, and K178 wastes, the Agency believes that there may be a reduction in releases of hazardous constituents to the environment. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et. seq. The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has fewer than 1000 or 100 employees per firm depending upon the SIC code the firm primarily classified in 65 ; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not­ for­ profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are two potentially affected inorganic producing firms that constitute small entities. These firms are located in the antimony oxide sector. We have determined that these two firms would under this proposal incur costs of less than 1 percent of both the firm's sales and estimated profits under one scenario analyzed for the wastes in this sector. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared (ICR No. 1968.01) and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460, by email at farmer. sandy@ epamail. epa. gov, or by calling (202) 260± 2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http:/ /www. epa. gov/ icr. This rule is proposed under the authority of sections 3001( e)( 2) and 3001( b)( 1) of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The effect of listing the wastes described earlier will be to subject industry to management and treatment standards under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This proposed rule does not contain any new information collection requirements, nor does it propose to modify any existing information collection requirements. As a result, this proposed rule represents only an incremental increase in burden for generators and subsequent handlers of the newly listed wastes in complying with existing RCRA information collection requirements. The total annual respondent burden and cost for all existing paperwork associated with this proposed rule presented here represents the incremental increase in paperwork burden under six existing Information Collection Requests (ICRs). We estimate the total annual respondent burden for VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55776 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules all information collection activities to be approximately 417 hours, at an annual cost of approximately $19,916. Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, Collection Strategies Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., N. W., Washington, DC 20503, marked `` Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. '' Include the ICR number in any correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after September 14, 2000, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by October 16, 2000. The proposed rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104± 4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost­ benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost­ effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the proposed rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The rule would not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon state, tribal or local governments. States, tribes and local governments would have no compliance costs under this rule. It is expected that states will adopt similar rules, and submit those rules for inclusion in their authorized RCRA programs, but they have no legally enforceable duty to do so. For the same reasons, we determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. We have fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. E. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all populations in the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income bears disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and that all people live in safe and healthful environments. In response to Executive Order 12898 and to concerns voiced by many groups outside the Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response formed an Environmental Justice Task Force to analyze the array of environmental justice issues specific to waste programs and to develop an overall strategy to identify and address these issues (OSWER Directive No. 9200.3± 17). Today's proposed rule covers wastes from inorganic chemical production. It is not certain whether the environmental problems addressed by this rule could disproportionately affect minority or low­ income communities. Today's proposed rule is intended to reduce risks of hazardous wastes as proposed, and to benefit all populations. As such, this rule is not expected to cause any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or lowincome communities versus nonminority or affluent communities. In making hazardous waste listing determinations, we base our evaluations of potential risk from the generation and management of solid wastes on an analysis of potential individual risk. In conducting risk evaluations, our goal is to estimate potential risk to any population of potentially exposed individuals (e. g., home gardeners, adult farmers, children of farmers, anglers) located in the vicinity of any generator or facility handling a waste. Therefore, we are not putting poor, rural, or minority populations at any disadvantage with regard to our evaluation of risk or with regard to how the Agency makes its proposed hazardous waste listing determinations. In proposing today to list wastes as hazardous (i. e., filter baghouses and low antimony slags from antimony oxide production that are discarded, nonexempt nonwastewater from the titanium dioxide chloride­ ilmenite process,), all populations potentially exposed to these wastes or potentially exposed to releases of the hazardous constituents in the wastes will benefit from the proposed listing determination. In addition, listing determinations take effect at the national level. The wastes proposed to be listed as hazardous will be hazardous regardless of where they are generated and regardless of where they may be managed. Although the Agency understands that the proposed listing determinations, if finalized, may affect where these wastes are managed in the future (in that hazardous wastes must be managed at subtitle C facilities), the Agency's decision to list these wastes as hazardous is independent of any decisions regarding the location of waste generators and the siting of waste management facilities. Similarly, in cases where the Agency is proposing not list a solid waste as hazardous because the waste does not meet the criteria for being identified as a hazardous waste, these decisions are based upon an evaluation of potential individual risks located in proximity to any facility handling the waste. Therefore, any population living proximately to a facility that produces a solid waste that the Agency has proposed not to list would not be adversely affected either because the waste is already being managed as a hazardous waste in the Subtitle C system or because the solid waste does not pose a sufficient risk to the local population. We encourage all VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55777 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules stakeholders including members of the environmental justice community and members of the regulated community to provide comments or further information related to potential environmental justice concerns or impacts, including information and data on facilities that have evaluated potential ecological and human health impacts (taking into account subsistence patterns and sensitive populations) to minority or low­ income communities. F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in E. O. 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The topic of environmental threats to children's health is growing in regulatory importance as scientists, policy makers, and village leaders continue to recognize the extent to which children are particularly vulnerable to environmental hazards. Recent EPA actions have been in the forefront of addressing environmental threats to the health and safety of children. Today's proposed rule further reflects our commitment to mitigating environmental threats to children. A few significant physiological characteristics are largely responsible for children's increased susceptibility to environmental hazards. First, children eat proportionately more food, drink proportionately more fluids, and breathe more air per pound of body weight than do adults. As a result, children potentially experience greater levels of exposure to environmental threats than do adults. Second, because children's bodies are still in the process of development, their immune systems, neurological systems, and other immature organs can be more easily and considerably affected by environmental hazards. Today's proposed rule is intended to avoid releases of hazardous constituents to the environment at levels that will cause unacceptable risks. We considered risks to children in our risk assessment. The more appropriate and safer management practices proposed in this rule are projected to reduce risks to children potentially exposed to the constituents of concern. The public is invited to submit or identify peerreviewed studies and data, of which the agency may not be aware, that assess results of early life exposure to the proposed hazardous constituents from wastes from inorganic chemical production proposed for listing in today's rulemaking. G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments `` to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities. '' For the reasons described above, today's proposed rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments, nor does it impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3( b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule. H. Executive Order 13132Ð Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. '' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. '' Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Section 4 of the Executive Order contains additional requirements for rules that preempt State or local law, even if those rules do not have federalism implications (i. e., the rules will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government). Those requirements include providing all affected State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the development of the regulation. If the preemption is not based on express or implied statutory authority, EPA also must consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials regarding the conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within the agency's area of regulatory responsibility. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule directly affects primarily inorganic chemical producers. There are no State and local government bodies that incur direct compliance costs by this rulemaking. State and local government VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55778 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 66 For more information, please refer to Appendix C of the background document `` Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule For Listing Hazardous Waste From Inorganic Chemical Production, '' which was placed in the docket for today's proposed rule. implementation expenditures are expected to be less than $500,000 in any one year. 66 Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. This proposed rule would preempt State and local law that is less stringent for these inorganic chemical production wastes as hazardous wastes. Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U. S. C. 6901 to 6992k, the relationship between the States and the national government with respect to hazardous waste management is established for authorized State hazardous waste programs, 42 U. S. C. 6926 (3006), and retention of State authority, 42 U. S. C. 6929 (3009). Under section 3009 of RCRA, States and their political subdivisions may not impose requirements less stringent for hazardous waste management than the national government. By publishing and inviting comment on this proposed rule, we hereby provide State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation. Thus, we have complied with the requirements of section 4 of the Executive Order. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (`` NTTAA''), Public Law 104± 113, section 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes to use Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for treatment standards for associated with hazardous metal constituents in wastes proposed for listing in today's proposal. The TCLP is the standard test method used to evaluate the toxicity characteristic for the definition of hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.24) and treatment standards for metal constituents under the Land Disposal Restrictions (see 40 CFR 268.40 and 268.48.). The Agency has used the TCLP in completing its treatment standards for the same hazardous metal constituents across a range of listed and characteristic hazardous wastes. The performance level for leachability is based on the Best CommerciallyAvailable Demonstrated Technology (BDAT). The use of the TCLP for the same constituents assures uniformity and consistency in the treatment of hazardous waste in fulfillment of the Congressional Mandate to minimize long­ term threats to human health or the environment. 42 U. S. C. 6924( m). The use of any voluntary consensus standard would be impractical with applicable law because it would require a different leaching method than is currently used to determine hazardous characteristics. The use of different chemical methods to assess hazardousness of the waste and compliance with treatment standards would create disparate results between hazardous waste identification and effective treatment of land disposed hazardous wastes. We have not, therefore, used any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially­ applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in this regulation. EPA has also issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for the Land Disposal Restriction program (65 FR 37932, June 19, 2000) that has included discussion on the effectiveness of stabilization on metals in hazardous wastes. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 148 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply. 40 CFR Part 261 Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Waste treatment and disposal, Recycling. 40 CFR Part 268 Environmental protection, Hazardous materials, Waste management, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Land Disposal Restrictions, Treatment Standards. 40 CFR Part 271 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous material transportation, Hazardous waste, Indians­ lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply. 40 CFR Part 302 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Emergency Planning and Community Right­ to­ Know Act, Extremely hazardous substances, Hazardous chemicals, Hazardous materials, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous substances, Hazardous wastes, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply. Dated: August 30, 2000. Carol M. Browner, Administrator. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows: PART 148Ð HAZARDOUS WASTE INJECTION RESTRICTIONS 1. The authority citation for Part 148 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 3004, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U. S. C. 6901 et seq. 2. Section 148.18 is amended by adding paragraphs (l) and (m) to read as follows: § 148.19 Waste­ specific prohibitions newly listed and identified wastes. * * * * * (l) Effective [date six months after publication of final rule], the wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers K176, K177, and K178 are prohibited from underground injection. (m) The requirements of paragraphs (a) through (l) of this section do not apply: (1) If the wastes meet or are treated to meet the applicable standards specified in subpart D of part 268 of this chapter; or (2) If an exemption from a prohibition has been granted in response to a petition under subpart C of this part; or (3) During the period of extension of the applicable effective date, if an extension has been granted under § 148.4. PART 261Ð IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 3. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, 6922, 6924( y), and 6938. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55779 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules 4. Section 261.4 is amended by revising paragraph (b)( 15) to read as follows: § 261.4 Exclusions. * * * * * (b) * * * (15) Leachate or gas condensate collected from landfills where certain solid wastes have been disposed, provided that: (i) The solid wastes disposed would meet one or more of the listing descriptions for Hazardous Waste Codes K169, K170, K171, K172, K174, K175, K176, K177, and K178, if these wastes had been generated after the effective date of the listing; (ii) The solid wastes described in paragraph (b)( 15)( i) of this section were disposed prior to the effective date of the listing: (iii) The leachate or gas condensate do not exhibit any characteristic of hazardous waste nor are derived from any other listed hazardous waste; (iv) Discharge of the leachate or gas condensate, including leachate or gas condensate transferred from the landfill to a POTW by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe, is subject to regulation under Sections 307( b) or 402 of the Clean Water Act. (v) After February 13, 2001, leachate or gas condensate derived from K169± K172 will no longer be exempt if it is stored or managed in a surface impoundment prior to discharge. After [date 24 months after publication date of the final rule], leachate or gas condensate derived from K176, K177, and K178 will no longer be exempt if it is stored or managed in a surface impoundment prior to discharge. There is one exception: if the surface impoundment is used to temporarily store leachate or gas condensate in response to an emergency situation (e. g., shutdown of wastewater treatment system), provided the impoundment has a double liner, and provided the leachate or gas condensate is removed from the impoundment and continues to be managed in compliance with the conditions of paragraph (b)( 15)( v) after the emergency ends. * * * * * 5. In § 261.32, the table is amended by adding in alphanumeric order (by the first column) the following wastestreams to the subgroup `` Inorganic Chemicals'' to read as follows: § 261.32 Hazardous waste from specific sources. * * * * * Industry and EPA hazardous waste No. Hazardous waste Hazardous 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 does not apply to chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production exempt under section 261.4( b)( 7)]. (T) ******* * * * * * 6. Appendix VII to Part 261 is amended by adding the following wastestreams in alphanumeric order (by the first column) to read as follows: APPENDIX VII TO PART 261Ð BASIS FOR LISTING HAZARDOUS WASTE EPA hazardous waste No. Hazardous constituents for which listed ***** K176 ................. Arsenic, lead. K177 ................. Antimony. K178 ................. Manganese, thallium. * * * * * 7. Appendix VIII to Part 261 is amended by adding in alphabetical sequence of common name the following entries: APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261Ð HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS Common name Chemical abstracts name Chemical abstracts No. Hazardous waste No. ******* Manganese ........................................................................ Same ................................................................................ 7439± 96± 5 .................... ******* PART 268Ð LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS 8. The authority citation for Part 268 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, and 6924. Subpart CÐ Prohibitions on Land Disposal 9. Section 268.36 is added to read as follows: VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55780 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules § 268.36 Waste specific prohibitionsÐ inorganic chemical wastes. (a) Effective [date six months from date of publication of final rule], the wastes specified in 40 CFR Part 261 as EPA Hazardous Wastes Numbers K176, K177, and K178, and soil and debris contaminated with these wastes, radioactive wastes mixed with these wastes, and soil and debris contaminated with radioactive wastes mixed with these wastes are prohibited from land disposal. (b) The requirements of paragraph (a) of this section do not apply if: (1) The wastes meet the applicable treatment standards specified in Subpart D of this Part; (2) Persons have been granted an exemption from a prohibition pursuant to a petition under § 268.6, with respect to those wastes and units covered by the petition; (3) The wastes meet the applicable treatment standards established pursuant to a petition granted under § 268.44; (4) Hazardous debris has met the treatment standards in § 268.40 or the alternative treatment standards in § 268.45; or (5) Persons have been granted an extension to the effective date of a prohibition pursuant to § 268.5, with respect to these wastes covered by the extension. (c) To determine whether a hazardous waste identified in this section exceeds the applicable treatment standards specified in § 268.40, the initial generator must test a sample of the waste extract or the entire waste, depending on whether the treatment standards are expressed as concentrations in the waste extract or the waste, or the generator may use knowledge of the waste. If the waste contains regulated constituents in excess of the applicable Subpart D levels, the waste is prohibited from land disposal, and all requirements of Part 268 are applicable, except as otherwise specified. 10. In § 268.40, the Table is amended by adding in alphanumeric order new entries for K176, K177, and K178 to read as follows: § 268.40 Applicability of treatment standards. * * * * * TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES [Note: NA means not applicable] Waste code Waste description and treatment regulatory subcategory 1 Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters Common name CAS 2 number Concentration in mg/ L 3 , or technology code 4 Concentration in mg/ kg 5 unless noted as `` mg/ L TCLP'', or technology code ******* K176 ......... Baghouse filters from the pro duction of antimony oxide. Antimony .................................. Arsenic ..................................... 7440± 36± 0 7440± 38± 2 1.9 ............................. 1.4 ............................. 1.15 mg/ L TCLP 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 timony oxide that is dis posed of or speculatively ac cumulated. Antimony .................................. Arsenic ..................................... Lead ......................................... 7440± 36± 0 7440± 38± 2 7439± 92± 1 1.9 ............................. 1.4 ............................. 0.60 ........................... 1.15 mg/ L TCLP 5.0 mg/ L TCLP 0.75 mg/ L TCLP K178 ......... Nonwastewaters from the pro duction of titanium dioxide by the chloride­ ilmenite proc ess. [This listing does not apply to chloride process waste solids from titanium tetrachloride production exempt under section 261.4( b)( 7).]. 1,2,3,4,6,7,8­ Heptachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8­ HpCDD). 1,2,3,4,6,7,8­ Heptachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,6,7,8­ HpCDF). 35822± 39± 4 67562± 39± 4 0.000035 or CMBST 11 0.000035 or CMBST 11 0.0025 or CMBST 11 0.0025 or CMBST 11 0.0025 or CMBST 11 1,2,3,4,7,8,9­ Heptachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,7,8,9­ HpCDF). 55673± 89± 7 0.000035 or CMBST 11 0.0025 or CMBST 11 HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo­ pdioxins 34465± 46± 8 0.000063 or CMBST 11 0.001 or CMBST 11 HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans). 55684± 94± 1 0.000063 or CMBST 11 0.001 or CMBST 11 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9­ Octachlorodibenzo­ p­ dioxin (OCDD). 3268± 87± 9 0.000063 or CMBST 11 0.005 or CMBST 11 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9­ Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF). 39001± 02± 0 0.000063 or CMBST 11 0.005 or CMBST 11 PeCDDs (All Pentachlorodibenzo­ pdioxins 36088± 22± 9 0.000063 or CMBST 11 0.001 or CMBST 11 PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenzofurans). 30402± 15± 4 0.000035 or CMBST 11 0.001 or CMBST 11 TCDDs (All tetrachlorodibenzo p­ dioxins). 41903± 57± 5 0.000063 or CMBST 11 0.001 or CMBST 11 TCDFs (All tetrachlorodibenzofurans). 55722± 27± 5 0.000063 or CMBST 11 0.001 or CMBST 11 VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55781 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTESÐ Continued [Note: NA means not applicable] Waste code Waste description and treatment regulatory subcategory 1 Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters Common name CAS 2 number Concentration in mg/ L 3 , or technology code 4 Concentration in mg/ kg 5 unless noted as `` mg/ L TCLP'', or 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 1Ð Technology 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 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. ******* 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 by adding in alphabetical order under the heading of `` Inorganic Constituents'' a new entry to read as follows: (The footnotes are republished without change.) § 268.48 Universal treatment standards. * * * * * UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS [Note: NA means not applicable] Regulated Constituent common name CAS 1 number Wastewater standard Nonwastewater standard Concentration in mg/ l 2 Concentration in mg/ kg 3 unless 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. * * * * * PART 271Ð REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZATION OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS 12. The authority citation for Part 271 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), and 6926. 13. Section 271.1( j) is amended by adding the following entries to Table 1 and Table 2 in chronological order by date of publication to read as follows. § 271.1 Purpose and scope. * * * * * (j) * * * VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2 55782 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 179 / Thursday, September 14, 2000 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1.Ð REGULATIONS 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 rule] Listing of Hazardous Wastes K176, K177, and K178 [ insert Federal Register page numbers] [ insert effective date of final rule] ******* TABLE 2.Ð SELF­ 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 K176, K177, and K178 wastes, and prohibition on land disposal of radioactive waste mixed with K176, K177, and K178 wastes, including soil and debris. 3004( g)( 4)( C) and 3004( m). [ date of publication of final rule] [ FR page numbers]. ******* PART 302Ð DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION 14. The authority citation for Part 302 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U. S. C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U. S. C. 1321 and 1361. 15. In § 302.4, Table 302.4 is amended by adding the following new entries in alphanumeric order at the end of the table to read as follows: § 302.4 Designation of hazardous substances * * * * * TABLE 302.4.Ð LIST OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND REPORTABLE QUANTITIES [Note: All Comments/ Notes Are Located at the End of This Table] Hazardous substance CASRN Regulatory synonyms Statutory Final RQ RQ Code * RCRA Waste Number Category Pounds (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 tetrachloride production exempt under section 261.4( b)( 7).]. * 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< MAY> 2000 20: 03 Sep 13, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 14SEP2. SGM pfrm12 PsN: 14SEP2

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:35.846009

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0025-0017

Supporting & Related Material

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Ronald A. Shipley Counsel, CMA Waste Issues Team Chemical Manufacturers Association 1300 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22209 Dear Mr. Shipley: Thank you for your March 1 O* letter regarding an "agreement in principle" to revise the alternative particulate matter (I") standard in the September 1999 Hazardous Waste Combustor (HWC) NESHAP final rule. We concur with the agreed upon approach outlined in your letter, included as an enclosure herein. As a result, we will join in a motion with you to sever and hold in abeyance your challenge to the PM standard for incinerators in the HWC MACT rule. In addition, we are pleased to understand that if we finalize a rulemaking establishing a revised alternative PM standard in accordance with the "agreement in principle," then you and other petitioners, i. e., American Cyanamid and General Electric, will dismiss your challenge to the incinerator PM standard with prejudice. As mentioned previously, a revision to the alternative PM standard must be implemented through notice and comment rulemaking procedures. We plan to include this revision as part of an inclusive notice of proposed rulemaking cNpRh4) to revise other certain Iimited aspects of the HWC MACT rule. In my estimation, such an effort would not likely be published in the Federal Register before late fall, with a final rulemaking being published sometime in late spring of 2001. I want to thank you, Tom Nilan, and all your members who worked with us to craft a sensible approach towards resolving this difficult issue. My staff will be contacting you shortly to discuss a schedule for submittal of the joint severance motion. Sincerely, James R. Berlow, Director Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division RecycledlRecyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil Based inks on 100% Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer) Alternative PM Standard "Agreement In Principle" Based on our discussions, we understand that: 1. EPA will promptly propose in the Federal Register regulations revising the alternative PM standard as described herein. Following receipt of comments, EPA will promptly take final action on the proposal. 2. EPA's proposed revision will establish an alternative metals emissions standard for semi­ voIatile metals (SVM) and low volatile metals (LVM) of 240 mg/ dscm and 97 mg/ dscm respectively (both corrected to 7 percent oxygen) on an "expanded" basis, ie., the SVM emission standard will appIy to the combined emissions of lead, cadmium, and selenium and the LVM emission standard will apply to the combined emissions of antimony, cobalt, manganese, nickel, beryllium, arsenic, and chromium. 3. In order for a facility to qualifL and operate under the alternative metals emissions standard, a facility must demonstrate: a) that the maximum theoretical emissions concentration (MTEC) of HAP metals ­ excluding mercury ­ for the combined` hazardous waste feedstreams to the incinerator does not exceed 25% of the MACT MTEC floors on an expanded basis, i. e., 1,325 mg/ dscm of expanded SVM HAP metals and 4,000 mg/ dscm of expanded LVM HAP metals (both corrected to 7 percent oxygen). Non­ detectable constitutents­ in hazardous waste feeds will be assumed present at one­ half the detection limit for the purpose of calculating the MTEC. b) At least ninety percent (90%) system removal efficiency for SV" In making this demonstration, a facility may "spike" their SVM feed above 25 percent of the SVM MACT MTEC floor, so long as the alternative SVM metals standard is attained during the test. This test may be performed independently of the comprehensive performance test and will be used to establish SVM and LVM operating parameter limits, other than the SVM and LVM feedrate limits that are addressed in paragraph 5, below. c) The incinerator meets the alternative metals emissions standard. This demonstration may be combined with the SRE demonstration and will be used to establish SVM and LVM operating parameter limits. . .... 4. Limits established to ensure that the facility does not operate above 25% of the MACT MTEC floors will be based on the combined hazardous waste feedstreams to the incinerator and may be expressed either as an MTEC limit or as a restriction on maximum hazardous waste metals mass feedrate and minimum gas flow rate. These limits will be based on a 12 hour rolling average 5. SVM and LVM operating parameter limits will be established to ensure compliance with the alternative metals emissions standard. Metal feedrate limits established to comply with the alternative metals emissions standard will be based on the total combined feedstream to the incinerator and will be expressed on a mass per unit time basis. 6. The PM standard of 0.015 gr/ dscf to be codified at 40 C. F. R. 63.1203 will not apply to incinerators that qualify for the alternative metals standard. Such incinerators would remain subject to the RCRA PM emission standard of 0.08 gr/ dscf at 40 C. F. R. 264.343( c). 3. EPA will promptly issue a guidance memorandum stating that a facility with a legitimate expectation of qualifying for the alternative metals emissions standard will not be disqualified fiom being considered eligible for a compliance extension or a schedule of compliance if the facility later determines that it needs to comply with the base PM standard. 8. EPA will provide written guidance, based on discussions with CMA, which addresses implementation issues concerning analytical anomalies and waste feed variability when demonstrating eligibility and compliance. 9. EPA will acknowledge this letter of understanding in writing and will jointly support a motion to sever and hold briefing of CMA's particulate matter standards challenge in abeyance before the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:35.981726

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0025-0041

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:35.988452

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0025-0058

Proposed Rule

NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors; Proposed Amendments; Extension of Comment Period

43142 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules pursuant to 5 U. S. C. 552a, subsection ( d). ( 3) Authority: 5 U. S. C. 552a( j)( 2), ( k)( 1), ( k)( 2), ( k)( 3), ( k)( 4), ( k)( 5), ( k)( 6), and ( k)( 7). ( 4) Consistent with the legislative purpose of the Privacy Act of 1974, the Department of the Navy will grant access to nonexempt material in the records being maintained. Disclosure will be governed by the Department of the Navy's Privacy Regulation, but will be limited to the extent that the identity of confidential sources will not be compromised; subjects of an investigation of an actual or potential criminal violation will not be alerted to the investigation; the physical safety of witnesses, informants and law enforcement personnel will not be endangered, the privacy of third parties will not be violated; and that the disclosure would not otherwise impede effective law enforcement. Whenever possible, information of the above nature will be deleted from the requested documents and the balance made available. The controlling principle behind this limited access is to allow disclosures except those indicated above. The decisions to release information from these systems will be made on a case­ by­ case basis. * * * * * Dated: August 7, 2001. L. M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [ FR Doc. 01 20366 Filed 8 16 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 5001 08 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 63, 264, 265, 266, and 270 [ FRL 7039 5] RIN 2050 AE79 NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors Proposed Amendments; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: In response to several commenters' request for more time to respond to issues, the Environmental Protection Agency is extending the comment period on its proposed amendments to NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Waste Combustors. On July 3, 2001 ( 66 FR 35126), EPA proposed potential revisions to several compliance, testing, and monitoring provisions of the final rule that established emissions standards for hazardous waste burning cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and incinerators. The comment period announced in the proposed rule was scheduled to end on August 17. Today's action extends the comment period for 60 days. Stakeholders, however, have not requested an extension of the comment period for two other actions ( see 66 FR 35087 and 66 FR 35124) also published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2001. Today's action does not change the date by which comments must be submitted for those two actions. DATES: The comment period for this NPRM is extended from the original closing date of August 17, 2001 to October 16, 2001. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on the NPRM, you must send an original and two copies of the comments referencing docket number F 2001 RC5P FFFFF to: RCRA Information Center ( RIC), Office of Solid Waste ( 5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters ( EPA HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 0002; or, ( 2) if using special delivery, such as overnight express service: RIC, Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. You may also submit comments electronically following the directions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. You may view public comments and supporting materials in the RIC. The RIC is open from 9 am to 4 pm Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling 703 603 9230. You may copy up to 100 pages from any regulatory document at no charge. Additional copies cost $ 0.15 per page. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA Call Center at 1 800 424 9346 or TDD 1 800 553 7672 ( hearing impaired). Callers within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703 412 9810 or TDD 703 412 3323 ( hearing impaired). The RCRA Call Center is open Monday Friday, 9 am to 4 pm, Eastern Standard Time. For more information on this extension notice, contact Rhonda Minnick at 703 308 8871, minnick. rhonda@ epa. gov, or write her at the Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 30, 1999, the NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors was promulgated ( 64 FR 52828). On July 3, 2001, EPA proposed potential revisions to several compliance, testing, and monitoring provisions of the final rule ( 66 FR 35126). On July 24, 2001, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, et al., v. EPA, et al., ( D. C. Cir. No. 99 1457 ( and consolidated cases)). This case decided several issues related to the September 30, 1999 final rule. In response to several commenters' requests for more time to respond to issues in the proposed rule considering the recent court decision, EPA is extending the proposed rule's comment period. This document extends the comment period for 60 days. Stakeholders, however, have not requested an extension of the comment period for two other actions ( see 66 FR 35087 and 66 FR 35124) also published in the Federal Register on July 3, 2001. Today's action does not change the date by which comments must be submitted for those two actions. List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 63 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 264 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds. 40 CFR Part 265 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Surety bonds, Water supply. 40 CFR Part 266 Environmental protection, Energy, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 270 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation, Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control, Water supply. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 17: 08 Aug 16, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17AUP1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 17AUP1 43143 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules Dated: August 14, 2001. Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [ FR Doc. 01 20897 Filed 8 16 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 271 [ FRL 7035 3] Indiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Indiana has applied to EPA for Final authorization of the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization, and is proposing to authorize the State's changes through this proposed final action. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 17, 2001. ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Gary Westefer, Indiana Regulatory Specialist, DM 7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Please refer to Docket Number IN ARA18. We must receive your comments by September 17, 2001. You can view and copy Indiana's application from 9: 00 am to 4: 00 pm at the following addresses: Indiana Department of Environmental Management, 100 North Senate, Indianapolis, Indiana ( mailing address P. O. Box 6015, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206) contact Lynn West ( 317) 232 3593, and EPA Region 5, contact Gary Westefer at the following address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Westefer, Indiana Regulatory Specialist, U. S. EPA Region 5, DM 7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, ( 312) 886 7450. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary? States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006( b), 42 U. S. C. 6926( b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279. B. What Decisions Have We Made in this Rule? We conclude that Indiana's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we propose to grant Indiana Final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. Indiana has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities ( TSDFs) within its borders ( except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 ( HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in Indiana, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so. C. What is the Effect of Today's Authorization Decision? The effect of this decision is that a facility in Indiana subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. Indiana has enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to: Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports; Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits; and Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions. This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Indiana is being authorized by today's action are already effective, and are not changed by today's action. D. What Happens if EPA Receives Comments that Oppose this Action? If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will address all public comments in a later Federal Register. You may not have another opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization, you must do so at this time. E. What has Indiana Previously been Authorized for? Indiana initially received Final authorization on January 31, 1986, effective January 31, 1986 ( 51 FR 3955) to implement the RCRA hazardous waste management program. We granted authorization for changes to their program on October 31, 1986, effective December 31, 1986 ( 51 FR 39752); January 5, 1988, effective January 19, 1988 ( 53 FR 128); July 13, 1989, effective September 11, 1989 ( 54 FR 29557); July 23, 1991, effective September 23, 1991 ( 56 FR 33717); July 24, 1991, effective September 23, 1991 ( 56 FR 33866); July 29, 1991, effective September 27, 1991 ( 56 FR 35831); July 30, 1991, effective September 30, 1991 ( 56 FR 36010); August 20, 1996, effective October 21, 1996 ( 61 FR 43018); September 1, 1999, effective November 30, 1999 ( 64 FR 47692), and January 4, 2001 effective January 4, 2001 ( 66 FR 733). F. What Changes are We Authorizing with Today's Action? On March 16, 2001, Indiana submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make a final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that Indiana's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we propose to grant Indiana Final authorization for the following program changes: VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 10: 02 Aug 16, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 17AUP1. SGM pfrm06 PsN: 17AUP1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:35.992586

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0025-0059

Rule

NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors [F-2001-RC4P-FFFFF]

c 35124 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128/ Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules DELEGATION STATUS FOR PART 63 STANDARDS­ STATE OF WASHINGTON­ Continued Subpart I Ecology2 I BCAA3 I Nyfp 1 OAPCA5 I PSCAA6 I SCAPCA' I SWAPCAB 1 YRCAA9 XXX. Ferroalloys Production: Ferromanganese & Silicomanganese ........ X X General Provision authorities which may not be delegated include: 55 63.6( g); 63.6( h)( 9); 63.7( e)( 2)( ii) and ( 1) for approval of major alternatives to test methods; 563.8( f) for approval of maor alternatives to monrtonng; § 63.10( f); and all authorities identified in the subparts ( i. e., under " Delegation of Authority") that cannot be delegated. For definitions 01 minor, intermediate, and major alternatives to test methods and monitoring, see memorandum from John Seitz, Office of Air Quality Plan­ nin and Standards, dated July, 10, 1998, entitled, " Delegation of 40 CFR Part 63 General Provisions Authorities to State and Local Air Pollution Control Agencies." & ashin ton Department of Ecolo y ( July 1, 2000) 3 Benton Clean Air Authority ( July 1, 2000) Note: Dekgation of Subpart M to ? cology applies to part 70 sources only. Northwest Air Pollutlon Authotlty ( July 1, 1999) 5 Olympic Air Pollution Control Authority ( July 1, 2000) SPuget Sound Clean Air Agency ( July 1, 1999) ' Spokane County Air, Pollution Control Authority ( July 1, 2000) BSouthwest Alr Pollutlon Control Authority ( August 1, 1998) Note: Dele atton of Subpalt M to YRCAA apples to part 70 sources only. ' OSubpartt of this part is delegated to these agencies as applies to all applicable facilities and processes as defined in 40 CFR 63.440, except kraft and sulfite pulping mills. The Washington Department of Ecology ( Ecology) retains the authority to regulate kraft and sulfite pulping mills in the State of Washington, pursuant to Washington Administrative Code ( WAC) 173­ 405­ 012 and 173­ 410­ 012. want to WAC 173­ 415­ 012. 11 Subpart LL of this part cannot be delegated to any local agencies in Washington because Ecology retains the authority to regulate primary'aluminum plants, pur­ lution control agency. Therefore, any amendments made to these delegated rules after this effective date are not delegated to the agency. Note to paragraph ( a)( 47): Dates in parenthesis indicate the effective date of the federal rules that have been adopted by and delegated to the state or local air pol­ Yakima Regbnal Clean Air Authority ( July 1, 2000) [ FR Doc. 01­ 16692 Filed 7­ 2­ 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 656040­ P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 rFRL­ 6996­ 81 Approval of Section 112( 1) Authority for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions; Risk Management Plans; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. they contain regulated quantities of LPG gases regulated under the New Jersey Liquified Petroleum Gas Act of 1950 ( NJSA 21: lB). The direct final rule explains the rationale for this approval. EPA is taking direct final action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. If no adverse comments are received no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. In the spirit of Executive Orders 13132 and 13175. Administrator within 30 days of the close of the public comment period. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Umesh Dholakia at ( 212) 637­ 4023 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority: This action is issued under the authority of section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 7412. Dated: May 25, 2001. Kathleen C. Callahan, ­' " Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2. [ FR Doc. ' 01­ 16562 Filed 7­ 2­ 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6580­ 50­ P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 63 and 264 SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112( 1) of and consistent with EPA policy to [ FRL­ 7002­ 81 the Clean Air Act ( CAA), the New Jersey promote communications between EPA Department of Environmental Protection and State, local and tribal governments, NESHAP: Standards for Air ( NJDEP) requested delegation of the EPA specifically solicits comments on Pollutants for Hsizardous Waste Federal Chemical Accident Prevention this proposed rule from State. local and Provisions promulgated by EPA under section 112( r) of the CAA for all stationary sources with covered processes ( subject sources) under its jurisdiction except those having certain specified flammable liquified petroleum gases ( LPG). This action proposes to grant such authority. In the Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is granting NJDEP the authority to implement and enforce the Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act Program rule, effective July 20, 1998, at New Jersey Administrative Code ( NJAC) 7: 31­ 1.1 through 1.10 and NJAC 7: 31­ 2.1 through 8.2 in place of the Federal Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions for all subject sources under NJDEP's jurisdiction. EPA retains the . authority to regulate subject sources having processes covered only because tribd officials. DATES: Written comments must be received by August 2,2001. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Steven C. Riva, Chief, Permitting Section, Air Programs Branch, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2,290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007­ 1866, with a copy to Ms. Shirlee Schiffman, Chief, Bureau of Chemical Release Information and Prevention, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protectian, P. O. Box 424,22 South Clinton Avenue, Trenton, New Jersey 08625­ 0424. Copies of the submitted requests are available for public review at EPA Region 2' s office during normal business hours ( docket # A­ 2000­ 23). Any State responses to comments must be submitted to the AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to take action on NESHAP: Standardsfor Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors. The revisions make targeted amendments to the regulations for hazardous waste burning cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and incinerators promulgated on September 30,1999 ( NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors). The revisions make improvements to the implementation of the emission standards, primarily in the areas of compliance, testing and monitoring. We are proposing these revisions to make it easier to comply with the September 30,1999 final rule. Federal Register/ Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules . . ". 35125 In the " Rules and Regulations" section of the Federal Register, we are amending the September 30,1999 final rule without prior proposal to incorporate these revisions because we view the amendments as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this approach in the preamble to the direct final rule. If we receive adverse comment on a distinct amendment, however, we will withdraw the direct final action for that amendment and the amendment will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on any amendment must do so at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received by August 17, 2001. ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on this proposed rule, you must send an original and two copies of the comments referencing Docket Number F­ 2001­ RC4P­ FFFFF to: RCRA Information Center ( RIC), Office of Solid Waste ( 5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters ( EPA HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460­ 0002; or, ( 2) if using special delivery, such as overnight express service: RIC, Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. You may also submit comments electronically following the directions in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. You may view public comments and supporting materials in the RIC. The RIC is open from 9 am to 4 pm Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, we recommend that you make an appointment by calling 703­ 603­ 9230. You may copy up to 100 pages from any regulatory document at no charge. Additional copies cost $ 0.15 per page. For information on accessing an electronic copy of the data base, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, call the RCRA Call Center at 1­ 800­ 424­ 9346 or TDD 1­ 800­ 553­ 7672 ( hearing impaired). Callers within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703­ 412­ 9810 or TDD 703412­ 3323 ( hearing impaired). The RCRA Call Center is open Monday­ Friday, 9 am to 4 pm, Eastern Standard Time. For more information on specific aspects of this proposed rule, contact Mr. Frank Behan at 703­ 308­ 8476, behan. frank@ epa. gov, or write him at the Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document concerns NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors. For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action that is located in the " Rules and Regulations" section of this Federal Register publication. Submittal of Comments electronically by sending electronic mail through the Internet to: rcra­ docket@ epamail. epa. gov. You should identify comments in electronic format with the docket number F­ 2001­ RC4P­ FFFFF. You must submit all electronic comments as an ASCII ( text) file, avoiding the use of special characters or any type of encryption. The official record for this action will be kept in the paper form. Accordingly, we will transfer all comments received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is the paper record maintained at the RIC as described above. We may seek clarification of electronic comments that are garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form. You should not electronically submit any confidential business information ( CBI). You must submit an original and two copies of CBI under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste ( 5305W), U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. electronically, we are asking prospective commenters to voluntarily submit one additional copy of their comments on labeled personal computer diskettes in ASCII ( text) format or a ` word processing format that can be converted to ASCII ( text). It is essential that you specify on the disk label the word processing software and versionledition as well as the commenter's name. This will allow us to convert the comments into one of the word processing formats used by the Agency. Please use mailing envelopes designed to protect the diskettes. We emphasize that submission of diskettes is not mandatory, nor will it result in any advantage or disadvantage to any commenter. I. Description of Proposed Amendments changes to the NESHAP: Final You may submit comments If you do not submit comments Today's notice proposes specific Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors [ Phase I) rule, published September 30, 1999 ( 64 FR 52828). After promulgation, commenters ( primarily the regulated community) raised numerous issues through informal comments and during litigation settlement discussions. After considering the issues raised, we have decided to propose for comment a limited number of changes to the Phase I final rule, most of the proposed changes relating to compliance and implementation of the rule. In the " Rules and Regulations" section of the Federal Register, we are amending the September 30,1999 final rule without prior proposal to incorporate these revisions because we view the amendments as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this approach in the preamble to the direct final rule, and do not believe it necessary to repeat those discussions here. If we receive adverse comment on a distinct amendment, we will withdraw the direct final action for that amendment and the amendment will not take effect. We­ will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on any amendment must do so at this time. " Rules and Regulations" section of today's Federal Register publication. 11. How Can I Influence EPA's­ Thinking on This Rule? In developing this rule, we tried to address the concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We invite you to provide different views on options we propose, new approaches we haven't considered, new data, how this rule may effect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all­ aspects of this rule. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below: Explain your views as clearly as possible and why you feel that way. Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views. If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate. Tell us which parts you support, as well as those you disagree with. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. Offer specific alternatives. Refer your comments to specific sections of the proposal, such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections. For further information, please see the ,`. " I , " I1 ­­­ ­ ~ ~ ­ ~ ­ ~ ­ , ~ ~ ""­*"­ "" Y 1 35126 Federal Register/ Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules Make sure to submit your ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on the paper record maintained at the RIC comments by the deadline in this this proposed rule, you must send an as described above. We may seek notice. original and two copies of the comments clarification of electronic comments that Be sure to include the name, date, referencing Docket Number F­ 2001­ are garbled in transmission or during and docket number with your RC5P­ FFFFF to: RCRA Information conversion to paper form. comments. Center ( RIC), Office of Solid Waste You should not electronically submit List of Subjects ( 5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection any confidential business information Agency Headquarters ( EPA HQ), Ariel ( CBI). You must submit an original and 40 CFR Part 63 Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania two copies of CBI under separate cover substances, Reporting and 0002; or, ( 2) if using special delivery, Office of Solid Waste ( 5305W), U. S. recordkeeping requirements. 40 CFR Part 264 Protection A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , Hazardous waste, comments electronically following the electronicdly, we are asking prospective Insurance, Packaging and containers, directions in the SUPPLEMENTARY commenters to voluntarily submit one Reporting and recordkeeping INFORMATION section below. additional copy of their comments on requirements, Security measures, Surety You may view public comments and labeled personal computer diskettes in bonds. supporting materials in the RIC. The RIC ASCII ( text) format or a word processing Dated: June 18, 2001. is open from 9 am to 4 pm Monday format that can be converted to ASCII through Friday, excluding Federal Christine Todd Whitman, ( text). It is essential that you specify on Administrator. holidays. To review docket materials, the disk label the word processing we recommend that you make an software and versionledition as well as [ FR Doc. 01­ 16427Filed 7­ 2­ 01; 8: 45 a d appointment by calling 703­ 603­ 9230. the commenter's name. This will allow Air pollution control, Hazardous Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460­ to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, such as overnight express service: RIC, EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Crystal'Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, D. C. 20460. Air pollution control, Environmental vA 22202* may submit If you do not submit comments BILLING CODE 6560­ 50­ U You may copy up to 100 pages from any us to convert the comments into one of regulatory document at no charge. the word processing formats used by the Additional copies cost $ 0.15 per page. Agency. Please use mailing envelopes ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY For information on accessing an designed to protect the diskettes. We electronic copy of the data base, see the emphasize that submission of diskettes SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. is not mandatory, nor will it result in 40 CFR Parts 631 2647 2651 266r and 270 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For any advantage or disadvantage to any . [ FRL­ 7001­ 91 general information, call the RCRA Call COmmenter. RIN 2050­ AE79 NESHAP: Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors­ Proposed Amendments AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act ( CAA), EPA established new emissions standards for hazardous waste burning cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and incinerators on September 30, 1999 ( NESHAP: Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors). Following promulgation of this final rule, the regulated community, through informal comments and through litigation, raised numerous issues related to specific requirements of the final rule. In response to relevant concerns, we are proposing and taking comment on certain targeted changes to the final rule. These regulatory changes do not emission standards, but rather focus on improvements to the implementation of the emission standards, primarily in the areas of compliance, testing and monitoring. DATES: Comments must be submitted by August 17,2001. , propose to amend the numerical kenter at 1­ 800­ 424­ 9346 or TDD 1­ 800­ 553­ 7672 ( hearing impaired). Callers within the Washington Metropolitan Area must dial 703­ 412­ 9810 or TDD 703­ 412­ 3323 ( hearing impaired). The RCRA Call Center is open Monday­ Friday, 9 am to 4 pm, Eastern Standard Time. For more information on specific aspects of this proposed rule, contact Mr. Frank Behan at 703­ 308­ 8476, behan. frank@ epa. gov, or write him at the Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U. S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submittal of Comments electronically by sending electronic mail through the Internet to: rcra­ docket@ eparnail. epa. gov. You should identify comments in electronic format with the docket number F­ 2001­ RC5P­ FFFFF. You must submit all electronic comments as an ASCII ( text) file, avoiding the use of special characters or any type of encryption. The official record for this action will be kept in the paper form. Accordingly, we will transfer all comments received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is You may submit comments Acronyms Used in the Rule APCD­ Air pollution control device ASME­ American Society of Mechanical Engineers CAA­ Clean Air Act CEMS­ Continuous emissions monitors/ monitoring system COMS­ Continuous opacity monitoring system CFR­ Code of Federal Regulations DOC­ Documentation of Compliance DRE­ Destruction and removal efficiency dscf­ Dry standard cubic feet dscm­ Dry standard cubic meter EPA/ USEPA­ United States Environmental Protection Agency gr­ Grains HAP­ Hazardous air pollutant HWC­ Hazardous waste combustor MACT­ Maximum Achievable Control Technology NESHAP­ National Emission Standards for HAPS ng­ Nanograms NIC­ Notice of Intent to Comply NOC­ Notification of compliance OPGOperating parameter limit PM­ Particulate matter­ POHC­ Principal organic hazardous constituent ppmv­ Parts per million by volume RCRA­ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act TEQ­ Toxicity equivalence "

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:35.999713

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0026-0003

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:36.005173

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0028-0001

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities Up for Renewal: Comment Request; State Program Adequacy Determination

51949 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2001 / Notices Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501, ( 907) 269 5136. For transferee: Mr. Ronald L. Saxton, Ater Wynne LLP, 222 SW Columbia Street Suite 1800, Portland, OR 97201 6618, ( 503) 226 1191. h. FERC Contact: James Hunter, ( 202) 219 2839. i. Deadline for filing motions to intervene, protests and comments: ( November 5, 2001). All documents ( original and eight copies) should be filed with: David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington DC 20426. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001( a)( 1)( iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the `` e­ Filing'' link. Please include the noted project numbers on any comments or motions filed. j. Description of Proposal: The Applicants propose a transfer of the licenses for the Solomon Gulch, Terror Lake, Swan Lake, and Tyee Lake hydroelectric projects from Alaska Energy Authority ( an agency of the State of Alaska) to the Four Dam Pool Power Agency, which is comprised of representatives of the five utilities that now operate the projects. The transfer is sought in connection with the proposed sale of the projects to fund an endowment for Alaska's Power Cost Equalization program, which is intended to provide affordable energy to meet the basic economic needs of rural Alaskans. k. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http:// www. ferc. gov using the `` RIMS'' link, select `` Docket#'' and follow the instructions ( call ( 202) 208 2222 for assistance). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the addresses in item g above. l. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title `` COMMENTS'', `` PROTEST'', or `` MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. An additional copy must be sent to the Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above­ mentioned address. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application. Agency Comments Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives. David P. Boergers, Secretary. [ FR Doc. 01 25497 Filed 10 10 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6717 01 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL 7078 3] Agency Information Collection Activities Up for Renewal: Comment Request; State Program Adequacy Determination Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ( MSWLFs) and Non­ Municipal, Non­ Hazardous Waste Disposal Units That Receive Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator ( CESQG) Hazardous Waste AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit the following continuing Information Collection Request ( ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB): State Program Adequacy Determination Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ( MSWLFs) and Non­ municipal, Nonhazardous Waste Disposal Units that Receive Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator ( CESQG) Hazardous Waste, ICR Number 1608.03, OMB control number 2050 0152, currently expiring on April 30, 2002. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed continuing information collection as described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 10, 2001. ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing docket number F 2001 SIRP FFFFF to: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste ( 5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters ( EPA HQ), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, VA, address below. Comments also may be submitted electronically through the Internet to: < rcra­ docket@ epa. gov>. Comments in electronic format also should be identified by the docket number F 2001 SIRP FFFFF. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Commenters should not electronically submit any confidential business information ( CBI). An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste ( 5305W, U. S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center ( RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that the public make an appointment by calling ( 703) 603 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $ 0.15/ page. The index and supporting materials are available electronically. The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record, which will include all comments submitted in writing. EPA's response to comments, both written and electronic, will be placed in the official record. The Agency's response to major comments may also be published in a notice in the Federal Register. EPA will not immediately reply to commenters VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 53 Oct 10, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11OCN1. SGM pfrm02 PsN: 11OCN1 51950 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2001 / Notices electronically other than to seek clarification of electronic comments that may be garbled in transmission or during conversion to paper form, as discussed above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at ( 800) 424 9346 or TDD ( 800) 553 7672 ( hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, call ( 703) 412 9810 or TDD ( 703) 412 3323. For more detailed information on specific aspects of this information collection, contact Steven Levy, Office of Solid Waste ( 5306W), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460, ( 703) 308 7267, or levy. steve@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are states that seek approval of permit programs for MSWLFs and for non­ municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG waste, or approval of modifications of previously approved permit programs for MSWLFs. Title: State Program Adequacy Determination Municipal Solid Waste Landfills ( MSWLFs) and Nonmunicipal Non­ hazardous Waste Disposal Units that Receive Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator ( CESQG) Hazardous Waste, OMB Control No. 2050 0152, ICR Number 1608.03, renewal of ICR Number 1608.02, which expires April 30, 2002. Abstract: Section 4010( c) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) of 1976 requires that EPA revise the landfill criteria promulgated under paragraph ( 1) of Section 4004( a) and section 1008( a)( 3). Section 4005( c) of RCRA, as amended by the Hazardous Solid Waste Amendments ( HSWA) of 1984, requires states to develop and implement permit programs to ensure that MSWLFs and non­ municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units that receive household hazardous waste or CESQG hazardous waste are in compliance with the revised criteria for the design and operation of nonmunicipal non­ hazardous waste disposal units under 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and MSWLFs under 40 CFR part 258. ( 40 CFR part 257, subpart B and 40 CFR part 258 are henceforth referred to as the `` revised federal criteria''.) Section 4005( c) of RCRA further mandates the EPA Administrator to determine the adequacy of state permit programs to ensure owner and/ or operator compliance with the revised federal criteria. A state program that is deemed adequate to ensure compliance may afford flexibility to owners or operators in the approaches they use to meet federal requirements, significantly reducing the burden associated with compliance. In response to the statutory requirement in section 4005( c), EPA developed 40 CFR part 239, commonly referred to as the State Implementation Rule ( SIR). The SIR describes the state application and EPA review procedures and defines the elements of an adequate state permit program. The collection of information from the state during the permit program adequacy determination process allows EPA to evaluate whether a program for which approval is requested is appropriate in structure and authority to ensure owner or operator compliance with the revised federal criteria. The SIR does not require the use of a particular application form. Section 239.3 of the SIR, however, requires that all state applications contain the following five components: ( i) A transmittal letter requesting permit program approval. ( ii) A narrative description of the state permit program, including a demonstration that the state's standards for non­ municipal, non­ hazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste are technically comparable to the part 257, subpart B criteria and/ or that its MSWLF standards are technically comparable to the part 258 criteria. ( iii) A legal certification demonstrating that the state has the authority to carry out the program. ( iv) Copies of state laws, regulations, and guidance that the state believes demonstrate program adequacy. ( v) Copies of relevant state­ tribal agreements if the state has negotiated with a tribe for the implementation of a permit program for non­ municipal, nonhazardous waste disposal units that receive CESQG hazardous waste and/ or MSWLFs on tribal lands. The EPA Administrator has delegated the authority to make determinations of adequacy, as contained in the statute, to the EPA Regional Administrator. The appropriate EPA Regional Office, therefore, will use the information provided by each state to determine whether the state's permit program satisfies the statutory test reflected in the requirements of 40 CFR part 239. In all cases, the information will be analyzed to determine the adequacy of the state's permit program for ensuring compliance with the federal revised criteria. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. EPA is soliciting comments to: ( i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; ( ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ( iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ( iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology ( e. g., permitting electronic submission of responses). Burden Statement: Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to enable them to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total burden for states, territories, and the EPA regions for the collection and evaluation of information under this ICR is estimated to be about 9,568 hours and $ 424,614. The estimated burden includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining necessary data, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The ICR supporting statement describes the assumptions and information sources used to develop the burden estimate for this ICR. For a copy of the supporting statement, contact the RCRA Hotline at the telphone numbers listed above or Steven Levy at ( 703) 308 7267, or e­ mail < levy. steve@ epa. gov>. Requests should reference the document title, `` Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request # 1608.03.'' There is no recordkeeping burden associated with this ICR. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 53 Oct 10, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11OCN1. SGM pfrm02 PsN: 11OCN1 51951 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2001 / Notices Dated: September 27, 2001. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [ FR Doc. 01 25588 Filed 10 10 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL 7078 4] Request for Nominations to the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology ( NACEPT) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of request for nominations. SUMMARY: The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) invites nominations to fill vacancies on its National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology ( NACEPT). The Agency seeks qualified senior­ level decision makers from diverse sectors throughout the United States to be considered for appointments. DATES: EPA expects to make new appointments by the end of the calendar year and encourages nomination submissions by Friday, November 16, 2001. ADDRESSES: Submit nominations to: Mr. Gordon Schisler, Deputy Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 1601A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NACEPT is a federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463. NACEPT provides advice and recommendations to the Administrator and other EPA officials on a broad range of domestic and international environmental policy issues. The Administrator of EPA has asked NACEPT to act as a visionary group by periodically identifying emerging environmental trends and issues that could impact EPA's ability to protect public health and the environment. EPA seeks new members with broad experience in environmental technology, futures planning, strategic visioning and long­ range planning. In addition, NACEPT members may be asked to advise the Administrator on other environmental policy priorities as needed. NACEPT consists of a representative cross­ section of EPA's partners and principle constituents who provide advice and recommendations on policy issues and serve as a sounding board for new strategies that the Agency is developing. Maintaining a balance and diversity of experience, knowledge, and judgment is an important consideration in the selection of members. Potential candidates should possess the following qualifications: Occupy a senior position within their organization Broad experience outside of their current position Experience dealing with public policy issues Membership in broad­ based networks Extensive experience in the environmental field Recognized expert in the subject matter to be addressed by NACEPT EPA is seeking nominees for representation from all sectors, especially, state, local and tribal agencies, industry, academia, environmental justice organizations, grassroots organizations, and NGOs. Nominations for membership must include a resume and short biography describing the educational and professional qualifications of the nominee and the nominee's current business address and daytime telephone number. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter G. Redmond, Designated Federal Officer for NACEPT, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 1601A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone ( 202) 564 1292, email: redmond. peter@ epa. gov. Dated: October 4, 2001. Peter G. Redmond, Designated Federal Officer. [ FR Doc. 01 25586 Filed 10 10 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPPTS 42212D; FRL 6806 3] Endocrine Disruptor Method Validation Subcommittee Under the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: As mandated by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, EPA is implementing an Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ( EDSP). As part of the implementation of EDSP, the Endocrine Disruptor Method Validation Subcommittee ( EDMVS) under the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology ( NACEPT), a Federal Advisory Committee, has been established. This notice announces a 2 day meeting of the EDMVS. EDMVS will provide technical advice on the Tier 1 Screening and Tier 2 Testing methods for EPA'sEDSP. The meeting is open to the public. Seating is on a first­ come basis. Individuals requiring special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access, should contact Jane Smith at the address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at least 5 business days prior to the meeting, so appropriate arrangements can be made. DATES: The 2­ day meeting will be held on October 30, 2001, from 9 a. m. to 5: 15 p. m. and October 31, 2001, from 9 a. m. to 12: 30 p. m. Requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or before October 26, 2001. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Washington Dulles Airport, 13869 Park Center Road, Herndon, VA 20171. The telephone number at the Hilton Washington is ( 703) 478 2900; the fax number is ( 703) 478 9286. Requests to participate may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit II. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, your request must identify docket control number OPPT 42212D in the subject line on the first page of your response. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Smith, Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy ( 7203), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: ( 202) 260 1597; fax number: ( 202) 401 1282; e­ mail address: smith. jane­ scott& epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Does This Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest if you produce, manufacture, use, consume, work with, or import pesticide chemicals, substances that may have an effect cumulative to an effect of a pesticide, or substances found in sources of drinking water. To determine whether you or your business may have an interest in this notice you should carefully examine section 408( p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 53 Oct 10, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 11OCN1. SGM pfrm02 PsN: 11OCN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:36.011831

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0041-0001

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Hazardous Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System, EPA ICR No. 801.14

59248 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 27, 2001 / Notices ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL 7108 1] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Hazardous Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System, EPA ICR No. 801.14 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit the following proposed and/ or continuing Information Collection Request ( ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB): Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Hazardous Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System, EPA ICR No. 801.14, OMB Control Number 2050 0039, current expiration date 3/ 31/ 2002. Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection described below. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 28, 2002. ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original and two copies of their comments referencing docket number F 2001 RW3P FFFFF to RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste ( 5305G), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries of comments should be made to the Arlington, VA, address listed below. Comments may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail through the Internet to: rcradocket epamail. epa. gov. Comments in electronic format should also be identified by the docket number F 2001 RW3P FFFFF. All electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center ( RIC), located at Crystal Gateway 1, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, first floor, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, the public must make an appointment by calling 703 603 9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $. 15/ page. Copies of the original ICR may be requested from the docket address and phone number listed above or may be found on the Internet at: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ gener/ manifest/ icr­ man. htm. The official record for this action will be kept in paper form. Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically into paper form and place them in the official record, which will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The official record is the paper record maintained in the RCRA Information Center ( the RIC address is listed above in this section). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at 1 800 424 9346 or TDD 1 800 553 7672 ( hearing impaired). In the Washington metropolitan area, call 703 412 9610 or TDD 703 412 3323. For technical information, contact Bryan Groce at 703 308 8750, groce. bryan@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Hazardous Waste Management Facilities Under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System, OMB Control No. 2050 0039; EPA ICR No. 801.14) expiring 3/ 30/ 2002. This is an extension of a currently approved collection. Abstract: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), as amended, establishes a national program to assure that hazardous waste management practices are conducted in a manner that is protective of human health and the environment. EPA's authority to require compliance with the manifest system stems primarily from RCRA section 3002( a)( 5). This section mandates a hazardous waste manifest `` system'' to assure that all hazardous waste generated is designated for and arrives at the appropriate treatment, storage, and disposal facility. An essential part of this manifest system is the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest ( Form 8700 22A). The manifest is a tracking document that accompanies the waste from its generation site to its final disposition. The manifest lists the wastes that are being shipped and the final destination of the waste. The manifest system is a self­ enforcing mechanism that requires generators, transporters, and owner/ operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to participate in hazardous waste tracking. In addition the manifest provides information to transporters and waste management facility workers on the hazardous nature of the waste, identifies wastes so that they can be managed appropriately in the event of an accident, spill, or leak, and ensures that shipments of hazardous waste are managed properly and delivered to their designated facilities. This system does not ordinarily involve intervention on the part of EPA unless hazardous wastes do not reach their point of disposition within a specified time frame. In most cases, RCRA­ authorized States operate the manifest system, and requirements may vary among authorized States. EPA believes manifest requirements and the resulting information collection mitigate potential hazards to human health and the environment by ensuring that hazardous waste is sent to and received by appropriate treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, by initiating appropriate response actions if a shipment does not reach its intended destination, and by providing necessary emergency response information in the event of an accident, spill, or leak during transportation. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Agency notes that the burden hour and cost estimates given below are based on estimates approved by OMB during the 1999 ICR renewal process. The Agency did not have the most recent Biennial Reporting System ( BRS) information available at the time of completion of this ICR. The Agency will update these burden estimates using the most recent BRS information and publish the revised burden estimates in a second Federal Register notice. Affected entities will have an opportunity to comment on the revised burden estimates during a comment period for the second FR notice. EPA would like to solicit comments to: ( i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; ( ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ( iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ( iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 18: 09 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27NON1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 27NON1 59249 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 27, 2001 / Notices use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e. g., allowing electronic submission of responses. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.26 hours per response. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities ( TSDFs). Estimated Number of Respondents: 105,558. Frequency of Response: Per shipment of hazardous waste. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,920,383 hours. Estimated Total Annualized Capital, Operating/ Maintenance Cost Burden: $ 1,871,246. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Dated: November 20, 2001. Elizabeth A. Cotsworth, Director, Office of Solid Waste. [ FR Doc. 01 29472 Filed 11 26 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL 7109 2] Notice of Availability for Draft Guidance on Source Determinations for Combined Heat and Power Facilities Under the Clean Air Act New Source Review and Title V Programs AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability; reopening of comment period. SUMMARY: The EPA is hereby reopening for 15 days the public review and comment period regarding a preliminary draft of its pending guidance on Source Determinations for Combined Heat and Power ( CHP) Facilities under the Clean Air Act New Source Review and Title V Programs ( 66 FR 52403, October 15, 2001). The combined generation of heat and power, also known as cogeneration, has been an energy supply option for nearly 100 years and is used in many sectors of the economy. In light of ever increasing demand for energy, electric power industry restructuring and crossprogram pollution prevention initiatives, EPA is committed to improving the efficiency at which we convert fuels into useful energy. Properly designed and implemented CHP is a key element to achieving the nation's energy goals, because CHPs are capable of independently providing power to the grid or customers other than the host facility and therefore can help alleviate power shortfalls. Recognizing this, the Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group recommends `` that the President direct the EPA Administrator to promote CHP through flexibility in environmental permitting.'' A draft of EPA's guidance is available for public review and comment. The EPA does not intend to respond to individual comments, but rather to consider the comments from the public in the preparation of the final guidance. It is important that the draft guidance being made available today for public review and comment does not represent official EPA policy or a formal position on the subject matter discussed and therefore is not to be relied on in interpreting EPA policy. DATES: The comment period on the draft guidance will close on December 12, 2001. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Pamela J. Smith, Information Transfer and Program Integration Division ( MD 12), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone 919 541 0641, telefax 919 541 5509 or E­ mail smith. pam@ epa. gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Kaufman, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. EPA, MD 12, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone 919 541 0102 or E­ mail kaufman. kathy@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A copy of the draft guidance document may be obtained by calling or E­ mailing Pamela J. Smith. The draft guidance may also be downloaded from the NSR Web Site http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ nsr under the topic `` What's New on NSR.'' Dated: November 16, 2001. Jeffrey Clark, Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. [ FR Doc. 01 29546 Filed 11 26 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P FEDERAL COMMUNICATONS COMMISSION [ CC Docket No. 01 194; FCC 01 338] Joint Application by SBC Communications Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, and Southwestern Bell Communications Services, Inc. d/ b/ a Southwestern Bell Long Distance To Provide In­ Region, InterLATA Service in the States of Arkansas and Missouri AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission ( Commission) grants the section 271 application of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ( SWBT) for authority to enter the interLATA telecommunications market in the States of Arkansas and Missouri. The Commission grants SWBT's application based on our conclusion that Southwestern Bell satisfies all of the statutory requirements established by Congress in section 271 of the Communications Act. DATES: Effective November 26, 2001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Bergmann, Legal Counsel, Common Carrier Bureau, at ( 202) 418 1580, or via the Internet at sbergman@ fcc. gov. The full text of the Order is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, CY A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Further information may also be obtained by calling the Common Carrier Bureau's TTY number: ( 202) 418 0484. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document is a brief description of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order adopted November 16, 2001, and released November 16, 2001. The full text also may be obtained through the World Wide Web, at << http:// www. fcc. gov/ Bureaus/ Common_ Carrier/ inregion applications/ sbcksok/ welcome. html>>, or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International Transcription Service Inc. ( ITS), CY B 402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 48 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27NON1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 27NON1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:36.044190

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0002-0201

Supporting & Related Material

MRAM DATA BASE Page 1 STUDIES RECEIVED 69 LIKE SITE CHARACTERISTICS: 12 Surface Mines and 8 Deep Mines 8 Groundwater sites ( 5 surface and 3 deep mines) SITE CHARACTERISTICS: 40 Surface Mines and 15 Deep Mines Mine Characteristics ° Mine name and location ° Mine dimensions and volume ° Placement dates and purpose ° Regulation and time of placement CCB Placement Characteristics ° CCB Type ° CCB Aditives ° CCB Placement Volume ° Placement within Mine ° Permit Acreage ° Placement/ Management Practice Mine Site Characteristics ° Soil ° Bedrock Stratigraphy ° General Topolgy Page 2 November 13, 2001 ASH AND LEACHATE CHARACTERISTICS: 60 Surface Mines and 7 Deep Mines ° CCB Source ° Solid Coal Ash Chemical Characteristics ­ major constituent indicators ­ minor constituent indicators ° Leachate Chemical Characteristics ­ Primary Drinking Water const. ­ Secondary Drinking Water const. ­ Other constituents ­ pH GROUNDWATER CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY: 5 Surface Mines and 3 Deep Mines ° Wells selected: Up­ gradient, Placement/ Injection Area, Down­ gradient 1 or 2 of each type of well ° Sample date averages: pre­ placement/ injection, 1 Yr, 3 Yr, 5 Yr, 5Yr + ° Primary Drinking Water Constituents ° Secondary Drinking Water Constituents ° Eco­ Toxicity and Other Constituents ° pH GROUNDWATER DATA DRAFT LIKE SITE CHARACTERISTICS Page 3 November 13, 2001 Mine Name, Location Highvale , Canada Universal, IN Center, ND Big Gorilla, PA Knickerbocker PA " City," IN Wilton, ND Longridge, WV Mine Type Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Deep Deep Deep Climatic Region Arid Semiarid Semiarid Humid Humid Semiarid Semiarid Humid AMD Unknown Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes CCB Placement Above GW Above GW Above Below GW Below Above GW Above & Below GW Below Below CCB Type Ash Ash Ash & FGD FBC FBC FGD & Ash Ash FBC Concrete Additive No No No No Yes Yes ( lime) No Yes Drainage Control Unknown Cap and Runoff No No No No No No Cap Material Unknown clay ­ 5' uncompacted NA NA NA NA NA NA Liner No No No No No No No No AMD Control Unknown Yes ( NPDES discharge pump at sedimentation pond Natural acid buffering capacity of overburden No No No No No GW Quality Conclusion/ Assessme nt Incconclusive No Change Incconclusive No Change No Change Incconclusive Incconclusive Degraded Preinjection GW data None 5/ 88 ­ 1/ 89 5/ 77 ­ 6/ 81 8/ 89 ­ 7/ 97 8/ 97 ­ 8/ 98 1/ 94 ­ 7/ 94 None 1/ 98 ­ 12/ 98 Current/ Pos t injection GW data 7/ 78 ­ 4/ 01 5/ 89 ­ 11/ 00 3/ 78 ­ 7/ 85 8/ 97 ­ 2/ 99 9/ 98 ­ 3/ 01 10/ 94 ­ 8/ 95 7/ 94 ­ 4/ 95 1/ 99 ­ 11/ 00 MCL exceedance None Pb As, Ba, Cd, Cr, Pb, Se None Cd Cd None As, Cd, Pb, Se Final PH Assessme nt Neutral to Slightly Basic Slightly Acidic to Neutral Neutral to Slightly Basic Acidic Slightly Acidic to Neutral Slightly Acidic to Neutral Slightly Acidic Acidic

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:36.206037

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0003-0046

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:36.238987

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0003-0047

Supporting & Related Material

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:36.242118

regulations

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0018-0001

Notice

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements; 40 CFR Part 257, Subpart B; Notice

61621 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2002 / Notices Description of Alternatives Construction of the FHWA preferred alternative will require removal and modification of Western's transmission system. Western evaluated seven preliminary electrical transmission reconfiguration options as part of the EIS. All options require removal of existing spans and towers and construction of new spans. Three of the options would require removal of the existing A& N Switchyard and replacing a single­ phase circuit with a doublephase circuit to the Mead Substation ( phase two). Additionally, the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative requires a realignment of two of the Hoover­ Mead transmission lines to accommodate the new highway alignment. Western determined the best engineering approach for the phase one and two modifications discussed above based on an evaluation of the electrical conditions on the transmission lines and switchyards and current transmission line construction and electrical standards. The No Action Alternative was evaluated in the EIS and found to not meet the Project purpose and need. Mitigation Measures The Final EIS identified mitigation measures needed to reduce the impacts of the Project. The specific measures are discussed in the FHWA ROD on pages 22 to 35 and in Chapter 3 of the EIS. Western is adopting those measures that are applicable to its action and will issue a Mitigation Action Plan ( MAP) prior to any construction activities that will address the adopted and standard mitigation measures. Some of the measures include restricting vehicular traffic to existing access roads or public roads, recontouring and reseeding disturbed areas, environmental awareness training for all construction and supervisory personnel, and mitigation of radio and television interference generated by transmission lines. Long­ term operations of the transmission line will follow Western's standard operating procedures and will not be affected by this action. The mitigation that applies to the construction of the new lines and the upgrading of the existing lines includes the following provisions: 1. Protection of the desert tortoise and banded Gila monster through compliance with the FHWA Biological Opinion. 2. Protection of Cultural and Historical resources as signators to the Programmatic Agreement. 3. Adoption of mitigation measures as specified in the FWHA EIS. 4. Monitor actions for compliance with Western's standard mitigation measures. This ROD has been prepared in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA ( 40 CFR parts 1500 1508) and DOE Procedures for Implementing NEPA ( 10 CFR part 1021). Upon approval, the MAP will be made available. Dated: September 20, 2002. Michael S. Hacskaylo, Administrator. [ FR Doc. 02 24862 Filed 9 30 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6450 01 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL 7386 6] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 40 CFR Part 257, Subpart B AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting requirements 40 CFR Part 257, Subpart B, ICR # 1745.04, OMB Control # 2050 0154, expiring September 30, 2002. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost; where appropriate, it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 31, 2002. ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1745.04 and OMB Control No. 2050 0154, to the following addresses: Susan Auby, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division ( Mail Code 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 0001; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the ICR contact Susan Auby at EPA by phone at ( 202) 566 1672, by e­ mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or download off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr and refer to EPA ICR No. 1745.04. For technical questions about the ICR contact Paul Cassidy at 703 308 7281 in the Office of Solid Waste. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements 40 CFR Part 257, Subpart B , OMB Control No. 2050 0154, EPA ICR No. 1745.04, expiring September 30, 2002. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection. In order to effectively implement and enforce final changes to 40 CFR part 257, subpart B on a State level, owners/ operators of construction and demolition waste landfills that receive CESQG hazardous wastes will have to comply with the final reporting and recordkeeping requirements. The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ( HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), as amended, mandated that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) revise the Criteria for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities that may receive household hazardous wastes and conditionally exempt small quantity generator ( CESQG) wastes. EPA submitted a Report to Congress in October 1988 that assessed the impacts on human health and the environment associated with Subtitle D ( nonhazardous waste) units. While this study found that the revised Criteria for municipal solid waste disposal units were necessary to protect human health and the environment, the report failed to draw a conclusion relating to industrial Subtitle D units. The limited data on such units indicated that there might be a basis for concern and further study was needed. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on May 1, 2002 ( 67 FR 21668); no comments were received. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 20: 26 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 01OCN1. SGM 01OCN1 61622 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2002 / Notices burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 67 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Construction and demolition waste landfill owners/ operators and State Agencies. Estimated Number of Respondents: 145. Frequency of Response: On occasion. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 9,675 hours. Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O& M Cost Burden: $ 938. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1745.04 and OMB Control No. 2050 0154 in any correspondence. Dated: September 2, 2002. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 02 24805 Filed 9 30 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ UT 001 0050; FRL 7388 2] Adequacy Status of the Utah County, Utah PM10 State Implementation Plan Revision for Transportation Conformity Purposes AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of adequacy. SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the motor vehicle emissions budgets ( for 2010 and 2020) in the Utah County, Utah particulate matter of 10 micrograms in size or smaller ( PM10) State Implementation Plan ( SIP) revision submitted on July 3, 2002, are adequate for conformity purposes. On March 2, 1999, the D. C. Circuit Court ruled that submitted SIPs cannot be used for conformity determinations until EPA has affirmatively found them adequate. As a result of our finding, the Mountainland Association of Governments, the Utah Department of Transportation, and the U. S. Department of Transportation are required to use the 2010 and 2020 motor vehicle emissions budgets from this submitted SIP revision for future conformity determinations. DATES: This finding is effective October 16, 2002. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kerri Fiedler, Air & Radiation Program ( 8P AR), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202 2466, ( 303) 312 6493. The letter documenting our finding is available at EPA's conformity website: http:// www. epa. gov/ oms/ transp/ conform/ adequacy. htm. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever `` we,'' `` us,'' or `` our'' are used we mean EPA. This action is simply an announcement of a finding that we have already made. We sent a letter to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality on September 5, 2002 stating that the 2010 and 2020 PM10 and NOX motor vehicle emissions budgets in the submitted Utah County PM10 SIP revision are adequate. This finding has also been announced on our conformity website at http:// www. epa. gov/ oms/ transp/ conform/ adequacy. htm. Transportation conformity is required by section 176( c) of the Clean Air Act. Our conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. The criteria by which we determine whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118( e)( 4). Please note that an adequacy review is separate from our completeness review, and it also should not be used to prejudge our ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved, and vice versa. We've described our process for determining the adequacy of submitted SIP budgets in a memo entitled, `` Conformity Guidance on Implementation of March 2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision,'' dated May 14, 1999. We followed this guidance in making our adequacy determination. Authority: 42 U. S. C. 7401 et seq. Dated: September 23, 2002. Robert E. Roberts, Regional Administrator, Region VIII. [ FR Doc. 02 24916 Filed 9 30 02; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560 50 P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL 7387 7] EPA Science Advisory Board, Notification of Public Advisory Committee Meetings of the Contaminated Sediment Science Plan Review Panel; and Notification of Cancelled Meetings of the Human Health Research Strategy Review Panel Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92 463, notice is hereby given of three meetings of the Contaminated Sediment Science Plan Review Panel ( CSSP Review Panel) of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA) Science Advisory Board ( SAB). The Panel will meet on the dates and times noted below. All times noted are Eastern Time. All meetings are open to the public, however, seating is limited and available on a first come basis. For teleconference meetings, available lines may also be limited. Important Notice: The document that is the subject of this SAB review, Contaminated Sediment Science Plan, June 13, 2002 draft, is available on the SAB Web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ sab/ panels/ cssprpanel. html. Any questions concerning the draft document should be directed to the program contact noted below. Background The background for this review and the charge to the panel were published in the 67 FR 49336, July 30, 2002. The notice also included a draft charge to the panel, a call for nominations for members of the panel in certain technical expertise areas needed to address the charge and described the process to be used in forming the panel. VerDate Sep< 04> 2002 20: 26 Sep 30, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 01OCN1. SGM 01OCN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:36.288140

regulations

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2001-0006-0001

Notice

Draft Guidance For National Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program

365 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Notices Directors, and CSO communities can take to address their concerns. The objective of this guidance is to lay a strong foundation for integrating CSO long­ term control planning with water quality standards reviews. Reaching early agreement among CSO communities, States, EPA, and the public on the data to be collected and the analyses to be conducted to support the long­ term control plan development and water quality standards reviews can facilitate the review of water quality standards and the reconciliation of water quality standards with an affordable, well­ designed and operated CSO control programs. The guidance describes the process for integrating LTCP development and implementation with the water quality standards review. This process is the centerpiece of EPA's renewed commitment to assure that both communities with combined sewer systems and States participate in implementing the water quality­ based provisions in the CSO Control Policy. The CSO Control Policy anticipates the `` review and revision, as appropriate, of water quality standards and their implementation procedures when developing CSO control plans to reflect site­ specific impacts of CSOs. '' Integrating CSO long­ term control planning with water quality standards reviews requires extensive coordination among CSO communities, States, EPA, and the public. Although this coordination is an intensive iterative process, it provides greater assurance that CSO communities will implement affordable CSO control programs that support the attainment of appropriate water quality standards. Dated: December 20, 2000. J. Charles Fox, Assistant Administrator for Water. [FR Doc. 01± 113 Filed 1± 2± 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560± 50± P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL± 6928± 8] Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of available draft guidance with request for comment. SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed and is requesting comment on the `` Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program. '' The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) National Hazardous Waste and Superfund Ombudsman (National Ombudsman) and the Regional Superfund Ombudsmen (Regional Ombudsmen) were established to provide help to the public in resolving issues and concerns raised about the solid and hazardous waste programs administered by OSWER. The purpose of this draft guidance is to explain the role of the Ombudsmen, their scope of activity, and the guidelines under which they coordinate and carry out their responsibilities. EPA believes this draft guidance will improve the effectiveness of this program by giving the Ombudsmen and those who may contact them a clear and consistent set of operating policies and expectations. DATES: To make sure we consider your comments we must receive them by March 5, 2001. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent feasible; however, EPA will not delay finalizing the guidance to accommodate late comments. ADDRESSES: You may request copies of the `` Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program'' by any of the following ways: Mail: write to: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. EPA, CERCLA Docket Office, (Mail Code 5201G), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460. Phone: call: (703) 603± 9232, or (800) 424± 9346. Internet: http:// www. epa. gov/ swerrims/ whatsnew. htm If you wish to send us comments on the guidance, you must send them in any one of the following ways: Mail: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. EPA, CERCLA Docket Office, (Mail Code 5201G), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460. Express Mail or courier (such as Federal Express, other overnight delivery, or courier): Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. EPA, CERCLA Docket Office, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Crystal Gateway #1, First Floor, Arlington, Virginia, 22202. E­ mail: in ASCII format only to: superfund. docket@ epa. gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline Previ, phone number (202) 260± 2593, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Mail Code 5101), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460, or the Superfund Hotline, phone number (800) 424± 9346 or (703) 412± 9810 in the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The program managers and staff in the Regions and at Headquarters are committed to implementing the federal solid waste and hazardous waste statutes managed by EPA, being responsive to the public, and resolving issues and concerns brought to their attention. In some cases, the individual or group raising a given concern does not believe the official problem solving channels dealt fairly or fully with their situation. In such cases, the individual or group may request assistance from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Ombudsman, an Agency official designated to receive inquiries and complaints about the administration of OSWER programs. The National and Regional Ombudsmen receive many calls for assistance each yearÐ ranging from routine questions about hazardous waste laws to specific complaints about allegedly improper activities conducted at a site or facility. Today's Federal Register notice introduces a policy entitled `` Draft Guidance for National Hazardous Waste Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program'' which explains the role and conduct of the OSWER National Ombudsman and the Regional Superfund Ombudsmen, scope of their activity, and the guidelines under which they coordinate and carry out their responsibilities. The main objective in issuing this guidance is to improve the effectiveness of this program by giving the Ombudsmen and those who may contact them a clear and consistent set of operating policies and expectations. This draft guidance would cover only the Ombudsmen who work on OSWER related issues, and staff who supply primary support or assistance to the Ombudsmen. This guidance, when finalized, is not intended to be, and should not be construed as a rule. Use of the guidance would not be legally binding on EPA managers or staff or on other parties. EPA is seeking public comment at this time to ensure hearing the widest range of views and obtaining all information relevant to the development of the guidance. II. Background The hazardous and solid waste management laws passed by Congress created some of the most complex programs administered by EPA and the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 17: 30 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JAN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 03JAN1 366 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Notices States. Recognizing this, Congress established a National Ombudsman function in 1984 as part of amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) so that the public would have someone to come to with questions and concerns about the RCRA program. Soon after, we issued the `` Hazardous Waste Ombudsman Handbook'' to help the newly created National Ombudsman administer, and the public understand what to expect from, the Ombudsman program. During the initial years of the National Ombudsman program, most of the assistance sought by the public was for help understanding the complex RCRA program. The Ombudsman spent most of his time responding to general questions and directing requests to the appropriate sources. The handbook reflected this role. When the statutory authority for the National Ombudsman program expired in 1989, OSWER retained the function as a matter of policy. In 1991, OSWER broadened the National Ombudsman's scope of activity to include other programs administered by OSWER, particularly the Superfund program. The National Ombudsman is located in the EPA Headquarters office in Washington, DC. In 1995, EPA created a Regional Superfund Ombudsman position in each EPA Regional office as part of the Superfund Administrative Reforms. The Regional Ombudsmen program, at a minimum, operates in support of the Superfund program, butÐ depending on the RegionÐ may also provide support to other programs, including RCRA, Underground Storage Tanks (UST), and chemical emergency prevention and preparedness. Over the years, the public gained a better understanding of EPA's hazardous waste programs. Requests for answers to basic questions more frequently became requests for resolution of complaints. The Ombudsman function evolved to reflect these changes. The existing guidance no longer reflects the Ombudsman function as it has evolved. In the Fall of 1999, the EPA established an internal workgroup to update the `` Hazardous Waste Ombudsman Handbook. '' In preparing the updated guidance, the workgroup met with representatives of the U. S. Ombudsman Association, and evaluated and considered guidance documents from this organization, as well as other organizations with Ombudsman programs and the American Bar Association's draft Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombudsman Offices. To the extent possible, EPA has drafted guidelines which reflect key aspects of various external models in a manner that supports the Ombudsman's independent operation within the context of a civil service position within the Federal government structure. EPA developed these procedures to meet the specific needs of the OSWER Ombudsman program and they may not be completely consistent with Ombudsmen principles established by other organizations. The draft guidance explains to the public the role of the National Hazardous Waste and Superfund Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen today, their scope of activity, and the guidelines under which they coordinate and carry out their responsibilities. We believe the draft guidance will provide for effective and fair implementation of OSWER's Ombudsman program. III. Summary of Draft Guidance The draft `` Guidance for the National Hazardous Waste and Superfund Ombudsman and Regional Superfund Ombudsmen Program'' puts forth our philosophy concerning the basic operating principles and procedures for the OSWER Ombudsman program. Ombudsmen functioning under this guidance are authorized to provide information and look into complaints and grievances related to OSWER's administration of the programs implemented under the following authorities: · Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or Superfund · Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), including Underground Storage Tanks (UST) · Emergency Planning and Community Right­ To­ Know Act (EPCRA) or Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Title III · Oil Pollution Act · Clean Air Act, Section 112r The Ombudsman may be called to serve in a number of capacities: (1) providing information and facilitating informal contact with EPA staff, (2) conducting informal inquiries and developing recommendations to address difficult problems, (3) helping to mediate disputes, and (4) making recommendations to Agency senior management regarding procedural and policy changes aimed at improving the program. The goal of the Ombudsman program is to respond to requests in an appropriate, transparent and objective manner as promptly, informally and discretely as possible. The guidance briefly discusses each of these functions, but we anticipate that a significant amount of the Ombudsman's time will be dedicated to looking into issues raised by the public concerning decisions that EPA has made. Because of this, most of the draft guidance is devoted to outlining the Ombudsman's responsibilities in carrying out this activity. Overall, the Ombudsman's role is to listen to all sides in an impartial, objective manner, to provide assistance in trying to understand and resolve the problem, and, if necessary, to recommend possible solutions to senior Agency managers. It is important to note that the Ombudsman does not have authority to change decisions made by program managers or staff. Generally, the National Ombudsman handles cases of national significance. The Regional Ombudsmen handle the more routine requests for assistance and conducts more informal inquiries to investigate complaints. The guidance explains how the Ombudsman will evaluate requests for assistance, and how inquiries will be conducted. Whatever capacity the Ombudsman is serving in, he is expected to act with independence, impartiality and confidentialityÐ the basic operating principles of all Ombudsmen. The guidance provides a brief description of how the Ombudsman will demonstrate these responsibilities effectively and discusses limitations with respect to confidentiality imposed by existing laws and regulations that the OSWER Ombudsman must abide by as federal civil servant. Our goal is to receive feedback on the draft guidance from the widest range of interested parties possible. We welcome comments on any or all aspects of the guidance. Your comments will help us improve this document. We invite you to provide your comments on our approach and your ideas on alternative approaches we have not considered. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide a summary of the reasoning you used to arrive at your conclusions. Tell us which parts of the guidance you support, as well as the parts with which you disagree. Your comments must be submitted by March 5, 2001. EPA will review the public comments received on the guidance and where appropriate, incorporate changes responsive to those comments. We specifically request your comments on the following three topics related to the independence of the Ombudsman. These issues emerged as key issues during the development of this guidance. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 17: 30 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JAN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 03JAN1 367 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Notices 1. Does the Organizational Structure of the Ombudsman Program Impact the Independence of the Ombudsman? One of the main principles an Ombudsman operates under is the ability to work independently in determining which complaints to investigate, how an inquiry should proceed and what are the findings of an inquiry. EPA recognizes the importance of an Ombudsman being and appearing to be independent from the organization he/ she is investigating. EPA believes both the National Ombudsman and the Regional Ombudsmen are able to look independently into problems and facilitate the communication that can lead to a solution. We do not select which cases the Ombudsman will take, nor direct how the Ombudsman will investigate a complaint. We do not interfere with or attempt to influence the Ombudsman as he formulates his findings and recommendations. From the time Congress established the National Ombudsman, this function has been a federal government employee reporting to a senior Agency official. Because the Ombudsman is a federal employee, he/ she cannot be completely independent in the normal course of relations between a supervisor and his/ her employee. Currently, the National Ombudsman reports directly to the Assistant Administrator for OSWER. We believe this is the appropriate reporting structure for the National Ombudsman. The Assistant Administrator for OSWER is the senior presidential appointee responsible for the programs the Ombudsman is looking into and he/ she is in the best position to use the advice of the National Ombudsman. For the most part, each Regional Ombudsman reports to the appropriate Regional Superfund division director, directly or through an intermediate supervisor. No matter what capacity an Ombudsman is serving in at any given time, we have worked to ensure the Ombudsman's ability to operate with maximum independence. The organizational location and operation of the National Ombudsman and the Regional Ombudsmen is a matter of EPA discretion. We agree that it is very important that the Ombudsman be and appear to be independent from the organization he is investigating. Does this structure ensure the appropriate level of interaction between the OSWER Ombudsman and senior EPA officials while maintaining enough independence for the Ombudsman to operate effectively? 2. Should the Ombudsman Have Sole Discretion To Decide How Cases Are To Be Handled? The guidance states that the National and Regional Ombudsmen have the discretion either to accept a request for assistance or decline to act. While the National Ombudsman and the Regional Ombudsmen work fairly autonomously, coordination in this area is crucial. Requests for assistance may come directly to either the National or a Regional Ombudsman. To avoid duplication of effort, the guidance lays out general procedures for evaluating incoming requests. The guidance requires that before conducting an inquiry that is primarily related to one Region, the National Ombudsman will consult with the relevant Regional Ombudsman. We believe this consultation will help the National Ombudsman make a fully informed decision about whether it is more appropriate for him/ her to handle the matter, to refer it to the Regional Ombudsman, or to decline to investigate. Similarly, a Regional Ombudsman is expected to notify the National Ombudsman if he/ she has been requested to conduct an inquiry that may be nationally significant. The Regional Ombudsman should discuss with the National Ombudsman how he/ she plans to proceed with the inquiry, including the level of involvement that the National Ombudsman wishes to have in the inquiry. We expect that a Regional Ombudsman and the National Ombudsman almost always will agree on who should handle an inquiry. In those rare situations when there is not agreement the Assistant Administrator or Deputy Assistant Administrator for OSWER will resolve the dispute. The guidance requires the Regional Ombudsman (in consultation with the appropriate Regional Administrator or Deputy Regional Administrator) and the National Ombudsman will each forward a memorandum to the Assistant Administrator for OSWER, or jointly hold a conference call explaining his/ her perspective on the disagreement. The Assistant Administrator or Deputy Assistant Administrator for OSWER will then make the decision about who should handle the inquiry. Is this the appropriate way to resolve such disputes? 3. Should an Ombudsman's Scope of Inquiry Be Restricted To Protect EPA's Litigation Position? We considered three alternative approaches to this question. The approach we selected and which is reflected in the draft guidance generally precludes the Ombudsmen from investigating an issue or dispute which is in litigation, i. e., pending before a court. The presumption is that Ombudsmen should not take action on an issue or dispute which is in litigation since that issue is in the hands of an independent tribunal for decision, as provided for by the relevant statute. In addition, the public has access to that tribunal to raise serious concerns. For example, in the case of a consent decree presented to a court, public comment will be solicited on the decree, and the court will consider those comments and then determine if it is in the public interest to enter the decree. In the case of a challenge to agency action, affected members of the public can intervene and present argument to the court, and the court will decide whether we demonstrated an adequate basis for its action and whether we acted in a nonarbitrary manner and in accordance with law. This approach also avoids creating the false impression that the Ombudsman's office is an alternative forum for arguing controversial issues, which would result in confusion, inefficiency, and potentially conflicting statements about the Agency's position. The OSWER Ombudsman program is not intended or authorized to circumvent existing channels of management authority or established formal administrative avenues of appeal. However, we believe that there may be situations where it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to investigate actions EPA has taken, even where those actions are before a court for review. For instance, the Ombudsman may have information to suggest that our action at issue in the legal proceedings is infirm or erroneous. Or the Ombudsman may bring to Agency management information of significant public concern about an Agency action at issue in the courts. In either case, if the Ombudsman believes an inquiry is necessary, he/ she should communicate that information to the appropriate Agency official before proceeding with his/ her inquiry. Such an investigation would proceed only after concurrence by the Assistant Administrator or Deputy Assistant Administrator for OSWER or the appropriate Regional Administrator or Deputy Regional Administrator, in consultation with EPA's lead litigation office, taking into account its potential impact on pending litigation. It should be noted that this presumption against investigations applies to an `` issue or dispute'' that is before a court for consideration. Thus, VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 17: 30 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JAN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 03JAN1 368 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Notices the fact that a site or facility is in litigation does not necessarily mean that the Ombudsman should refrain from conducting an investigation of all issues arising at that site or facility. For instance, if the issue before a court is the authority of the Agency to get access to a piece of property, that would not create a presumption against an investigation of alleged deficiencies regarding remedy selection. For your information, we are providing details of the two alternative approaches to this matter we considered but did not select. The first alternative approach removed any restrictions on the Ombudsman's ability to conduct an inquiry concerning an issue or dispute which is in litigation. The Ombudsman would be free to conduct an inquiry regardless of whether an issue or dispute was in litigation. The second alternative approach would restrain the Ombudsman from conducting new fact gathering concerning decisions made based on the administrative record. The Ombudsman would remain able to audit the existing information and data that were part of the Agency's factual record. Under this model, if the Ombudsman concluded that additional fact finding and data gathering were necessary, that would become part of his recommendation. If the Agency agreed with this recommendation, it would conduct additional information gathering by utilizing the appropriate program staff and established procedures. The Ombudsman would be precluded from undertaking separate fact finding activities such as public meetings and formal on­ the­ record interviews. This approach would address concerns that an Ombudsman's activities may create a second record outside of the official administrative record, which could confuse and potentially mislead the public and could damage the Agency's position during litigation. Is the chosen approach the most appropriate? Dated: December 27, 2000. Michael Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. 01± 112 Filed 1± 2± 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 6560± 50± P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL± 6928± 3] Clean Water Act Section 303( d): Availability of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability for comment of the administrative record file for 88 TMDLs prepared by EPA Region 6 for waters listed in Louisiana's Mermentau and Vermilion/ Teche river basins, under section 303( d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA prepared these TMDLs in response to a Court Order dated October 1, 1999, in the lawsuit Sierra Club, et al. v. Clifford et al., No. 96± 0527, (E. D. La.). Under this court order, EPA is required to prepare TMDLs when needed for waters on the Louisiana 1998 section 303( d) list by December 31, 2007. DATES: Comments on the 88 TMDLs must be submitted in writing to EPA on or before February 2, 2001. ADDRESSES: Comments on the 88 TMDLs should be sent to Ellen Caldwell, Environmental Protection Specialist, Water Quality Protection Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, TX 75202± 2733. For further information, contact Ellen Caldwell at (214) 665± 7513. The administrative record file for these TMDLs is available for public inspection at this address as well. Copies of the TMDLs and their respective calculations may be viewed at www. epa. gov/ region6/ water/ tmdl. htm, or obtained by calling or writing Ms. Caldwell at the above address. Please contact Ms. Caldwell to schedule an inspection. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Caldwell at (214) 665± 7513. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1996, two Louisiana environmental groups, the Sierra Club and Louisiana Environmental Action Network (plaintiffs), filed a lawsuit in Federal Court against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), styled Sierra Club, et al. v. Clifford et al., No. 96± 0527, (E. D. La.). Among other claims, plaintiffs alleged that EPA failed to establish Louisiana TMDLs in a timely manner. Discussion of the court's order may be found at 65 FR 54032 (September 6, 2000). EPA Seeks Comments on 88 TMDLs By this notice EPA is seeking comment on the following 88 TMDLs for waters located within the Mermentau and Vermilion/ Teche basins: Subsegment Waterbody name Pollutant 060205 .......... Bayou TecheÐ Headwaters At Bayou Courtableau to I± 10 ................................ Salinity/ TDS. 060211 .......... West Atchafalaya Borrow Pit Canal ..................................................................... Salinity/ TDS. 060301 .......... Bayou TecheÐ I± 10 to Keystone Locks and Dam ............................................... Salinity/ TDS. Chlorides. 050201 .......... Bayou Plaquemine BruleÐ Head­ Waters to Bayou Descannes .......................... Ammonia. 050401 .......... Mermentau RiverÐ Origin to Lake Arthur ............................................................ Ammonia. 060102 .......... Cocodrie Lake ...................................................................................................... Noxious Aquatic. Plants & Ammonia. Chlorides. Sulfate. 060204 .......... Bayou CourtableauÐ Origin to West Atchafalaya Borrow Pit Canal ................... Ammonia. Salinity/ TDS. 060203 .......... Chicot Lake .......................................................................................................... Noxious Aquatic. Plants & Nutrients. 050101 .......... Bayou Des CannesÐ Headwaters to Mermentau River ...................................... Nutrients. 050301 .......... Bayou NezpiqueÐ Headwaters to Mermentau River ........................................... Nutrients. 060202 .......... Bayou Cocodrie .................................................................................................... Nutrients. 060208 .......... Bayou BoeufÐ Headwaters To Bayou Courtableau ............................................ Nutrients. 060211 .......... West Atchafalaya Borrow Pit Canal ..................................................................... Sulfates. 060301 .......... Bayou TecheÐ I± 10 to Keystone Locks and Dam ............................................... Sulfates. 050101 .......... Bayou Des CannesÐ Headwaters to Mermentau River ...................................... Total Suspended Solids (TSS). 050102 .......... Bayou Joe Marcel ................................................................................................ TSS. 050103 .......... Bayou Mallet ......................................................................................................... TSS. VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 17: 30 Jan 02, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 03JAN1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 03JAN1

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:36.301804

regulations

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2001-0007-0001

Proposed Rule

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule No. 36.

\ Federal Register/ Vol. 66, No. 115/ Thursday, June 14, 2001/ Proposed Rules 32287 community added will be the boundary of the Census Designated Place, or other area designation, used by the Alaska Department of Labor for census purposes for that community or area. Copies of the boundary map will be available in the park headquarters office. from the aircraft prohibition for subsistence use? (3) What communities are exempted *x *** Dated: June 5,2001. Marshall Jones, Jr,, Acting Assistant to the Assistant SecretaT, Fish and Wildlife and Parks. [FR Doc. 01­ 14787 Filed 6­ 13­ 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 4310­ 70­ P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [DE053­ 1029b; FRL­ 6996­ 61 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Delaware; Conversion of the Conditional Approval of the NOx RACT Regulation to a Full Approval and Approvaj of NOX RACT Determinations for Three Sources AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Delaware State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Delaware qepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC). These revisions were submitted to satisfy the condition imposed bv EPA in its conditional withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. DATES: Comments must be received in writing by July 16,2001. ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Air Quality Planning and Information Services Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 111, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 111,1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, Dover, Delaware 19901. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814­ 2182, and Melik Spain, (215) 814­ 2299, at the EPA Region I11 address above, or by e­ mail at quinto. rose@ epa. gov and spain. melik@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action with the same title that is located in the "Rules and Regulations" section of this Federal Register publication. Elaine B. Wright, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. [FR Doc. 01­ 14899 Filed 6­ 13­ 01; 8: 45 am] Dated May 31,2001. BILLING CODE 656040­ P priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (" NPL") constitutes this list, and is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA" or "the Agency") in determining which sites warrant further investigation. This rule proposes to add 10 new sites to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. These sites will be assessed to determine the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with them, and to determine what CERCLA­ financed remedial action( s), if any, may be appropriate. DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be submitted (postmarked) on or before August 13, 2001. ADDRESSES: By Postal Mail: Mail original and three copies of comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office: (Mail Code 5201G); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N W ., Washington, DC 20460. By Express Mail or Courier: Send original and three copies of comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office: 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway; CrystaI Gateway #1, First Floor; Arlington, VA 22202. only may be mailed directly to superfund. docket@ epa. gov. E­ mailed comments must be followed up by an original and three copies sent by mail or express mail. For additional Docket addresses and By E­ Mail: Comments in ASCII format limited approval of Delaware's regulation requiring reasonably available control technolow IRACT) for AGENCY further details on their contents, see section 11, "Public Review/ Public NVIRONMENTALPROTECTION Comment," of the Supplementary i Information portion of this preamble. major sources of nitrogen ;;; tides (~0 x 1 . EPA is proposing to convert its conditional limited approval of Delaware Regulation 12, Control of NOx Emissions, to a full approval. EPA is also proposing t? approve three source­ specific NOxm RACT determinations. In @e "Rules and Regulations" section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without `prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval i s set forth in the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA willlnot take further action on this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will 40 CFR Part 300 [FRL­ 6994­ 51 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yolanda Singer, phone (703) 603­ 8835, State, Tribal and Site Identification Center, Office of Emergency and National. Pri0rities List for Uncontrolled Remedial Response (Mail Code 5204G); Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule U. S. Environmental Protection Aeencv: No. 36 u ,` 1200 Pennsvlvania Avenue NW.. AGENCY: EnvironmentalProtection Washingto;, DC 20460; or the ` Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule. Superfund Hotline, Phone (800) 424­ 9346 or (703) 412­ 9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. SUMMARY: TheComprehensive SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION: Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (" CERCLA" or "the Act"), requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (" NCP") include a list of national Table of Contents I. Background A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? B. What Is the N B ? C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)? 32288 Federal Register/ Vol. 66, No. 115/ Thursday, June 14, 2001 /Proposed Rules D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined? G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted From I. What Is the Construction Completion List the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? (CCL)? 11. Public Review/ Public Comment A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant B. How Do I Access the Documents? C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters Docket? D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets? E. How Do I Submit My Comments? F. What Happens to My Comments? G. What Should I Consider When H. Can I Submit Comments After the Preparing My Comments? Public Comment Period Is Over? I. Can I View Public Comments Submitted by Others? J. Can I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the NPL? to This Proposed Rule? III. Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL B. Status of NPL A. What Is Executive Order 12866? B. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? N . Executive Order 12866 V. Unfunded Mandates Act (UMRA)? Rule? A. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform B. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed VI. Effect on Small Businesses A. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? B. Has EPA Conducted a Regulatory Flexib, ility Analysis for This Rule? VII. National Technology Transfer and A. What Is the National Technology Advancement Act Transfer and Advancement Act? B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? VIII. Executive Order 12898 A. What Is Executive Order 12898? B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to \ This Proposed Rule? E. Executive Order 13045 A. What: Is Executive Order 13045? B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule? X. Paperwork Reduction Act A. What is tlie Paperwork Reduction Act? B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to this Proposed Rule? What Are the Executive Orders on XI. Executive Orders on Federalism Federalism and Are They Applicable to Tiiis Proposed Rule? Applicable to this Proposed Rule? XII. Executive Order 13175 What is Executive Order 13175 and Is It I. Background A. What Are CERCU and SARA? In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U. S. C. 9601­ 9675 (" CERCLA" or "the Act"), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances. CERCLA was amended on October 17,1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (" SARA'. '), Public Law 99499,100 Stat. 1613 et seq. B. What Is the NCP? promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (" NCP"), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16,1982 (47 FR311801, . pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20,1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under CERCLA. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8,1990 (55 FR 8666). 105( a)( 8)( A] ofCERCLA, the NCP also includes "criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action for the purpose of taking removal action." "Removal" actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases (42 U. S. C. 9601( 23)). C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)? The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105( a)( 8)( B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Section 105( a)( 8)( B) defines the NPL as a list of "releases" and the highest priority "facilities" and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. See Report of the Senate To implement CERCLA, EPA As required under section ,. Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Rep. No. 96­ 848,96th Cong., zd Sess. 60 (1980), 48 FR 40659 (September 8,1983). includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the "General Superfund Section"), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other Federal agencies (the "Federal Facilities Section"). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities section, these sites are generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for preparing an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. EPA generally is not the lead agency at Federal Facilities Section sites, and its role at such sites is accordingly less extensive than at other sites. D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.4250 of the NCP): (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (" HRS"), which EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14,1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105( c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL; (2) Each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, regardless of the HRS score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(~)( 2) requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include withitn the 100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State (see 42 U. S. C. 9605( a)( 8)( B)); (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300. '425(~)( 3),. allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met: For purposes of listing, the NPL Federal Register /Vol. 66, No. 115 /Thursday,. June 14, 2001 /Proposed Rules 32289 The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the US. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release, EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health. cost­ effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release. EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8,1983 (48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on December 1,2000 (65 FR 75179). E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the "Superfund") only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425& 1)( 1). (" Remedial actions" are those "consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * * *" 42U. S. C. 9601( 24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425( b)( 2) placing a site on the NPL "dues not imply that monies will be expended." EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to remedy the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws. F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined? precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Although a CERCLA "facility" is broadly defined to include my area where a hazardous substance release has "cohe `to be located" (CERCLA section 101( 9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release( s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS anal sis, Wpen a site is listed, the approach genwally used to describe the relevant release( s) is to delineate a geographical area usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that areal As a legal matter, the site is not coe% tensive with that area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the "b~ oundaries" of the site. EPA anticipates that it will be more The NPL does not describe releases in Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location to which contamination from that area has come to be located, or from which that contamination came. terms are often used to designate the site (eg., the "Jones Co. plant site") in terms of the property owned by a particular r party, the site properly understood is not limited to that property (e+ it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property (eg., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the "site"). The "site" is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination. For example, the "Jones Co. plant site," does not imply that the Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site. EPA regulations provide that the "nature and extent of the problem presented by the release" will be determined by a Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (" RUFS") as more information is developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/ FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source( s) and the migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination "has come to be located" before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty. Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any time In other words, while geographic after a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible party. For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release. G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met: (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; (ii) All appropriate Superfund­ financed response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public `health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. As of May 21,2001, the Agency has deleted 232 sites from the NPL. H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1,1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and available for productive use. As of May 21,2001, EPA has deleted portions of 23 sites. I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)? construction completion list (" CCL") to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 12142, March 2,1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance. Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction (eg., institutional controls); or (3) The site qualifies for deletion from the NPE. As of May 21,2001, there are a total of 766 sites on the CCL. For the most up­ to­ date information on the CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http:// www. epa. gov/ supe@ und. EPA also has developed an NPL 11. Public ReviewDublic Comment A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule? Yes, docunients that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC and in the Regional offices. B. How Do I Access the Documents? You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the Headquarters or the Regional dockets after the appearance of this proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional dockets for hours. Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 7031603­ 9232, (Please note this is a visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble.) The contact information for the Regional' dockets is as follows: Ellen Culhane, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U. S. EPA, Superfund Records Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, Ben Conetta, Region 2 [NJ, NY, PR, VI), U. S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U. S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 2151 MA 02114­ 2023; 617I918­ 1225. NY 10007­ 1866; 21216374435. 814­ 5364. Joellen O'Neill, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U. S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404156243127. Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U. S. EPA, Records Center, Superfund Division SMR­ 7J, MetcaJfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/ 353+ 821. Brenda Gook, Region 6 [AR, LA, NM, OK, TF], U. 5. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mailcode 6SF­ RA, Dallas, Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U. S., EF? A, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 9131551­ 7335. David Williams, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, U T ), U. S. EPA, 999.18th Street, Syitei 500, Mailcode 8EPR­ SA, Denver, CO'80202­ 2466; 3031312­ 6757. TX 75202­ 2733; 2141665­ 7436. 32290 Federal Register/ Vol. 66, No. 115/ Thursday, June 14, 2001/ Proposed Rules Carolyn Douglas, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, N V , AS, GU), U. S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 4151 Robert Phillips, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U. S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail Stop ECL­ 110, Seattle, You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents. ~ C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters Docket? The Headquarters docket for this rule contains: HRS score sheets for the proposed sites; a Documentation Record for the sites describing the information used to compute the score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional Dockets? The Regional dockets for this rule contain all of the information in the Headquarters docket, plus, the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference documents are available only in the Regional dockets. E. How Do I Submit My Comments? Headquarters as detailed at the beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that the addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by express mail or by postal mail. F. What Happens to M y Comments? EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. Significant comments will be addressed in a support document that EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL. G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments? Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the specific information that EPA should consider 744­ 2343. WA 98101; 206/ 553­ 6699. Comments must be submitted to EPA and how it affects individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria [Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F. 2d 1516 (D. C. Cir. 1988)). EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not specifically cited by page number and referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. EPA will not address comments unless they irldicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in EPA's stated ­ eligibility criteria is at issue. H. Can I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over? Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of not delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late comments. I. Can I View Public Comments Submitted by Others? During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters docket and are available to the public on an "as received" basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional docket approximately one week after the formal comment period closes. J. Can I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the NPL? In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA concerning sites which were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for consideration during the formal comment period. Site­ specific correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and comment will not generally be included in the docket. ILL Contents of This Proposed Rule A. Proposed Additions to the NPL proposing to add 10 new sites to the NPL; all to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. The sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. The sites are presented in Table 1 which follows this preamble. B. Status of NPL A final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register finalizes 10 sites to the NPL; resulting in an NPLof 1,236 final sites; 1,076 in the General With today's proposed rule, EPA is Federal Register/ Vol. 66, No. 115/ Thursday, June 14, 2001/ Proposed Rules 32291 Superfund Section and 160 in the Federal Facilities Section. With this proposal of 10 new sites, there are now 67 sites proposed and awaiting final agency action, 61 in the General Superfund Section and 6 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now total 1,303. (These numbers reflect the status of sites as of May 21, 2001. Site deletions occurring after this date may affect these numbers at time of publication in the Federal Register.) IV. Executive Order 12866 A. WhatIs Execqtive Order 12866? 51735 (October 4,1993)) the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. B. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? No, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12868 review. V. Unfunded Mandates A. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA]? Tihe I1 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104­ 4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of theirsregulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including ,a cost­ benefit . analysis, for proposed and final rules witE!`` Federal mandates" that may resuft in expenditures by State, local, and fribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before EPA Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR promulgates a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost­ effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost­ effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. B. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule? No, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector in any one year. This rule will not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site­ specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL. For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. VI. Effect on Small Businesses A. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U. S. C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (Le., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. B. Has EPA Conducted a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for This Rule? No. The RFA does not apply to NPL listings (See 65 FR 46135 (July 27, 2000)). The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule for which an agency must publish a notice of general rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. Under RFA section 601( 2), however, the term "rule" means any rule for which the agency publishes a general notice of rulemaking but does not include a rule of "particular applicability relating to facilities * * *" 5 U. S. C. 601( 2). Here, each proposed listing is based on determinations unique to individual sites and each of the proposed listings applies only to one facility or site. Consequently, each proposed listing, if finalized will be a rule of particular applicability and thus, the RFA does not apply to the proposed ' listing of these individual sites on the NPL. individual sites on the NPL will not impose any obligations on, small entities or any other identifiable group. The proposed rule would establish no standards or a regulatory regime that any small entity must meet. The proposed listings will impose no liability or costs on any small entity (65 FR 46135 (July 27,2000)). Whether an entity, small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 107( a). **x Moreover, the listing of these 32292 Federal Register/ Vol. 66, No. 115/ Thursday, June 14, 2001/ Proposed Rules Any such liability exists no matter whether the site is listed on the NPL. VII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act A. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104­ 113, section 12( d) (15 U. S. C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e. g.. materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards. VIII. Executive Order 12898 A. What is Executive Order 12898? Under Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low­ Income Populations," as well as through EPA's April 1995, "Environmental Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda Report," and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and all people live in clean and sustainable communities. B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to this Proposed Rule? No. While this rule proposes to revise the NPL, no action will result from this proposal that will have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on any segment of the population. E. Executive Order 13045 A. What Is Executive Order 13045? Executive Order 13045: "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23,1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be "economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule? This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental he'alth or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule present a disproportionate risk to children. X. Paperwork Reduction Act A. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act? According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CF'R part 9. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070­ 0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule? does not apply because this rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB. No. EPA has determined that the PRA XI. Executive Orders on Federalism What Are the Executive Orders on Federalism and Are They Applicable to This Proposed Rule? Executive Order 13132, entitled "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." "Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have "substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government." Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. XII. Executive Order 13175 What Is Executive Order 131 75 and Is It Applicable to This Proposed Rule? On November 6,2000, the President issued Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249) entitled, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments." Executive Order 13175 took effect on January 6,2001, and revokes Executive Order 13084 (Tribal Consultation) as of that date. EPA developed this proposed rule, however, during the period when Executive Order 13084 was in effect; thus, EPA addressed tribal considerations under Executive Order 13084. EPA will Federal Register/ Vol. 66, No. 115/ Thursday, June 14, 2001/ Proposed Rules 32293 analyze and fully comply with the requirements of Executive Order 13175 before promulgating the final rule. Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments "to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities." This proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments because it does not significantly or uniquely affect their communities. The addition of sites to the NPL will not impose any substantial direct compliance costs on Tribes. While Tribes may incur costs from participating in the investigations and cleanup decisions, those costs are not compliance costs. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3( b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed rule. TABLE 1 .­ NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE NO. 36, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION State CA ..................... IL ....................... MS ..................... NY ..................... PA ..................... PA ..................... TX ...................... TX ...................... UT ..................... VT ...................... Site name Citykounty CasmaliaResources ................................................................................................ Louisville. American Creosote Works, Inc ................................................................................ LaSalle. Matthiessen and Hegeler Zinc Company ................................................................. Casmalia. Valmont TCE ............................................................................................................ Hazle Township and West Hazleton. Watson Johnson Landfill .......................................................................................... Richland Township. PatrickBayou ........................................................................................................... Deer Park. R & H Oil Company .................................................................................................. Eureka Mills .............................................................................................................. San Antonio. Vershire. Ely Copper Mine ....................................................................................................... Eureka. MacKenzie Chemical Works, Inc ............................................................................. Central Islip. Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 10. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Watel: supply. Authority: 33 U. S. C. 1321( c)( 2); 42 U. S. C. 9601­ 9657; E. O. 12777,56 FR 54757,3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E. O. 12580,52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. Dated June 1, 2001. Michael H. Shapiro, ActingAssistantAdministrator, office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. [FR Doc. 01­ 14617 Filed 6­ 13­ 01; 8: 45 am] BILLING CODE 656040­ P FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTAGENCY 44 CFR Parts 59 and 64 RIN 3067­ AD18 Changes to General Provisions and Communities Eligible for the Sale of Insurance That Include Future Conditions Flood Hazard Information on Flood Maps AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This Proposed Rule will revises the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations to include definitions for future conditions hydrology and for the floodplains that may be shown on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS), for informational purposes ,at the request of the community, to reflect future conditions hydrology; and establish the zone symbol to be used to identify future conditions flood hazard areas on the FIRMS. DATES: We invite comments on this Proposed Rule. Please submit written comments on or before August 13, 2001. ADDRESSES: Please send written comments to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC; facsimile (202) 6464536. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew B. Miller, P. E., Chief, Hazards Study Branch, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472; by telephone at (202) 646­ 3461, by facsimile at (202) 6464596 (not toll­ free calls), or by e­ mail at matt. miller@ fema. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Congress, in enacting the Flood Insurance Act of 1968, to "encourage State and local governments to make appropriate land use adjustments to constrict the development of land which is exposed to flood damage and minimize damage caused by flood losses, and guide. the development of proposed future construction, where practicable, away fkom locations which are threatened by flood hazards * * *" 42 U. S. C. 4001( e). These proposed revisions to the NFIP regulations are a result of the continuing reappraisal of the NFIP for the purpose of encouraging sound floodplain management to reflect that intent. Historically, flood hazard information presented on NFIP flood maps has been based on the existing conditions of the floodplain and watershed. When the It was the expressed intent of the U. S.

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:36.316792

regulations

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2001-0009-0001

Supporting & Related Material

i SFUND­ 2001­ 0009­ 0001 FINAL HAZARD RANKING. SYSTEM PACKAGE CALLAHAN MINE BROOKSVILLE, MAINE CERCLIS ID NO.: MED980524128 Prepared For: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I Office of Site Remediation and Restoration 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 021 14­ 2023 CONTRACT NO. 68­ W­ 00­ 097 TDD NO. 01­ 05­ 0161 PCS No. 2660 DC NO. A­ 2045 Prepared by: Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON@) Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) 37 Upton Drive Wilmington, MA 01 887 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD Name of Site: Callahan Mine EPA Region: Region I Date Prepared: 16 July 200 1 Street Address of Site: Harborside (mine entrance at end of Old Mine Lane Road) City, County, State: Brooksville (Cape Rosier), Hancock County, Maine General Location in the State: Coastal, south of Bangor, Maine TopographicMap: U. S. Geological Survey CapeRosier, Maine 7 x 15­ minute TopographicMap. 1973, photoinspected 1979. Latitude: 44" 21' 05.9" NorthLongitude: 68 " 48' 36.5" West Ref: Latitude and Longitude were measured fiom the entrance to the property [4]. See Figure 2 in Attachment A for the location of the latitudeflongitude measurement point. Scores Air Pathway Ground Water Pathway Soil Exposure Pathway Surface Water Pathway HRS SITE SCORE Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 NS NS NS 100 50 16 July 2001 1 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD COVER SHEET Name of Site: Callahan Mine EPA ID No. MED980524128 Contact Persons Site Investigation: Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON,)/ Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) (Mr. Thomas A. Campbell) Documentation Record: EPA New England (Mr. Matthew Audet) (Ms. Nancy Smith) 978­ 657­ 5400 617­ 918­ 1449 617­ 918­ 1436 Pathwavs, Components. or Threats Not Scored The calculation of the HRS site score for the Callahan Mine site is based on threats posed by the site to the surface water migration pathway. After review ofthe four pathways, it was determined that the ground water migration, soil exposure, and air migration pathways do not contribute significantly to the overall HRS site score. Therefore,, these three pathways have not been included in this m S package. Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 V 16 July 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SITEDESCRTPTION ......................................................................... 111 I ... HRSDOCUMENTATIONRECO .............................................................. 1 WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NOTESTOTHEREADER ........................................................... 7 REFERENCES .................................................................... 8 SOURCECHARACTERIZATION ................................................... 11 SOURCE1 .......... ...................................................... 11 SOURCE2 ................................................................ 18 SURFACEWATERPATHWAY .................................................... 26 Attachments ATTACHMENT A FIGURES ATTACHMENT B NPLCHARACTERISTICSDATACOLLECTIONFORM ATTACHMENT C RE~ ERENCE DOCUMENTS Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 11 16 July 2001 SITE DESCRIPTION The Callahan Mine site (the "site") (CERCLIS ID No. MED980524128) is located approximately 1,000 feet east­ southeast of Harborside Village in the Town ofBrooksville, Hancock County, Maine (See Attachment A, Figures 1 and 2) [3; 16, p. 11. No street address is available for the site. The site is the former location of a zinc/ copper open­ pit mine [25, p. 2; 34, p. 21. The mining operations were conducted adjacent to and beneath Goose Pond, atidal estuary [16, p. 1; 34, p. 21. The Callahan Mine was reputedly the only intertidal heavy metal mine in the world at the time of its operation [34, p. 21. The property comprises 150 acres and is located in a coastal, rural setting on the Cape Rosier peninsula [16, p. 11.­ The property abuts Goose Pond to the east, and private properties to the west, south, and north (See Attachment A, Figure 2) [3; 16, p. 11. Site features include large waste piles (waste rock piles), a tailings pond, and mine operations buildings and structures (relic buildings and structures) (See Attachment A, Figure 3) [l l , p. 21. The open pit mine ceased operations in 1972 and was flooded by opening a dam at Goose Falls [6, pp. 6,7]. The mine is currently under water and is subject to daily tidal exchange in Goose Pond [ll, p. 2; 34, p. 21. Goose Pond is connected to Goose Cove to the north by a reversing falls known as Goose Falls [3; 16, p. 4; 22, pp. 5, Map 15; 34, p. 21. Goose Cove is located on the southern part of Penobscot Bay [34, p. 21. The zindcopper sulfide deposit was discovered in 1880 at low tide by a clam digger [7, p. 11­ 279; 8, p. 1821. The main components of this deposit were sphalerite (ZnS) and chalcopyrite (CuFeSJ, accompanied by abundant pyrite (FeSJ and lesser amounts of pyrrhotite (FeS) [8, p. 1821. The first mine operated until 1887 when a price drop closed this and most other mines in Maine [6, p. 21. Ore was mined from three shafts [7, pp. 11­ 279, II­ 280]. Efforts were made to mine the ore sporadically through 1964 [6, pp. 2­ 3; 7, p. II­ 2801. Callahan Mining Corporation geologists became interested in the potential ofthe property in 1964 and subsequently open pit mining operations commenced in 1968 [6, p. 31. Two dams were constructed at the saltwater inlet and freshwater inlet of Goose Pond. Fresh water which normally flowed into Goose Pond was diverted south to Wier Cove via a drainage ditch. Goose Pond was subsequently drained to allow for the excavation of the mine [6, p. 41. The open­ pit mine was approximately 600 to 1,000­ feet (ft) indiameterand 320 ft in depth [6, p. 5; 12, p. 51. Approximately 5 million tons of non­ ore­ bearing waste rock and 798,000 to 800,000 tons of ore­ bearing rock were removedfromthemine[ 6, p. 5; 25, p. 21. Wasterockwasremoved andpiledthroughout the property, but predominantly in an area south of Dyer Cove 16, p. 5; 11, p. 21. This area has been referred to as "Callahan Mountain", due to the large volume ofwaste rock located in this area [6, p. 51. In addition, a large amount of marine clay (200,000 to 225,000 tons) was dumped on the lower portions of "Callahan Mountain" after a mud slide occurred at the open­ pit mine [6, p. 14; 7, p. 11­ 2831. Dyer Cove, currently a small part of the Goose Pond estuary, was a fully enclosed area used to temporarily store water pumped from the open pit mine. Particulates were allowed to settle out prior to pumping the water from this cove to Goose Cove [9, p. 41. Sediment­ laden water from the mine was also pumped through a 16­ inch pipe line, discharging directly into Goose Cove, north of Goose Pond [7, p. 11­ 282; 34, Figure 1; 401. Ore was trucked from the mine to an ore storage area [6, p. 5; 7, p. 11­ 2811. From here, the ore was loaded into a series of crushers and mills which reduced the rock to the consistency of fine sand and silt [6, p. 51. The small ,particles containing zinc and copper were then recovered by a process called "flotation." The ore was passed through flotation cells into which chemicals were introduced which caused the minerals to float on bubbles [6, pp. 5,6]. Chemicals which were used in the flotation process included: dithiophosphate salts, aryl phosphorodithioate, cyclohexanol, and cresol [16, p­ 51. The floatation process creates a "froth" which lifts (through surface tension) the mineral particles and depresses or allows to sink the remaining rock [12, p. 41. The mineral rich froth was collected, washed, dried, and stockpiled in a portion of the mill where it awaiting transportation to a smelter. [12, p. 41. The ore was processed in the concentrating mill [25, p. 21. The average ore grade was 1.30% copper, 4.91% zinc, 0.35% lead, and 0.50 ounces per ton of silver [25, p. 21. Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 111 ... 16 July 2001 SITE DESCRIPTION (CONCLUDED) The remaining non­ mineral particles and residues of the chemical reagents were discharged to the tailings pond [6, pp. 5,6; 12, pp. 4,5]. The approximately 11­ acre tailings pond is located in the southern portion ofthe property, adjacent to Goose Pond [6, pp. 5,6; 11, p. 2; 16, p. 11. A series of dams were constructed as material was added to the tailings pond. The final height of the dam is 82 feet [6, p. 10, Figure 21. Mining operations ceased in June 1972 due to the depletion ofthe mineral reserve. Milling ceased in July 1972 [25, p. 21. A study completed by the Maine Department ofMarine Resources in 1975 examined bio­ accumulation of trace elements in selected marine organisms located in Goose Cove [3 11. Levels of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc were detected at several times to several orders of magnitude higher in Goose Cove biota and sediments than in samples collected from other Maine midcoastal and river locations [31, p. 11. The most recent sampling event was conducted by the Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection in October 1999 [18, p. I]. Twelve soil samples, five tailings pond samples (source samples), three tailings pile samples (source samples), eight waste rock pile samples (source samples), 10 sediment samples, and 10 surface water samples were collected [18, pp. 4 ­ 61. Onexample from the tailings pond was collected 47 feet below ground surface (bgs); the remaining soil, source, and sediment samples were collected at depths ranging from 0 to 6 inches bgs [18, p. 1 ­ 21. Soil samples were collected from the mine entrance and the mine operations areas [18, p. 21. Sediment samples were collected from Goose Pond, Dyer Cove, and Horseshoe Cove (a background sample location) [ 18, p. 21. Samples were submitted to the State of Maine Health and Environmental Testing Laboratory for metals analysis. The data were validated according to EPA New England Regional Functional Guidelines, Modified Tier III requirements [20, p. 11. The analytical results for these, samples are used to associate hazardous substances with the sources and attribute hazardous substances to the site. The sediment samples documentLeve1 II actual contamination sensitive environment targets and Level II actual contamination fishery targets in Goose Pond. Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 iv 16 July 2001 WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE 1. GroundWaterMigrationPathwayScore (S,) (fi­ om Table 3­ 1, line 13) 2a. SurfaceWaterOverland/ FloodMigrationComponent (SJ (fi­ om Table 4­ 1, line 30) 2b. GroundWater to SurfaceWaterMigrationComponent (S,,,) @om Table 4­ 25, line 28) 2c. SurfaceWaterMigrationPathwayScore (SSw) Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score. 3. SoilExposurePathwayScore (S,) (fiom Table 5­ 1, line 22) 4. AirMigrationPathwayScore (S3 (fi­ om Table 6­ 1, line 12) 5. Total of S,: + S,: + S$ + S: 6 . HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root NS = Notscored ­ S ­ S2 NS NS 100 10,000 NS NS 100 10,000 NS NS NS NS 10,000 50 Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 2 16 July 200 1 TABLE 4­ 1 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/ FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET DRINKING WATER THREAT Factor Categories and Factors Maximum Value Likelihood of Release 1. ObservedRelease 2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow 550 I 550 2a. Containment NS 500 2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow (lines 2a X [2b + 2cl) NS 25 2c. Distance to Surface Water NS 25 2b. Runoff NS 10 3. Potential to Release by Flood 3a. Containment (Flood) NS 500 3c. Potential to Release by Flood (lines 3a x 3b) NS 50 3b. Flood Frequency NS 10 4. Potential to Release (lines 2d + 3c, subject to a maximum of 500) ' 500 NS 5. Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 4) 550 550 Waste Characteristics 6 . ToxicityIPersistence NS 100 8. WasteCharacteristics NS a 7. HazardousWasteQuantity NS a Targets 9. NearestIntake 10. Population NS 50 loa. LevelIConcentrations NS b 12. Targets (lines 9 + 10d + 11) NS 5 11. Resources NS b 10d. Population( lines loa+ 10b + 1Oc) NS b 1 Oc. PotentialContamination NS b . lob: LevelI1Concentrations NS b Drinking Water Threat Score 13. Drinking Water Threat Score ([ lines 5 X 8 X 121 f 82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) NS 100 Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record * 16 July 2001 CERCLIS No. MED980524128 3 TABLE 4­ 1 (Continued) SURFACE WATER OVERLANDELOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT Factor Categories and Factors Value Assigned Maximum Value Likelihood of Release 14. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5 ) 550 550 Waste Characteristics 15. ToxicityPersistenceA3ioaccumulation 1,000 1,000 17. WasteCharacteristics 1x106 a 16. Hazardous Waste Quantity 2 x lo8 a Targets 18. Food Chain Individual 19. Population I 50 45 19a. Level I Concentrations 0.03 0.03 19d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c) 0 b19c. PotentialHumanFoodChainContamination 0.03 0.03 19b. Level I1 Concentrations 0 b 20. Targets (lines 18 + 19d) b 45.03 Human Food Chain Threat Score 2 1. Human Food Chain Threat Score ([ lines 14 x 17 X 201 + 82,500, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 100 Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 4 16 July 2001 TABLE 4­ 1 (Concluded) SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/ FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT I Factor Categories and Factors I Maximum Value I Value Assigned Likelihood of Release 22. Likelihood of Release (same value as line 5) '. 550 550 I Waste Characteristics 23. Ecosystem ToxicityPersistenceBioaccumulation 1x106 a 24. Fazardous Waste Quantity 2x los a I 25. I 1,000 I 1,000 Targets 26. SensitiveEnvironments 26a. Level I Concentrations I 0 b 26. SensitiveEnvironments 26a. Level I Concentrations 55 b 26d. Sensitive. Environments( lines26a + 26b + 26c) 0 b ' 26c. PotentialContamination 55 b26b. Level 11 Concentrations 0 b 27. Targets (value from 26d) b 55 26b. Level 11 Concentrations 55 b 26d. Sensitive. Environments( lines26a + 26b + 26c) 0 b ' 26c. PotentialContamination 55 b I 27. Targets (value from 26d) I 55 I b Environmental Threat Score 28. Environmental Threat Score ([ lines 22 x 25 x 271 f 82,500, subject to a maximum of 60) 60 60 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/ FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE FOR A WATERSHED 29. WatershedScorec (lines 13 + 21 + 28, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 100 I SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/ FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE ~~ 30. Component Score (SJ (highest score from line 29 for all watersheds evaluated, subject to a maximum of 100) 100 100 "Maximum= value applies to waste characteristics category. bMaximum value not applicable. "Do not round to nearest integer. Callahan Mine HRSDocumentation Record CERCLIS NO. ME0980524128 5 16 July 2001 BASE MAP IS A PORTION OF THE FOLiOWlNG 7.5 X I$ U. S. b: S. QUADW\ WGLG($ j: CAPER&&; MAINE. 1973 REVISED 1979. ' Note: only the most downstream and most upstream probable points of entry are.­ depictedfor cfaidiy. + 0 .. . . .. t 1 Miles I auriowuw; LE LDCA'IION 1 SITE LOCATION MAP 03 CALLAHAN MINE HARBORVIEW BROOKSVILLE, MAINE TDD # REGLON I SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE TEAM DMWN BY: DATE: 00­ 06­ 0020 07/ 12/ 2000 CAMPBELL F I E NAME €:\ ARC APRS\ STARTZ\ CALLAHAN. APR FIGURE 2 1 I I ­ I Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CFRCIJS hin MFn98n53419R 6 28 June 2001 NOTES TO THE READER All reference citations used to document the HRS score will follow the following conventions: 42 = Reference No. 42 (all referencescited by number) P. = single page PP­ = multiplepages( pp. 2­ 5,9 or pp. A­ 1 to A­ 10) 11. I t = next reference For example: "Source No. 1 is located in the southern portion of the site at a topographic high (4, Plate 3; 5, pp. 15­ 21,23)," means that the information presented is documented in Reference No. 4 on Plate 3 and Reference No. 5 onpages 15 through 2 1 and page 23. Referenced text has been either quoted or paraphrased for clarity. Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 7 16 July 200 1 Ref No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 . 6. 7 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. REFERENCES Description of the Reference U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazard Ranking Svstem: Final Rule,, 40 CFR Part 300, Appendix A. December 14,1990.137 pages. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Suuerfund Chemical Data Matrix. June 1996. Excerpt. 9 pages. U. S. GeologicalSurvey. CapeRosierQuadrangle, Maine 7.5minuteSeriesTopographicMap. 1973, photorevised 1979. 1 sheet. Sklaney, C. ( Roy F. Weston, Inc.). Memorandum RE: Callahan Mine property coordinates calculations. TDD No. 00­ 06­ 0020. July 5,2000. 2 pages. Parrish, C. C. G. (MaineDepartment of EnvironmentalProtection, Division of TechnicalServices). Memorandum, RE: Soil and sediment sampling at the Callahan Mine, Brooksville, Maine. April 3,2000. 15 pages. F. M. Beck, Inc. MinesiteEnvironmentalReview, Harborside, ' Maine, forArrowheadHoldings Coruoration, N Y , NY. July 1986. 92 pages. Beck, F. M. (Callahan Mining Corp.) Marine Challenges Encountered bv a Small Mine on the Maine Coast. Offshore Technology Conference. 1970. 8 pages. Howd, F. H. (University of Maine, Orono) and D. P. Drake (Kerramerican, Inc.). Economic Deuosits at Blue Hill. Undated. 9 pages. Fuller, G. (OHMS I, Maine Department of Environmental Protection). Memorandum RE: Site Inspection Report, Callahan Mine, Harborside, Maine Site Number MED980524129. May 28, 1987. 18 pages. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Field Logbook for the Callahan Mine, No. 01000­ S. TDD No. 00­ 05­ 0080. June 1, 2000. 19 pages. Lloyd, E. ( MaineDepartmentofEnvironmentalProtection, GIs Unit). Memorandum, RE: Area Calculations for Callahan Mine Site, Brooksville, Maine. June 28,2000.2 pages. Beck, F. Memorandum to DEP Staff, RE: Mining lecture and field trip to mine sites in Blue Hill and Brooksville, Maine. November 9, 1989. 10 pages. Campbell, T. (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). Phone Conversation Record With Mr. John. Williams (Staff, Maine Marine Patrol 11), RE: Finfish fisheries in the vicinity of Callahan Mine. TDD No. 00­ 06­ 0020. July 17, 2000. 1page. Campbell, T. ( RoyF. Weston, Inc.). PhoneConversationRecordWithMr. RobertGoodwin( Marine Scientist, Maine Department of Marine Resources), RE: Shellfish fisheries and Callahan Mine site. TDD No. 00­ 06­ 0020. July 17,2000. 1page. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA's Estuarine Eutrophication Survey. Volume 3: North Atlantic Region. July 1997. 3 pages. Firth, J. (Maine Department of Environmental Protection). Final Site Insuection Prioritization for Callahan Mining Corn., Brooksville, Maine, CERCLIS No. MED980524128. March 30, 1995. 24 pages. Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 8 16 July 200 1 REFERENCES (Continued) Ref No. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Descriution of the Reference Firth, J. Project Manager. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Remediation and WasteManagement, Division of Remediation, SiteAssessmentandSupportServicesUnit. Oualitv Assurance Proiect Plan for Callahan Mine. Brooksville Samuling Event for the Exuanded Site Insuection Report. CERCLIS No. MED980524128. September 1,1999. 24 pages. Firth, J. EnvironmentalSpecialist. MaineDepartment of EnvironmentalProtection. Memorandum to Callahan Mine, Brooksville Site File. Trip Report, Sampling for the ESI Report. November 23,1999. 6 pages. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Field Logbook for the Callahan Mine, Number 550F. October 4, 1999. pp. 60 to 74. Fasolino, M. (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). Project Note for Callahan Mine Hazard Ranking System Project File, RE: Adjusted Values for Soil/ Sediment Samples Data, Case 7743, TDD No. 01­ 05­ 0161. June 20, 2001. 80 pages. Campbell, T. ( RoyF. Weston, Inc.). PhoneConversationRecordWith Mr. PhilipFarr( Sanctuary Manager), RE: Description of Holbrook Island Sanctuary State Park. TDD No. 00­ 06­ 0020. July 25,2000. 1 page. The Maine Atlas and Gazetter. DeLorme Mapping Co. 1988. 86 pages (3 provided). Smith, T. (Bureau of Hazardous Materials and Solid Waste Control, Division of Technical Services, Maine Department of Environmental Protection). Memorandum to Jean Firth (ES 111, Uncontrolled Sites, Maine Department of EnvironmentalProtection) RE: TripReport, October4­ 6, 1999, CallahanMineSite, Brooksville, Maine. November 18, 1999. 8 pages. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Field Logbook for the Callahan Mine. October 5­ 6, 1999. pp; 94­ 98. Beck, F. M. (Callahan Mining Corporation). Reclamation Plan, Goose Pond. Brooksville, Maine. August 15,1972. 4 pages. Maine Revised Statutes Annotated. Volume 16A, Titles 37 to 37­ B, Title 38, Q Q 1 to 1060. 1964. pp. 357, 383. MaineDepartment of Conservation, MaineBureau of ParksandLands. HolbrookIslandSanctuary information. InternetaccessedonJune2, 2000. httu:// www. state. me. us/ doc/ prkslnds/ holbrook. htm. 4 pages. Parrish, C. C. G. (Division of TechnicalServices, MaineDepartment of EnvironmentalProtection). Memorandum to Jean Firth (Envir. Spec. 111, Division of Remediation, Maine Department of Environmental Protection) RE: Wetland Delineation at Callahan Mine, Harborside, Maine. June 20,2000. 3 pages. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, A portion of the Cape Rosier Quadrangle National Wetlands Inventory Map. Internet accessed. ht@:// www. nwi. fws. nov/ arcdatdbannor/ cauero. eOO. 1 page. Mortimer, C . (CallahanMiningCorporation). Memorandum to FredBeck, RE: Revegetation of the Harborside Site: Brief Description and Cost Estimates. June 22, 1973. 5 pages. Nelson, D. E. and J. W. Hurst, Jr. (Maine Department of Marine Resources). Bio­ Accumulation of Trace Elements in Selected Marine Organisms, Annual Report, 20 November 1974 to 19 November 1975. 42 pages. Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record 16 July 2001 CERCLIS No. MED980524128 9 REFERENCES (Concluded) 32. Hurlbut, Jr., C. S. Dana's Manual of Mineralow, 18" edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. NewYork. 1971. 579 pages (pp. 242­ 265 included). 33. The Mineral Gallery ­ Acanthite/ Argentite (Silver Sulfide). httr,: l/ mineral. gailleries .com/ mineralslsuIfides/ acanthit/ acanthit. htm. Internet accessed on November 6,2000. 2 pages. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Boeckeler, A. J. (Department of Earth Sciences, University of New Hampshire). Ouantifving Point­ source Trace Metal Contamination in Coastal Maine as a Result of Past Zinc and Comer Mining. Undated. 21 pages. Campbell, T. (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). Phone Conversation Record With Ms. Lee Doggett (Marine Biologist, MaineDepartment of EnvironmentalProtection, Bureau of LandandWaterQuality), RE: Water Classification and Clean Water Act status of Goose Pond. TDD No. 0Or06­ 0O20. September 5, 2000. 1 page­ Campbell, T. (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). Project Note for Callahan Mine, RE: GIs Distance Measurements for the Surface Water Pathway section, Callahan Mine, Brooksville, Maine. TDD No. 00­ 06­ 0020. November 10,2000. 3 pages. Campbell, T. (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). PhoneConversationRecordWithJeanFirth( Environmental Specialist, Maine Department of Environmental Protection), RE: Sample depth of background soil samples: 99­ BKSS­ 01, ­02, ­03. TDD No. 00­ 06­ 0020. September 7,2000. 1 page. Campbell, T. (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). Project Note for Callahan Mine, RE: 15­ mile downstream pathway arc methodolgy, Callahan Mine, Brooksville, Maine. TDD No. 00­ 06­ 0020. August 31,2000. 3 pages. Attard's Minerals, Aguilarite Mineral Data. httr,: lwebmineral. com/ data/ a~ uilarite. shtrn1. Internet accessed on November 6,2000. 2 pages. Callahan Mining Corporation. Penobscot Unit Industrial Area, Site Survey Map. May 1972. 1 sheet. Campbell, T. (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). Phone Conversation Record With Mercuria Cumbl (Microbiologist, Maine Department of Marine Resources), RE: Lobster fishery and Callahan Mine Site. TDD No. 00­ 06­ 0020. January 24,2001. 1 page. Campbell, T. (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). Project Note for Callahan Mine, RE: GIs Distance Measurement for the Soil Exposure Pathway, Callahan Mine, Brooksville, Maine. TDD No. 00­ 06­ 0020. January 24,2001, 3 pages. Maine Marine Environmental Monitoring Program. Marine Monitoring Baseline Data, Final Reuort. June 1993. 12 pages. Campbell, T. (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). Project Note for Callahan Mine, RE: GIs Distance Measurements for the Surface Water Pathway section, Callahan Mine, Brooksville, Maine. TDD No. 00­ 06­ 0020. June 19, 2001,3 pages. T h e M i n e r a l G a l l e r y ­ Clausthalite (Lead Selenide). httD: llmineral. galleries .com/ mineralslsulfides/ clausthaklaustha. htm. Internet accessed on June 18,2001. 1 pages. S u r f Y o u r W a t e r s h e d ­W a t e r s h e d I n f o r m a t i o n ­M a i n e C o a s t a l (E P A ). httr,:~~~~~. rv. er, a. 8ov/ surf3/ hucslOI 0500021 Internet accessed on June 28,2001. 4 pages. 16 July 200 1 Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 1 0 2.2 SOURCECHARACTERIZATION 2.2.1 SOURCE IDENTIFICATION Name of source: Waste Rock Piles Number of source: 1 Source Tvue: Pile Description and Location of Source (with reference to a map of the site): Thesiteincludesthelocation of azinclcopperopen­ pitminewhichwasoperated by the CallahanMining Corporation (Callahan) from February 1968 to June 1972 [6, p. 5; 34, pp. 1­ 21. The main components of this ore depositweresphalerite( ZnS), andchalcopyrite (CuFeS,), accompaniedbyabundantpyrite( FeS,) andlesser amounts of pyrrhotite (FeS) [6, p. 14; 8, p. 1821. The average ore grade was 1.30% copper, 4.91% zinc, 0.35% lead, and 0.50 ounces per ton of silver [25, p. 21. At the time of discovery of the ore deposits, surface ore outcrops were entirely below high tide levels [7, p. 11­ 2791: The saltwater entrance to Goose Pond was dammed at the north end of the pond, and the freshwater entrance was dammed at the south end [6, p. 41. The fresh waters, which normally flowed into Goose Pond, were diverted south through a drainage ditch into Wier Cove on the south side of Cape Rosier [6, p. 41. Thus, with no new water flowing into Goose Pond, Goose Pond was pumped dry, and open pit mining was undertaken in a normal fashion [6, p. 41. The open­ pitminewasapproximately600 to 1,000 ft in diameterand320 ft indepth[ 6, p. 5 ; 12, p. 51. Approximately 5 million tons of non­ ore­ bearing waste rock and 798,000 to 800,000 tons of ore­ bearing rock were removed from the mine and processed [6, p. 5; 25, p. 21. Waste rock was deposited in a waste pile ­ now "Callahan Mountain" (Waste Rock Pile) ­ and two adjacent piles (Waste Rock Pile 2 and the Tailings Pile) along the estuary [6, p. 5; 11, pp. 1,2]. In addition, 200,000 to 225,000 tons of marine clay were deposited on the slopes and first terrace of Waste Rock Pile after ainud slide occurred into the open­ pit mine [6, p. 14; 7, p. 11­ 2831. During a 1 June 2000 site reconnaissance conducted by Roy F. Weston, Inc. (WESTON) Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) personnel, the waste rock material was observed throughout the site [lo, pp. 4,6,7]. The Waste Rock Piles (Source 1) comprise three piles of waste rock, known as Waste Rock Pile, Waste Rock Pile 2, and the Tailings Pile (see Figure 3 in Attachment A of this document) [l 1 , pp. 1,2]. This source has been evaluated as a "pile" because the mining process resulted in the deposition of the overlying nonmetal­ bearing waste rock (dump rock) as waste rock piles [6, pp. 5, 141. All three piles are composed of the same waste rock: volcanic agglomerate and rhyolite with minor amounts of carbonate, talc and talc­ chlorite rock with varying amounts of associated disseminated pyrite [6, p. 14; 10, pp. 8, 131. Within the waste rock piles, an occasional piece of ore rock can be found, consisting of chalcopyrite and sphalerite within a chloritic or talcose matrix [6, p. 141. The three waste rock piles will be evaluated as one source because they have similar waste characteristics and containment features. Waste Rock Pile, also known as "Callahan Mountain," is the largest of the three piles and is located south of Dyer Cove and approximately 200 ft west of Goose Pond (see Figure 3 in Attachment A of this document) [3; 6, p. 5; 11, p. 21. The area of Waste Rock Pile was determined by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (ME DEP) to be 980,231 square feet (ft') [ll, p. 21. Waste Rock Pile 2 is located southwest and west of Dyer Cove, adjacent to the mine access road, and north of the former mine operations buildings [l l , p. 21. The area of Waste Rock Pile 2 was determined by ME DEP to be 271,597 ft' [l l , p. 21. The Tailings Pile, which contains the same waste rock material found in Waste Rock Pile and Waste Rock Pile 2, is located adjacent to and southeast of Waste . Rock Pile and approximately 200 ft west of Goose Pond, and was determined by ME DEP to be 74,575 ftz [lo, p. 10; 11, p. 2; 19, pp. 62,63,64]. Mining and millingoperationsceasedinJune1972, and areclamationprogramwasbegunthatincluded the following components: grading, seeding, and planting of waste dump piles, removal of the freshwater dam, and flooding of the 320­ foot deep open pit by opening 18­ inch sluice boards at the Goose Falls Dam [6, pp. 6, 71. Following the mineclosure, ahydroseedingfirmwashired to hydroseed those areaswheresomechance of revegetation might occur following regrading [6, pp. 8, 91. These efforts were only partially successful, as much of the site is still barren of any vegetation [9, p. 11. Waste Rock Pile is covered with occasional clumps of grasses and young trees [lo, p. 81. Waste Rock Pile 2 is sparsely vegetated with grasses and saplings [lo, p. 31. The Tailings Callahan Mine H R S Documentation Record CERCLIS No. h4ED980524128 11 16 July 2001 Source No: 1 Pile comprises a waste rock embankment [lo, p. lo]. There is no engineered cover, run­ on control system, or runoff management system present on Source 1 [lo, pp. 4, 8, 131. 2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH .THE SOURCE ­ SourceSamples: On 4 October 1999, ME DEP collected 11 shallow soil samples (99­ WRP­ 19,20,21, 22; 99­ WRP2­ 06, 10,47,48; and 99­ TPL­ 16, 17, 18) from Source 1[ 11, p. 2; 18, pp. 1, 5; 19, pp. 60­ 641. The soil samples were collected in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan dated 1 September 1999 [18, p. 11. The shallow soil samples were collected from depths of 0 to 6 inches [lS, p. 1; 19, pp. 60­ 641. The soil samples were analyzed byME DHS HETL for seven metals (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, selenium, and zinc), percent solids, and grain size [17, p. 3, 15; 18, p. 1; 201. Analyseswereperformedinaccordancewith ME DHS HETL S0P: EVMETALS ­ Analysis of Trace Metals in Environmental Water, November 1996 and SOP: DW245 ­ Analysis of Mercury, July 1997 methods [18, p. 3; 20, Attachment A, p. 13. The seven metal's analytical results were validated at Modified Tier III Level according to EPA New England Regional Functional Guidelines [20, Attachment A, p. 11. For the purposes of this evaluation, five soil samples (99­ WRP­ 22,99­ WRP2­ 06,99­ WRP2­ 10,99­ WRP2­ 47, and 99­ TPL­ 16) were selected to confirm the presence of hazardous substances contained in Source 1. Callahan Mine `hRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 1 2 16 July 2001 ­ .* 0 m h a ­ ­ .­ m 0 3 .e m 0 Source No: I 2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY Containment Containment Description References Factor Value Gas release to air: NS NS Particulate release to air: NS NS Release to groundwater: NS NS Release via overland migration andlor flood: Neither of the following is present: maintained engineered cover or functioning and maintained run­ on control system and runoff management system. 10 1, pp. 51595, 5 1596, Section 3.1.2.1, Table 3­ 2; I I 10, pp. 4, 8, 13 Notes: NS = Not Scored Callahan Mine H R S Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 15 16 July 200 1 SourceNo: 1 2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY The Hazardous Waste Quantity for Source 1 was assigned based on the Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Factor Value [l, p. 51591, Section 2.4.2.1.3, Table 2­ 51. The Hazardous Constituent Quantity Value and Volume were not evaluated for Source 1 because insufficient information was available [l, pp­ 51590, 51591, Table 2­ 5, Sections 2.4.2.1.1 and 2.4.2.1.21. The Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Factor Value is greater than the Area Factor Value, and thus is assigned as the Hazardous Waste Quantity Value for Source 1 [l, p. 51591, Section 2.4.2.1.51. 2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity Description There is insufficient information to evaluate the source for Hazardous Constituent Quantity. Hazardous Substance References Constituent Quantity (pounds) NS (Insufficient information) Sum (pounds): Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NS 2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Description About 5 million tons of non­ metal­ bearing waste rock were mined and deposited in waste piles along the estuary [6, p. 51. The three piles are composed of the same waste rock materials [lo, pp. 8, 131. The waste rock consists largely of volcanic agglomerate and rhyolite with minor amounts of carbonate, talc and talc­ chlorite rock with varying amounts of associated disseminated pyrite [6, p. 141. Within the waste rock piles, an occasional piece of ore rock can be found, consisting of chalcopyrite and sphalerite within a chloritic or talcose matrix [6, p. 141. Wastestream quantity calculation equals: 5 X lo6 tons X 2,000 pounds/ ton = 1 X 10" pounds [l, p. 51591, Table 2­ 51 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity References Wastestream Quantity (pounds) Waste Rock (containing cadmium, copper, pp. 5,6 lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc) 6, pp. 5, 14; 20, 1 x 1O'O' Sum (pounds): 1 x 10" Sum of Wastestream Quantity/ 5,000 (Table 2­ 5): 2 x lo6 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value: 2 x lo6 2.4.2.1.3 Volume Description There is insufficient information to evaluate the source for volume. Description I Units I References I I Sum (tons): Equation for Assigning Value (Table 2­ 5): 2.4.2.1.4 Area Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. ED980524128 16 Volume Assigned Value: 0 16 July 2001 Description The areas of the waste rock piles were calculated by ME DEP personnel using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS) unit and ESRI Geographic Information Software (GIs) which calculates area fi­ om polygon themes based on the data's spatial location and projected units [ll, p. 11. Source Type References Units (ff) Waste Rock Pile 271,597 Waste Rock Pile 2 11, p. 2 980,231 11, p. 2 74,575 Tailings Pile 11, p. 2 Sum (ft'): 1,326,403 ft2 Equation for Assigning Value (1, p. 51591, Section 2.4.2.1.1, Table 2­ 5): Area of pile ­+ 13; 1,326,403 ft2 f 13 = 102,031 Area Assigned Value: 102,03 1 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value Highest assigned value assigned from Table 2­ 5: 2 X lo6 Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 17 16 July 2001 Source 2 2.2.1 SOURCEIDENTIFICATION Name of source: Tailings Pond Number of source: 2 Source Type: Surface Impqundment DescriDtion and Location of Source (with reference to a map of the site): The Tailings Pond (Source 2) is located south of Waste Rock Pile and the Tailings Pile, and is adjacent to and west of Goose Pond (see Figure 3 in Attachment A of this document) [l 1, p. 21. This source has also been referred to as the "tailings storage pond," "tailings," and "tailings area" in previous investigations [6, pp. 10, 121. Fine sand and silt­ sized pulverized rocks which constitute the unwanted waste from the milling process were deposited into the Tailings Pond [6, pp. 5,6, lo]. The area of the Tailings Pond was calculated by ME DEP to be 506,908 ft* [l 1, p. 21. The center of the Tailings Pond contains ponded water and wetland vegetation, while the majority of the Tailings Pond is dry and is consists of a silty powder [lo, p. 91. The milling process at the Callahan Mine began when ore was trucked from the open­ pit mine to an ore storage area adjacent to the­ mill [6, p. 5; 7, 11­ 2811. From this location, the ore was loaded into a series of crushers and mills which reduced the rock to the consistency of fine sand and silt [6, p. 51. Following mill pulverizing, small particles containing zinc and copper were recovered in the concentrating mill by a process called "flotation" [6, p. 51. The ore was passed through flotation cells into which chemicals were introduced which caused the mineral particles to float on bubbles [6, p. 6; 12, pp. 3, 4, 51. Chemicals which were used in the flotation process included: dithiophosphate salts, aryl phosphorodithioate, cyclohexanol, and cresol [16, p. 51. The floating mineral was then collected and dried to produce the zinc and copper concentrates. The average ore grade was 1.30% copper, 4.91% zinc, 0.35% lead, and 0.50 ounces per ton silver [25, p. 21. The'remaining non­ mineral particles and residues of the chemical reagents were discharged to the tailings pond [6, pp. 5,6]. To the extent possible, the frothing reagents were recycled within the mill. However, certain amounts of these reagents accompanied the tailings to the tailings storage pond (Tailings Pond) [6, p. 61. Personnel from American Cyanamid, the source of the reagents, stated that they were unaware of any environmental hazards associated with the reagents and that no toxicity problems have been reported [6, p. 111. A 1972 analysis of the tailings documented the presence of the following hazardous substances: cadmium, copper, lead, silver, and zinc [6, pp. 10­ 1 11. As tailings were deposited in the Tailings Pond, a series of dams were constructed along the eastern boundary of the Tailings Pond to contain the tailings waste 16, p. 10, Figure 2; 16, p. 11. These dams were constructed with an outer ­layer of coarse rubble and an inner layer of coarse mill tailings and clay [6, Figure 21. The final height of the dam was 82 A above the original ground surface [6, p. 101. The Tailings Pond was also constructed with a decant pipe, which was presumed by START to be designed to drain free liquids in the Tailings Pond to the Goose Pond estuary [6, Figure 21. In 1972, in order to provide drainage of surface water from the Tailings Pond (tailings), a drainage ditch was excavated from the center to the north end ofthe Tailings Pond (tailings) [6, p. 12; 7, Figure 31. START observed a breach area through a waste rock embankment in the north end of the Tailings Pond [lo, pp. 9, 101. Evidence of previous water flow (wash out) was observed by START along the embankment southeast towards Goose Pond [ 10, p. 121. At the cessation of mining, Callahan undertook several efforts to restoreheclaim the site, including grading, hydroseeding, and planting trees and shrubs. These efforts were only partially successful as much of the site is still barren of any vegetation [9, p. 11. The Tailings Pond area, designed to contain mine processing wastes, is leaking slowly at the base in several observed locations. Water seeping from this area and discharging to the Goose Pond estuary contains cadmium and zinc at concentrations above EPA or ME DHS drinking water standards [9, p. 31. Callahan Mine H R S Documentation Record CERCLIS No. 18 16 July 2001 2.2.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SOURCE ­ Source Samples: On 6 October 1999, ME DEP collected shallow soil samples from Source 2 [18, pp. 1,2,5; 24, pp. 97,981. The soil samples were collected in accordance with the EPA­ approved Quality Assurance Project Plan dated 1 September 1999 [17, pp. 3, 9, 12, 15; 18, p. 1; 20; 24, pp. 97,981. The shallow soil samples were collected from depths of 0 to 6 inches [lS, p. 1; 24, pp. 97,981. The soil samples were analyzed by ME DHS HETL for seven metals (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, selenium, and zinc), grain size, and percent solids [17, p. 3, 15; 18, p. 11. Analyses were performed inaccordance with ME DHS HETL S0P: EVMETALS ­ Analysis of Trace Metals in Environmental Water and SOP: DW245 ­ Analysis of Mercury methods [ 18, p. 3; 20, Attachment A, p. 11. The analytical data were validatedatModifiedTier HI Levelaccording to EPANewEnglandRegionalFunctionalGuidelines [20, Attachment A, p. 11. For the purposes of this evaluation, one source sample (TPD­ 12) was selected to confirm the presence of 'hazardous substances contained in Source 2. Callahan Mine H R S Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 1 9 16 July 2001 I1 % E M .M 0 N Source 2 2.2.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AVAILABLE TO A PATHWAY Containment Description Gas release to air: NS Particulate release to air: NS Release to groundwater: NS Release via overland migration and/ or flood: Neither of the following is present: maintained engineered cover or functioning and maintained run­ on control system and runoff I management system. Notes: NS = NotScored Containment Factor Value NS NS NS 10 Reference 1, p. 51595,51596, Section 3.1.2.1, Table 3­ 2; 10, pp. 9, 10, and 12 Callahan Mine H R S Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 2 1' 16 July 2001 Source 2 2.4.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITY The Hazardous Waste Quantity for Source 2 was assigned based on the Area Factor Value of surface impoundment [l, pp. 51590, 51591, Section 2.4.2.1.3, Table 2­ 51. The Hazardous Constituent Quantity, Hazardous Wastestream Quantity, and Volume Values were not evaluated for Source 2 because insufficient information was available [ 1, p. 51591, Sections 2.4.2.1.1 and 2.4.2.1.2, Table 2­ 51. 2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity Descriution. There is insufficient information to evaluate the source for Hazardous Constituent Quantity. Hazardous Substance References Constituent Quantity (pounds) NS (Insufficient information) Sum (pounds): Hazardous Constituent Quantity Assigned Value: NS 2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Description There is insufficient information to evaluate the source for Hazardous Wastestream Quantity. Hazardous Wastestream References ~ Wastestream Quantity (pounds) NS (Insufficient information) Sum (pounds): Sum of Wastestream Quantity/ 5,000 (Table 2­ 5): Hazardous Wastestream Quantity Assigned Value: NS 2.4.2.1.3Volume Description There is insufficient information to evaluate the source for Volume. SourceTypeDescription (# drums or dimensions) I Units( yd3/ gal) I References 1 I 1 I NS I I Sum (yblgal): Equation for Assigning Value (Table 2­ 5): VolumeAssignedValue: 0 Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 22 16 July 2001 Source .2 2.4.2.1.4 Area Description The Tailings Pond occupies an area calculated by ME DEP to be 506,908 ft2 [l 1, p. 21. Source Type References Units (ft') Surface Impoundment (filled with tailings containing zinc) 20, p. 19 cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and 1, p. 51591; 11, p. 2; 506,908 Sum (ft'): 506,908 f t z Equation for Assigning Value (1, p. 51591, Section 2.4.2.1.1, Table 2­ 5): Area of Surface Impoundment f 13; 506,908 ft' f 13 = 38,992.9 AreaAssignedValue: 38,992.9 2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value Highest assigned value assigned .from Table 2­ 5: 38,992.9 Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 23 16 July 2001 SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS Source Containment Factor Value by Pathway Source Surface Water (SW) Ground Constituent Hazardous Hazardous Water Quantity Waste Air Source (Table 6­ 9) (Table 6­ 3) (Table 3­ 2) (Table 4­ 2) Particulate Gas GW to SW Overland/ flood (Table (GW) 3­ 2) WW Value No. Complete? Quantity 1 NS NS NS 10 NS N 2 x lo6 2 , NS NS NS 10 NS N 38,992.9 Descriution of Other Potential Sources Contaminated Soil: The mine (property) entrance area was noted by ME DEP personnel to be a 53,187­ ft2 area at the northern portion of the property [l l , p. 21. The mine operations area, a 17,206­ ff area, wasnoted to includethePumpHouse, Metal Shop Building, AssayLaboratory, ConcentrationMill, andPrimaryCrusher [l 1, p. 2; 16, p. 41. In 1987, fourabandoned underground storage tanks were removed from the vicinity of the Metal Shop Building [6, p. 19; 16, p. 43. In October 1999, ME DEP personnel collected nine surface soil samples from the mine entrance area (mill entrance area) and mine operations area (mill operations area) [l l , p. 2; 18, pp. 2, 41. Hazardous substances detected in the samples included cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc [l 1, p. 2; 18, p. 2,4; 20, p. 6,7]. This potential source was not evaluated because the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value for the contaminated soil is relatively small compared with the other sources at the site, and therefore, the source would not contribute significantly to the overall site score. Dyer Cove iformer settling pond): Dyer Cove is a shallow cove located within the central­ west portion of Goose Pond Estuary [17, p. 41. During operation the cove was separated from the open pit mine by a causeway [17, p. 41. Dyer Cove was used as a settling pond for water pumped from the open­ pit mine while the mine was operational [17, p. 41. In 1986 and 1999, elevated levels of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc were found in the sediments [17, p. 4; 20; p. 71. This potential source was not evaluated because the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value for the contaminated soil is relatively small compared with the other sources at the site, and therefore, the source would not contribute significantly to the overall site score. Mine Pit Located in the northwest comer of Goose Pond, the roughly circular, 600­ ft diameter by 320­ ft deep, pitwasallowed to fill withwaterafterminingoperationsceased [6, pp. 5, 71. Between 1968 and 1972 approximately 5­ million tons of non­ metal bearing and 798,000 tons of ore­ bearing rock were removed from the mine [6, p. 51. Thispotentialsourcewas notevaluatedbecauseof the lack of informationregarding hazardous substances associated with the source. Goose Cove Outfall: A 16­ inch effluent discharge pipe from Dyer Cove (the former settling pond) discharged into Goose Cove approximately 450 ft north of Goose Falls dam [6, pp. 15, 16; 401. Rock "flour" and silt that had not settled out in Dyer Cove were discharged via this pipe [6, p. 161. This material eventually covered the bottom of Goose Cove to an average thickness of about 8 inches [6, p. 161. The total quantity of the settled material discharged is about 2,500 cubic yards [6, p. 161. The average values for heavy metals in the settled materials were 3,200 parts per million (ppm) of copper, 900 pprn of lead, 9,000 ppm of zinc, and 30 pprn of cadmium [6, p. 161. Cadmium values are approximately the same as in underlying "pre­ Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 24 16 July 2001 Goose Cove Outfall: [concluded) Trash Piles: SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS (Concluded) mine" sediment; the other values are much higher than in underlying sediment [6, p. 161. Permits to remove the contaminated sediment by dredging have apparently been denied since 1980 by the Maine Department of Marine Resources [6, p. 161. This potential source was not evaluated because the association of hazardous substances with the source is not supported by evidence of sufficient quality (a study conducted in 1993 contains data thatcurrently donotprovidesufficientlaboratoryqualityassurance documentation), and the source would not add significantly to the overall site score [43]. There were two or three domestic trash piles generated and utilized in association with the mine [6, p. 201. The trash piles contained trash and junk of the type normally accepted by a town dump [6, p. 201. The trash piles were covered with waste rock during post­ mining gradingactivities[ 6, p. 201. According to personsknowledgeable of CallahanMine operations, no toxic materials were placed in these trash dumps, with the possible exception of paintcans, thinners, etc., which' may nothavebeencompletely empty .[ 6, p. 201. Reportedly, no evidence of pollution from the trash dumps has been observed [6, p. 201. This potential source was not evaluated because the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value for the trashpilesisrelativelysmallcomparedwiththeothersourcesatthesite, and therefore, thesourcedoesnotcontributesignificantlyto the overallsitescore. Further, hazardoussubstanceshave notbeenassociatedwith the sourcebymorethananecdotal evidence. Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 25 16 July 2001 4.0 SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY 4.1 OVERLANDELOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT 4.1.1.1 Definition of Hazardous Substance Migration Path for OverlandFlood Component The Callahan Mine property is located on the Cape Rosier peninsula and is adjacent to Goose Pond Estuary (see Figure 2 in Attachment A of this document) [9, p. 1; 16, p. I]. The Callahan Mine site is dominated by waste rock ,piles (Source l), of which "Callahan Mountain" (Waste Rock Pile) is the largest [6, p. 5; 11, p. 21. In addition, a Tailing Pond (Source 2) is located on the southern portion of the site [ll, p. 21. Sampling conducted by ME DEP has documented that these sources are contaminated with metals [18, pp. 1­ 3; 20, pp. 5,6]. Both sources are located within 200 feet of Goose Pond Estuary [36]. The most upstream probable point of entry (PPE) to the surface water pathway is along Goose Pond at the southeast­ comer of the Tailings Pond (Source 2) [lo, p. 11; 11, p. 21. Multiple PPEs to the surface water pathway were noted along the Goose Pond shoreline, extending from the most upstream PPE to the surface water pathway to the most downstream PPE to the surface water pathway, located north of the flooded open­ pit mine and directly east of the most southerly residence along Old Mine Lane [lo, p. 111. Figure 3 in Attachment A of this document only depicts the most upstream PPE and the most downstream PPE. Three seep areas from Source 2 were investigated by ME DEP personnel [9, p. 31. According to the ME DEP, in all likelihood, water seeping from the tailings storage pond (Source 2) discharges eventually to the Goose Pond Estuary [9, p. 31. Water samples collected from two seep areas at the base of Source 2 contained cadmium and zinc [9, p. 31. Dyer Cove, a shallow cove of Goose Pond, was also impacted by mining operations [6, p. 15; 11, p. 21. During the mining operations, Dyer Cove was separated from Goose Pond by a causeway (since removed) and utilized as a settling basin for water which was pumped from. the open­ pit mine [6, p. 151. As of 1987, Dyer Cove was once again part of the Goose Pond estuary [9, p. 41. The southwest bank of Dyer Cove abuts portions of Source 1 (Waste Rock Pile and Waste Rock Pile 2), and shows evidence of discolored waste rock material extending to the water's edge of Dyer Cove [lo, pp. 3, 13, 141. START inferred that the discoloration indicated minerals were leaching out of the waste rock material [lo, p. 31. The Penobscot River mouth is located approximately 4 miles south of Bucksport, Maine [15, p. 21. Beyond this point is the Penobscot Bay, a seawater zone [15, p. 21. Goose Pond is designated as Estuarine and Marine Class SB by the State of Maine [26, p. 383; 351. Goose Pond, at the PPEs to the surface water pathway, is considered part of the Penobscot Bay seawater zone.[ 15, pp. 2,3]. The mean annual flow rate of Goose Pond is not applicable, because an estuary is evaluated as coastal tidal waters [l , pp. 51605, Section 4.0.2,51613, Table 4­ 13]. Approximately 1,000 ft downstream of the most downstream PPE, Goose Pond discharges into Goose Cove (see Figure 3 in Attachment A of this document) [34, p. 21. "Goose Falls," which connects Goose Pond and Goose Cove, is a tidally influenced "reversing falls" [16, p. 4; 22, pp. 5, Map 151. Goose Cove is connected to the eastern side of Penobscot Bay south of Holbrook Island [3; 34, p. 21. The remainder of the surface water pathway comprises part of Penobscot Bay. The mean annual flow rate of Penobscot Bay is not applicable, as a bay is evaluated as coastal tidal waters [l, pp. 51605, Section 4.0.2, 51613, Table 4­ 13]. There are multiple 15­ mile downstream termini [38]. The southern terminus of the 15­ mile downstream surface water pathway is an arc that extends across Penobscot Bay from 2 miles south of the Ducktrap River in Lincolnville, Maine, across North Haven Island and Deer Isle, to Cape Carter in Brooklin, Maine (see Figure 4 in Attachment A of this document) [38]. The northern terminus is an arc that extends across Penobscot River at the northern end of Verona Island, Maine (see Figure 4 in Attachment A of this document) [38]. Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 26 16 July 2001 4.1.2.1 Likelihood of Release Observed releases have been documented by chemical analysis [19, pp. 70,71; 20, pp. 8,9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 161. 4.1.2.1.1 Observed Release Chemical Analvsis The following tables summarize analytical results which document an observed release by chemical analysis. ­ Background Concentrations: On October 5 and 6, 1999, ME DEP personnel conducted sediment sampling at the Callahan Mine site [ 18, pp. 2­ 61. Background samples included three sediment samples (99­ BKSD­ 23, 99­ BKSD­ 24, and 99­ BKSD­ 25) collected from Horseshoe Cove, located approximately 1.5 miles east of the site (see Figure 5 in Attachment A of this document) [5, Attachment 2, p. 1; 18, pp. 2, 61. Because of the natural variability of metals in sediments, three background sediment samples were collected [18, p. 61. The sediment samples were collected in accordance with the EPA­ approved Quality Assurance Project Plan dated 1 September 1999 [17; 18, pp. 1­ 61. The sediment samples were analyzed by ME DHS HETL for seven metals (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, selenium, and zinc), sieve [grain] size, and percent solids [17, pp. 3, 161. Analyses were performed in accordance with ME DHS HETL S0P: EVMETALS ­ Analysis of Trace Metals in Environmental Water, November 1996 and SOP: DW245 ­ Analysis of Mercury, July 1997 methods [18, pp. 1­ 3; 20, Attachment A, p. 11. The analytical data were validated at Modified Tier I11 Level according to EPA New England Regional Functional Guidelines [20, p. 11. Following data review, positive mercury results were estimated (J) and non­ detected mercury results were rejected (R) due to low mercury spikematrixrecoveryandexceedance of mercuryanalysisholdingtime[ 20, pp. 3, 5, 61. Inaddition, some modifications to the analytical data were conducted by WESTON to meet the criteria of the EPA Headquarters guidelines for using qualified data to document an observed release and observed contamination [20, p. 11. Background samples were collected from locations that represent similar depositional environments from where samples were collected in Goose Pond [5, p. 11. Grain size analysis was conducted to determine if any geologic variabilityexistedbetweenbackgroundanddownstreamsedimentsamples [5, p. 11. Thebackgroundsediment samples collected from Horseshoe Cove were described as undifferentiated silt and clay with an average of 19% sand [5, p. 11. Sample Sample ID Reference Date Depth Sample Location Medium 99­ BKSD­ 23 18, pp. 2,4; 19. p. 71 October 6, 1999 0 to 6 inches Horseshoe Cove sediment 99­ BKSD­ 25 18, pp. 2,4; 19, p. 71 October 6, 1999 0 to 6 inches Horseshoe Cove sediment 99­ BKSD­ 24 18, pp. 2, 6; 19, p. 71 October 6, 1999 0 to 6 inches Horseshoe Cove sediment The background sediment samples were used to document background concentrations of hazardous substances in sediments in the vicinity of Goose Pond [18, p. 61. The following table summarizes the analytical results for the background sediment samples collected from Horseshoe Cove; values in bold type were selected as the background concentrations for the listed hazardous substance. Hazardous Sample Adjusted Concentration Sample ID Reference Detection Limit Concentration Substance 99­ BKSD­ 23 20, p. 5, 8, 12 1.0 , mg/ kg ND m g k Cadmium Lead10 m& g 20, p. 5 , 8, 12 8 mgkg 49 mg/ kg Zinc 20, p. 5 , 8, 12 4 mgkg ND m g k Selenium 20, p. 5, 8, 12 2 mgkg Copper 20, p. 5, 8, 12 5.1 mgkg (17) mgkg" 14 J mgkg Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 27 16 July 2001 Hazardous Copper Selenium Zinc 99­ BKSD­ 25Cadmium Selenium ND = Not detected. Concentration Adjusted Concentration Sample Detection Limit 1.0 mg/ kg 4.9 m a g 2 mg/ kg 8 mgkg 1.0 mgkg 4.9mg/ kg 4 m@ g 2 m& g 4 mg/ kg 8 Reference 20, p. 5, 8, 13 20, p. 5 ,8 , 13 20, p. 5,8, 13 20, p. 5 ,8 , 13 20, p. 5, 8, 13 20, p. 6,9, 13 20, p. 6,9, 13 20, p. 6,9, 13 20, p. 6,9, 13 20, p. 6,9, 13 mgkg = milligramskilogram. a ­ ­ Copper result was estimated following data review. Copper result had an unknown bias, and has been 0 ­ Adjusted value. adjusted by multiplying by an adjustment factor of 1.22 [20, pp. 12, 131. ­ Note: EPA Quick Reference Fact Sheet Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination was used to adjust the original concentration values [20, Attachment Dl. ­ Contaminated Samples: On October 5, 1999, ME DEP personnel collected sediment samples 99­ SD­ 29,99­ SD­ 31,99­ SD­ 33,99­ SD­ 35,99­ SD­ 37( d), and 99­ SD­ 39( d) from Goose Pond and Dyer Cove [18, pp. 1, 2, 6; 19, p. 65, 66, 67, 701. All of the sediment samples were collected from a depth of 0 to 6 inchesCl8, p. 21. Samples 99­ SD­ 29,99­ SD­ 31,99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d) were described as dark grey, fine silt and clay, with organic matter [19, p. 65,701. Sample 99­ SD­ 33 was described as light brown, fine sand and silt, with black organic rich lenses at 1 inch [19, p. 661. Sample 99­ SD­ 35wasdescribed as brownsiltandclaywithfew fine sand[ 19, p. 661. Thesampleswerecollectedin accordance with the EPA­ approvedQualityAssuranceProjectPlandated 1 September1999[ 17; 18, p. 11. The sediment samples were analyzed by ME DHS HETL for seven metals (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, selenium, and zinc), sieve [grain] size, and percent solids [17,, pp. 3, 161. Analyses were performed in accordance with ME DHS HETL S0P: EVMETALS ­ Analysis of Trace Metals in Environmental Water, November 1996 and SOP: DW245 ­ Analysis of Mercury, July 1997 methods [18, pp. 1­ 3; 20, Attachment A, p. 11; The analytical data were validated at Modified Tier III Level according to EPA New England Regional Functional Guidelines [20, p. 11. In addition, some modifications to the analytical data were conducted by WESTON to meet the criteria of the EPA Headquarters guidelines for using qualified data to document an observed release and observed contamination [20, p. 11­ Grainsizeanalysiswasconducted to determine if any geologicvariabilityexistedbetweenbackground and downstream sediment samples [5, p. 11. The background sediment samples collected from Horseshoe Cove were described as undifferentiated silt and clay with an average of 19% sand [5, p. 11. The sediment samples (99­ SD­ 29, 99­ SD­ 31,99SD­ 33, and 99­ SD­ 35) collected from Goose Pond were described as undifferentiated silt and clay with varying amounts of sand [5, p. 11. The sand content in 99­ SD­ 29, 99­ SD­ 31, and 99­ SD­ 33 ranges from 2 to 9%. Sample 99­ SD­ 35 contains a higher percentage of sands, 35%. The sieve analysis indicate that the samples are similar in composition. They are predominately silts and clay. Because of silts and clay's strong affinity for metals, if inorganic contaminants were transported to Goose Pond from Callahan Mine, the analytical' results should reflect this impact [5, pp. 1,2]. The sediment samples [99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d)] collected from Dyer Cove were described as poorly sorted sand, silt, and clay, with some gravel [5, p. 21. In comparison to the background sediment samples, the sediment samples collected from Dyer Cove were much coarser [5, p. 21. As a result, any elevated concentrations of metals detected in the Dyer Cove sediment sample are particularly significant, considering the tendency for finer­ grained background sediment samples to be naturally higher in metals [5, p. 21. Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 28 16 July 2001 Sample MediumLocation 99­ SD­ 29 sediment Goose Pond 99­ SD­ 31 sediment Goose Pond 99­ SD­ 33 sediment Goose Pond 99­ SD­ 35 sediment Goose Pond 99­ SD­ 37( d) sediment Dyer Cove (Goose Pond) 99­ SD­ 39( d) sediment Dyer Cove (Goose Pond) Distance from Upstream Depth 0 feet 0 to 6 October 5, inches 1999 700 feet 0 to 6 October 5, inches 1999 1,475 feet 0 to 6 October 5, inches 1999 2,208 feet 0 to 6 October 5, . inches 1999 3,960 feet 0 to 6 October 5, inches 1999 3,960 feet 0 to 6 October 5, inches 1999 Reference 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 66; 44 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 66; 44 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 70; 36 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 70; 36 The following table compares the highest concentrations of hazardous substances detected in sediment samples 99­ SD­ 29,99­ SD­ 31,99­ SD­ 33,99­ SD­ 35,99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d) with the highest background concentrations established by review of the highest background sediment sample analytical results [l, p. 51589, Table 2­ 31. A review of analytical results of hazardous substances detected in sediment samples 99­ SD­ 29, 99­ SD­ 31, 99­ SD­ 33, 99­ SD­ 35,99­ SD­ 37( d), and 99­ SD­ 39( d) indicated that all sediment samples contained concentrations of hazardous substances which meet observed release criteria. Mercury results for all three background sediment samples were rejected; therefore, since no background concentration are available for comparison, mercury results are not used to establish an observed release [20, pp. 12­ 14]. Sample ID 39­ SD­ 29 99­ SD­ 3 1 99­ SD­ 33 Hazardous Substance Cadmium Copper Lead Selenium Silver Zinc Cadmium Copper Lead Selenium Silver Zinc Cadmium Copper Lead Selenium Silver Zinc Concentration 33 mgikg 1,800 J mg/ kg" 770 mg/ kg 6.9 mg/ kg 4.6 mg/ kg 6,900 mg/ kg 27 mgncg 1,200 J mg/ kg" 590 mg/ kg 5.7 mg/ kg 3.2 mg/ kg 5,400 mg/ kg 5.2 mg/ kg 1,900 J mg/ kg" 210 mg/ kg ND mg/ kg 3,100 mg/ kg ND m& g Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 Sample Detection 1.0 m& g (990) mg/ kg" 5.2 mg/ kg 2 mg/ kg 2.1 mg/ kg 4 mg/ kg 8 m g k 1.0 mg/ kg (1,600) mgikg" 4.9 mg/ kg 2 m& g 1.9 mg/ kg 4 mg/ kg 8 m g k 2 9 Reference 20, p. 5, 8, 14 20, p. 5, 8, 14 20, p. 5, 8, 14 20, p. 5, 8, 14 20, p. 5, 8, 14 20, p. 5, 8, 14 20, p. 7, 10, 14 20, p. 7, 10, 14 20, p. 7, 10, 14 20, p. 7, 10, 14 20, p. 7, 10, 14 20, p. 7, 10, 14 20, p. 7, 10, 15 20, p. 7, 10, 15 20, p. 7, 10, 15 20, p. 7, 10, 15 20, p. 7,10, 15 20, p. 7, 10, 15 16 July 2001 Hazardous 99­ SD­ 35 Cadmium Copper Lead Selenium Silver Zinc 99­ SD­ 37( d) Cadmium Copper 'Lead Selenium Silver / zinc 99­ SD­ 39( d) Cadmium Copper Lead Selenium Silver Notes: Concentration 3.9 mgkg 170 J mgkg" 52 mgkg ­ND mgkg ­ND mgkg 840 mglkg 5.5 mgkg 190 3 mg/ kga 120 mgkg ND mgkg N D mgkg 1,400 mgkg 7.3 mgkg 350 J mgikg" 150 mgkg ND mgkg ND mgkg 1,700 mgkg Sample Adjusted Detection 1.1 mgkg (140) mgkg" 5.5m& g 2 mgkg 4 mgkg 8 mgkg 2.2 mgkg (160) mgkg" (290) mgkg" 20, p. 7, 10, 15 20, p. 7, 10, 15 20, p. 7, 10, 15 20, p. 7, 10, 15 20, p. 7, 10,15 20. D. 7. 10. 15 20, p.. 7, 10, 16 20, p. 7, 10, 16 20, p. 7, 10, 16 20, p. 7, 10, 16 20, p. 7, 10, 16 20. I). 7. 10. 16 20, p. 7, 10, €6 20, p. 7, 10, 16 20, p. 7, 10, 16 20, p. 7, 10, 16 20, p. 7, 10, 16 20. n. 7.10. 16 mgkg = milligrandkilogram. N D = Notdetected. U ­ Substancenotdetected at the indicated SDL. ­ a ­ ­ Copperresultwasestimatedfollowingdatareview. Copperresulthad an unknownbias, and has been adjusted by dividing by an adjustment factor of 1.22 [20, pp. 14, 15, 161. 0 = Adjustedvalue. Note: EPA Quick Reference Fact Sheet Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed Release and Observed Contamination was used to adjust the original concentration values [20, Attachment Dl. I CallahanMine H R S DocumentationRecord CERCLIS No. MED980524128 30 16 July 2001 Attribution Attribution of hazardous substances in the surface­ water at the site is based on historical information and chemical analysis. Historically, the site includes the location of a zinclcopper open­ pit mine which wasoperatedby the Callahan Mining Company from February 1968 to June 1972 [6, p. 5; 34, pp. 1­ 21. During this period Callahan excavated a total of about 5 million tons of non­ metal­ bearing waste rock (Source 1) and 798,000 to 800,000 tons of metal bearing "ore" rock [6, p. 51. For every ton of ore extracted, six tons of waste had to be removed and deposited in waste piles [ 6, p. 51. The main components of this ore deposit were sphalerite (ZnS) and chalcopyrite (CuFeS,), accompanied by abundant pyrite (FeS,) and lesser amounts of pyrrhotite (FeS) [6, p. 14; 8, p. 1821. The average ore grade was 1.30% copper, 4.91% zinc, 0.35% lead, and 0.50 ounces per ton of silver [25, p. 21. Mining and milling operations ceased in June 1972, and a reclamatich program was begun that included removal of the freshwater dam, and flooding of the 320­ foot deep open pit by opening 18­ inch sluice boards at the Goose Falls Dam [6, pp. 6, 71. Within the waste rock piles (Source l), an occasional piece of ore rock can be found, consisting of chalcopyrite and sphaleritewithinachloriticortalcosematrix [6, p. 141. WithintheTailingsPond( Source2), the unwanted components of the floatation process (which separated ore from non­ ore) were accumulated [6, pp­ 5,6]. Cadmium is usually present in small amounts in sphalerite [32, p. 2501. Galena (PbS), a lead sulfide mineral, is commonly foundwithsphalerite and hasbeencollectedfromthe tailings piles at the site [32, pp. 250­ 251; 34, p. 51. Clausthalite (PbSe), lead selenide, is very similar to galena [45, p. 11. Acanthite is a silver sulfide associated with galena and aguilarite is another'silver sulifide which also contains selenium [33; 391. In addition, selenium is found as a trace element in many copper sulfide minerals especially pyrite and coal [45, p. 13. Therefore, the hazardous substances cadmium, copper, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc are attributable to the site based on their association with the ore deposit wastes mined at the site. Areas in Mid­ Coastal Maine have been mined for copper and zinc since the later part of the 1800's [34, p. 11. A second mine in the area, now abandoned, was the Kerramerica (Blue Hill) mine located approximately 10 miles northeast of the Callahan Mine [X, p. 171; 34, p. 11. Blue Hill's distance from Callahan Mine makes it unlikely it contributed to the contaminationdetectedattheCallahanMinesite. TheBlueHillmineisnotlocatedalong Callahan Mine's 15­ mile downstream surface water pathway [38]. The two mines are located in the same major watershed, Maine Coastal [46]. On 4 and 6 October 1999, ME DEP collected shallow soil samples from Source 1 and 2 [l l , p. 2; 18, pp. 1,2, 5; 19, pp. 60­ 64; 24, pp. 97, 981. The soil samples were collected in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan dated 1 September 1999 [ls]. The soil. samples were analyzed by ME DHS HETL for seven metals (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, selenium, and zinc), percent solids, and grain size [17, p. 31. Analyses were performed in accordancewith ME DHS HETL S0P: EVMETALS ­ Analysis of TraceMetals inEnvironmentalWater, November 1996 and SOP: DW245 ­ Analysis of Mercury, July 1997 methods [18, p. 3; 20, Attachment A, p. 11. The seven metal's analytical results were validated at Modified Tier I11 Level according to EPA New England Regional FunctionalGuidelines[ 20, Attachment A, p. 11. Thehazardoussubstancesdetected in Source1 andSource2 included cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc [20, pp. 17­ 20]. On October 5 , 1999, ME DEP personnel collected sediment samples 99­ SD­ 29, 99­ SD­ 31, 99­ SD­ 33, 99­ SD­ 35, 99­ SD­ 37( d), and 99­ SD­ 39( d) from Goose Pond and Dyer Cove [18, pp. 1,2; 19, p. 65,66,67, 701. The samples were collected in accordance with the EPA­ approved Quality Assurance Project Plan dated 1 September 1999 [17, pp. 3,13, 16, 18­ 22; 18, p. 2; 19, p. 701. The samples were analyzed by ME DHS HETL for seven metals (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, silver, selenium, andzinc), grainsize, andpercentsolids byMEDHS HETL S0P: EVMETALS ­ Analysis of Trace Metals in Environmental Water and SOP: DW245 ­ Analysis of Mercury methods [20, Attachment A, p. 11. The data were validated at Modified. Tier DI Level according to EPANew EnglandRegionalFunctionalGuidelines [ZO, AttachmentA, p. 11. Hazardoussubstancesdetectedinsediment samples included cadmium, copper, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc [20, pp. 14, 15, 161; These hazardous substances (cadmium, copper, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc) are attributable to the site based on their detection in samples collected from the Source 1 and Source 2. Callahan Mine H R S Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 31 16 July 2001 Hazardous Substances Released Based on the analytical results of sedimeht samples 99­ SD­ 29, 99­ SD­ 31, 99­ SD­ 33, 99­ SD­ 35, 99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d), the following hazardous substances attributed to the site have been released to the surface water pathway: cadmium, copper, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc [20, pp. `12, 13, 14, 15, 161. The analytical data which documents an observed release to the surface water pathway is evidence of hazardous substance migration from the source areas; a Containment Factor Value of 10 is assigned to such sources [ 1, pp. 5 1609, 51610, Table 4­ 11. Since Source 1 and Source 2 have containment factors greater'than 0, all hazardous substances (cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, and zinc) associated with Source 1 and Source 2 willbeused to evaluate the Waste Characteristics Factor Category for the surface water pathway [l, pp. 5161 1, Section 4.1.2.21. Surface Water Observed Release Factor Value: 550 Callahan Mine H R S Documentation Record CERCLIS No. h4ED980524128 32 16 July 2001 ' 4.1.3.2 Human Food Chain Threat Waste Characteristics 4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation The following substances are attributed to the site by documented waste disposal history and chemical analysis. Hazardous substances attributed to the site are considered associated with both sources based on waste disposal history and chemical analysis. The Toxicity Factor Value, the Persistence Factor Value, and the Bioaccumulation Factor Value are assigned to the hazardous substances associated with the sources and releases at the site based on the values presented in Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) [2, pp. B­ 4, B­ 6, B­ 13, B­ 201. Because all of the downstream hazardous substance migration pathway comprises saltwater bodies, bioaccumulation factor values for saltwater are used. Factor Value" Cadmium 122 10,000 Copper L 2 NL 1 Lead 1,2 10,000 1 Mercuxy 1,2 10,000 0.4 Selenium 1,2 100 1 Silver 1,2 100 1 Zinc 1,2 10 1 Toxicity/ Persistence/ BioaccumulationBioaccumulation Value"" 5,000 5 x107 2, p. B­ 4 50,000 NA 2, p. B­ 6 5,000 5 x107 2, p. B­ 13 50,000 2 x 108 2, p. B­ 13 50 5,000 2, p. B­ 17 50 5,000 2, p. B­ 17 50,000 5 x105 2, p. B­ 20 NL = NotlistedinSCDM JLJN96. NA = Notavailable. *= PersistencevalueforRivers. ** = Bioaccumulation factor valuefor Salt. A Toxicity Factor Value of 10,000 and a Persistence Factor Value of 0.4 are assigned a ToxicityPersistence Factor Value of 4,000 [l, p. 51613, Table 4­ 12]. A ToxicityPersistence Factor Value of 4,000 and a Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value of 50,000 are assigned a ToxicityRersistenceBioaccumulation Factor Value of 2 X 10' [l, pp. 5 1618,5 1619, Table 4­ 16]. The hazardous substances with the highest ToxicityPersistenceBioaccumulation Factor Value (mercury) was used to assign the ToxicityPersistenceBioaccumulation Factor Value for the watershed [l , pp. 51618, Section 4.1.3.2.1.41 ToxicityRersistenceiBioaccumulation Factor Value: 2 x 10' 4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity Source No. ._ I SourceTypeSourceHazardous Waste Quantity I I II I I I 1 2 x lo6 Tailings Pile 1 2 I Surface Impoundment I 38,992.9 It Sum of Values: 2.04 x IO6 Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 33 16 July 2001 The sum of the source hazardous waste quantity values is assigned as the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value [l, p. 51591, Section 2.4.2.21. A Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value of 1 X lo6 is assigned to a site when the sum of the hazardous waste quantity values is greater than 1 x lo6 [1, p. 51591, Table 2­ 61. Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 1 x lo6 4.1.3.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value The ToxicityPersistence Factor Value for mercury (4,000) is multiplied by the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value for the watershed (1 x lo6) in order to determine the Waste Characteristics Product. This product is subject to a maximum value of 1 x 10' [l, pp, 51620,516241. (4,000) X (1 X lo6) = 4 x lo9. ToxicityPersistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 4 x lo9 The product of this ToxicityPersistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value is subject to a maximum product of 1 x 10'and therefore the maximum value of 1 x 10' is assigned to this calculation [l, p. 516201. The product of the ToxicityPersistence Factor Value and Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value for the watershed is multiplied by the Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value for mercury (50,000), subject to a maximum value of 1 x 10" [l, Table 2­ 71. (1 x 10') x (50,000) = 5 x 10". (ToxicityPersistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) x Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value: 5 x 10" Theproduct of this (ToxicityPersistence FactorValue x HazardousWasteQuantityFactorValue) x Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value is subject to a maximum product of 1 x 10''and therefore the maximum value of 1 x 10'' is assigned to this calculation [l, p. 515921. From HRS Table 2­ 7, a Waste Characteristics Product 1 X 10''is assigned a Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value of 1,000 [l, p. 515921. Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 1,000 Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 16 July 200 1 3 4 4.1.3.3 Human Food Chain Threat Targets Goose Pond and Goose Cove are designated closed shellfish fisheries and Penobscot Bay is a designated finfish and shellfish fishery by the Maine Department of Marine Resources [13; 14; 211. Species harvested include lobster, sea urchins, scallops, mackerel, and striped bass [13]. START personnel observed lobster pot buoys in Goose Cove during the on­ site reconnaissance, providing further evidence of a lobster fishery in Goose Cove [lo, p. 51. Annual harvest information for the above species was not available to START. Maine Department of Marine Resources personnel indicated that the shellfish fisheries in Goose Pond and Goose Cove .have been closed due to high fecal bacteria counts and. heavy metal concentrations [14]. Species affected by this closure include mussels, surf clams, hard shell clams, and oysters [14]. Lobsters are not affected in this closure because they are not filter feeders [41]. In addition, START personnel observed signs placed by Maine Marine Patrol prohibiting the harvesting of shellfish in Goose Pond and indicating that the Goose Pond shellfish fishery was closed due to heavy metal contamination from Callahan Mine [lo, p. 5, 14; 141. For the purposes of this evaluation, Goose Pond will be evaluated as a fishery subject to actual human food chain contamination. Goose Pond fishery satisfies the following HRS criteria: the fishery is closed and a hazardous substance for which the fishery. has been closed has been documented in an observed release [l, p. 51620, Section 4.1.3.31. Actual Human Food Chain Contamination Sediment Samples On 5 October 1999, ME DEP personnel collected sediment samples 99­ SD­ 29,99­ SD­ 31,99­ SD­ 33,99­ SD­ 35,99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d) from Goose Pond and Dyer Cove [18, pp. 1, 2, 6; 19, p. 65, 66, 67, 701. Analytical results indicate the observed release of cadmium, copper, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc above background sediment sample concentrations in accordance with Section 2.3, Table 2­ 3 of the H R S [l, p. 51589, Section 2.3, Table 2­ 3; 20, pp. 5­ 10, 12­ 16]. Distance 2, p. B­ 4; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 5,000 Cadmium 0 feet References Factor Value* Substance from PPE Bioaccumulation Hazardous Copper 50,000 2, p. B­ 6; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 Lead 5,000 50 Selenium 2, p. B­ 13; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 2, p. B­ 20; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 50,000 Zinc 2, p. B­ 17; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 . 50 Silver ! 2, p. B­ 17; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 700 feet 2, p. B­ 4; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 5,000 Cadmium Copper 50,000 2, p. B­ 13; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 5,000 . . Lead 2, p. B­ 6; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 2, p. B­ 20; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 50,000 Zinc 2, p. B­ 17; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 50 Silver 2, p. B­ 17; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 65; 44 50 Selenium 1,475 feet 2, p. B­ 13; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 66; 44 5,000 Lead 2, p. B­ 6; 3; 18; pp. 2,6; 19, p. 66; 44 50,000 Copper 2, p. B­ 4; 3; 18, pp. 2, 6; 19, p. 66; 44 5,000 Cadmium zinc 2, p. B­ 20; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 66; 44 50,000 2,208 feet 2, p. B­ 4; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 66; 44 5,000 Cadmium Callahan Mine H R S Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 35 16 July 2001 Sample ID I Saltwater Bioaccum Sample Medium sediment sediment Distance I Hazardous I Bioaccuniulation I 1 1 from PPE References . Factor ValueX Substance Copper 2, p. B­ 6; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 66; 44 50,000 Lead 5,000 ~~~~~ 2, p. B­ 13; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 66; 44 zinc 2, p. B­ 20; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 66; 44 50,000 3,960 feet 2, p. B­ 6; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 70; 36 50,000 Copper 2, p. B­ 4;. 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 70; 36 5,000 Cadmium Lead 2, p. B­ 13; 3; 18, pp. 2? 6; 19, p. 70; 36 5,000 zinc 2, p. B­ 20; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 70; 36 50,000 . 3,960 feet 2, p. B­ 4; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 7i); 36 5,000 Cadmium . Copper 50,000 5,000 Lead 2, p. B­ 6; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 70; 36 2, p. B­ 20; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 70; 36 50,000 Zinc 2, p. B­ 13; 3; 18, pp. 2,6; 19, p. 70; 36 ition Factor used. ­ ClosedFisheries: Shellfish fisheries in Goose Pond are closed due to high fecal bacteria counts and heavy metal concentrations [14]. Sediment samples 99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d) were collected 3,960 ft downstream from the most upstream PPE, located north of Waste Pile 1 and east of Waste Pile 2 [3; 11, p. 2; 361. Identity of Distance Fishery References Hazardous Substance from PPE Sample ID Goose Pond 10, p. 5; 14; 20, pp. 5­ 10, Cadmium, copper, 3,960 feet 99­ SD­ 37( d) 99­ SD­ 39( d) 12­ 14; 36 NA = notapplicable. Most Distant Level I1 Sample The Goose Pond­ fishery is subject to actual contamination, based on the release of hazardous substances (copper, cadmium, lead, and zinc) to the fishery indicated by chemical analyses of sediment samples'99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d) [l, p. 51620, Section 4.1.3.3; 20, pp. 5,6, 8,9, 10,12, 13, 141. An observed release of attributable hazardous substances (cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) each having a Bioaccumulation Factor Value of 500 or greater (5,000; , 50,000; 5,000; and 50,000; respectively) to the in­ water segment for the watershed containing fisheries has been established [l, p. 51589, Section 2.3; 2, pp. B­ 4, B­ 6, B­ 20; 11, p. 2; 20, pp. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 141. Fisheries determined to meet actual contamination target criteria based on the chemical analysis of sediment samples are evaluated as subject to Level I1 contamination, since no health­ based benchmarks are available for sediment samples [l, p. 51592, Section 2.51. Sample ID: 99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d) Distance from the probable point of entry: 3,960 feet Reference: [l l , p. 2; 361 Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 16 July 2001 3 6 Level I1 Fisheries Extent of Level I1 Fishery Identity of Fishery References (Relative to PPE or Level I Fishery) Goose Pond Fishery 11, p. 2; 14; 36 3,960 feet 4.1.3.3.1 Food Chain Individual The Goose Pond fishery is subject to actual contamination, based on the release of hazardous substances (copper, cadmium, lead, selenium, silver, and zinc) to the fishery indicated by chemical analyses of sediment samples 99­ SD­ 29,99­ SD­ 31,99­ SD­ 33,99­ SD­ 35,99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d) [1, p. 51620, Section 4.1.3.3; 14; 20, pp. 5,6, 8, 9, 10 ,12, 13, 141. An observed release of attributable hazardous substances (cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) each having a Bioaccumulation Factor Value of 500 or greater (5,000; 50,000; 5,000; and 50,000; respectively) to the in­ water segment for the watershed containing fisheries has been established [1, p. 51589, Section 2.3; 2, pp. B­ 4, B­ 6, B­ 20; 11, p. 2; 14; 20, pp. 5,6,8,9,10, 12, 13, 141. Fisheries determined to meet actual contamination target criteria based on the chemical analysis of sediment samples are evaluated as subject to Level I1 contamination, since no health­ based benchmarks are established for sediment samples [l, p. 51592, Section 2­ 51. Therefore, a Food Chain Individual Factor Value of 45 is assigned [l, p. 51620, Section 4.1.3.3.11. Sample ID: 99­ SD­ 29,99­ SD­ 3 1,99­ SD­ 33,99­ SD­ 35,99­ SD­ 37( d), and 99­ SD­ 39( d) Level ILevel II/ or Potential: Level I1 Hazardous Substances: Cadmium; Copper; Lead; Zinc Bioaccumulation Potential: 5,000; 50,000; 5,000; 50,000 Identity of Fishery 1, p. 51613, Table 0.0001 Coastal Tidal Waters Goose Pond Fishery References . Dilution Weight (Table 4­ 13) Type of Surface Water Body 4­ 3; 14; 15 Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 45 Callahan Mine H R S Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 16 July 2001 37 4.1.3.3.2Population 4.1.3.3.2.2 Level I1 Concentrations Goose Pond is a closed shellfish fishery [14]. Annual harvest (production) when the fishery was open is unknown; . for the purposes of this evaluation, annual production will be considered to have been greater than 0 pounds [ 131 Annual Production Human Food Chain Identity of Fishery Population Value (Table 4­ 18) References (pounds) Goose Pond Fishery 0.03 1, p. 51621; 13 >O Sum of Level II Human Food Chain Population Values: 0.03 Level I1 Concentrations Factor Value: 0.03 4.1.4.2 Environmental Threat Waste Characteristics 4.1.4.2.1Ecosystem Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation The following substances are attributed to the site by documented waste disposal history and chemical analysis. Hazardous substances attributed to the site are considered associated with both sources based on waste disposal history and chemical analysis. The Ecosystem Toxicity Factor Value, the Persistence Factor Value, and the Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Factor Value are assigned to the hazardous substances associated with the sources and releases at the site based on the values presented in Superfund Chemical Data Matrix (SCDM) [2, pp. B­ 4, B­ 6, B­ 13, B­ 201. Because all of the downstream hazardous substance migration pathway comprises saltwater bodies, bioaccumulation factor values for saltwater are used. I Hazardous Substance Cadmium Copper Selenium Silver Zinc I I I I Ecosystem Ecosystem Value** Factor Value* Factor Value Number . mulation Persistence Toxicity Source Bioaccu­ Ecosystem Toxicity/ Persistence/ Bioaccumulation Factor Value (Table 4­ 21) 1,2 5 X ­lo5 50 1 10,000 1,2 5,000 50 1 100 1,2 2 x 10s 50,000 0.4 10,000 L 2 5 x 106 5,000 1 1,000 1,2 5 x 106 50,000 1 100 1, 2 5 x 106 5,000 1 1,000 1,2 I 100 I 1 I 50,000 I 5 x 106 Notes: * Persistence value for Rivers. ** Bioaccumulation factor value for Salt. References 2, p. B­ 4 2, p. B­ 6 2, p.. B­ 13 2, p. B­ 13 2. p. B­ 17 2, p. B­ 17 2, p. B­ 20 Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 16 July 2001 3 8 . " ." .~­ ­ . An Ecosystem Toxicity Factor Value of 10,000 and a Persistence Factor Value of 0.4 are assigned an Ecosystem ToxicityiPersistence Factor Value of 4,000 [l, p. 51622, Table 4­ 20]. An Ecosystem ToxicityiPersistence Factor Value of 4,000 and an Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value of 50,000 are assigned an Ecosystem ToxicityiPersistenceh3ioaccumulation Factor Value of 2 X 10' (1, pp. 51622, 51623, Table 4­ 21]. The hazardous substances with the highest Ecosystem ToxicityiPersistenceBioaccumulation Factor Value (mercury) was used to assign the Ecosystem ToxicityPersistenceh3ioaccumulation Factor Value for the watershed [l, pp. 51622, Section 4.1.4.2.1.41 Ecosystem ToxicityiPersistenceIBioaccumulation Factor Value: 2 x 10' 4.1.4.2.2. Hazardous Waste Quantity SourceNumberSource Type I SourceHazardousWasteQuantity I I . II I I II Waste Pile 2 x 106 I 2 I Surface I1 Sum of Values: 2.04 x lo6 The sum of the source hazardous waste quantity values is assigned as the Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value [l, p. 51591, Section 2.4.2.21. A Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value of 1 x lo6 is assigned to a site when the sum of the hazardous waste quantity values is greater than 1 x lo6 [l, p. 51591, Table 2­ 61. Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 1 x lo6 4.1.4.2.3 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value TheEcosystemToxicityiPersistenceFactorValue for mercury( 4,000) ismultiplied by the HazardousWaste Quantity Factor Value for the watershed (1 X lo6) in order to determine the Waste Characteristics Product. This product is subject to a maximum value of 1 x 10' [l, pp. 516241. (4,000) x (1 x IO6) = 4 x 10'. Ecosystem ToxicityPersistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 4 X lo9 The product of this Ecosystem ToxicityPersistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value is subject to a maximum product of 1 X lo8 and therefore the maximum value of 1 x 10' is assigned to this calculation [I, p. 516241. The product ofthe Ecosystem ToxicityPersistence Factor Value and Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value for the watershed is multiplied by the Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value for mercury (50,000), subject to a maximum value of 1 x 10" [l, p. 516241. (1 x 10') x (50,000) = 5 x 10". (EcosystemToxicityiPersistenceFactorValue x HazardousWasteQuantityFactorValue) x Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value: 5 x 10" The product of this (Ecosystem ToxicityPersistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) x Ecosystem Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value is subject to a maximum product of 1 x 10" and therefore the .maximum value of 1 x 10" is assigned to this calculation [l, p. 516241. From HRS Table 2­ 7, a Waste Characteristics Product 1 x 10" is assigned a Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value of 1,000 [l, p. 515921. Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 1,000 Callahan Mine H R S Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 3 9 16 July 2001 4.1.4.3 Environmental Threat Targets GoosePondisdesignated as EstuarineandMarineClass SB by theStateof Maine [35]. Class SB waters as designated by the state are "... suitable for the designated uses­ of recreation. in and on the water, fishing, aquaculture, propagation and harvesting of shellfish, industrial process and cooling water supply, hydroelectric power generation and navigation and as habitat for fish and other estuarine and marine life" [26, p. 3571. The Maine standards of classification of water bodies offer protection under the U. S. Clean Water Act statutes [35]. The Holbrook Island Sanctuary, a state park, borders Goose Pond to the east of the Callahan Mine site [ 1 1, p. 2; 27, p. 2 of 41. The sanctuary is a scenic natural area containing a diverse set of ecosystems which provides habitat for numerous species of wildlife and plant life [27, pp. 1 ­ 41. A wetlands delineation was conducted by a ME DEP specialist on 1 June 2000 [28, p. 11. Wetlands were identified by vegetative type and hydrologic setting and located using a GPS unit. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland classifications types were identified fi­ om the Cape Rosier, Maine National Wetlands Inventory Map [29]. Wetlands presentadjacent to GoosePondincludepalustrineemergentandpalustrinescrub­ shrubwetlands[ 29]. Approximately 0.77 miles of wetlands frontage exists downstream of the most upstream PPE along Goose Pond [28; 361. Most Distant Level LI Sample On 6 October 1999, ME DEP personnel collected sediment samples 99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d) in Dyer Cove (Goose Pond) [18, pp. 2,6]. Sediment samples 99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d) were collected 3,960 ft downstream of the most upstream PPE to surface water from the site, located at the southeast corner of the tailings pond (Source 2) (see Figure 3 in Attachment A of this document) [l l , p. 2; 10, p. 11; 361. Analytical results of samples 99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d) indicate the detection of cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc at concentrations greater than the background concentrations of the same hazardous substances [20, pp. 5,6, 8,9, 10, 12, 13, 141. Sample ID: 99­ SD­ 37( d) and 99­ SD­ 39( d) Distance from the probable point of entry: 3,960 ft Reference: [ll, p. 2; 361 4.1.4.3.1 Sensitive Environments 4.1.4.3.1.2. Level I1 Concentrations Sensitive Environments Sensitive Environment State designated Natural Area­ Holbrook Island Sanctuary­ State Park State designated areas for the protection and maintenance of aquatic life under the Clean Water Act ­Goose Pond Distance from PPE to Nearest Sensitive Environment 300 feet 0 Sum of Level I1 Sensitive Environments Value: 30 I Sensitive Environment Value References (Table 4­ 23) 1, p. 5 1624, Table 4­ 23; 11, p. 2; 27 25 1, p. 51624, Table 4­ 23; 3; 11, p. 2; 35 5 Callahan Mine HRS Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 16 July 2001 40 F_" Wetlands I! Wetland I Wetland Frontage (miles) I References !I Goose Pond 0.77 28; 36 Sum of Level 11 Wetland Frontages: 0.77 Wetlands Value (1, p. 51625, Table 4­ 24): 25 Sum of Level I1 Sensitive Environments Value + Wetlands Value: 30 + 25 = 55 Level 11 Concentrations Factor Value: 55 Callahan Mine H R S Documentation Record CERCLIS No. MED980524128 41 16 July 2001 ATTACHMENT A FIGURES LOCUS MAP L CALLAHAN MINE HARBORSIDE BROOKSVILLE, MAINE MAINEDEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION ST€ INSPECTIONPRlORlTIZATION (SIP) ­ 1995 RANDMcNALLYROADATLAS UNITED STATES/ CANADA/ MEXICO ­ 1991 NOT TOSCALE MAHAQRS ~o E ~f X S /c a r s l K T ~~E i REGION 1 SUPERFUNDTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ANDRESPONSE TEAM TDD # DRAWN BY: .~ ~ " ­ DATE 00­ 06­ 0020 W. SHAW 7/ 19/ 00 FILE NAME: j:\ 00060020\ L0CUS. DWC FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION MAP @ CALLAHAN MINE r n D # DRAWN BY: DATE REGION I SUPERFUND TECHNICAL ASSE5SMENT AND RESPONSETEAM HARSORVIEW 00­ 06­ 0020 CAMPBELL 0711 2/ 2000 BROOKSVILLE, MAINE FILE NAME E: W. RC­ APRS\ START2\ CALLAHAN. APR FiGURE 2 SITE SKETCH CALLAHAN MINE HARBORSIDE BROOKSVILLE, MAINE . . ,,.., 8 MANAGERS \L/ E& I~ ERS/ CONSVLTANT% DRAWR .. BYl . . . REGION I SUPERFUND ECHNlCAL ASSESSMENT.. ANDRESPONSE TEAM TDD '# 00.­ 06­ 0020 W. SHAW 8/ 11/ 00 DATE . I , riLE .NAME: S:\ 00060020\ FIG­ 3. DWG FIGURE 3 .. """"""" ­ '3 J 2: " ­ LEGEND FISHFRIFS A WERANDS * PROBABLEPOINTOF "­ 15­ MILE DOWNSTREAM e FISHERY SURFACEWATER PATHWAYTERMINUS 0 FINFISH SHELLFISH WTRY TO SURFACE WATER PAMWAY SURFACEWATER FISHERY ­ FLOW DlRECTlON SURFACE WATER PATHWAY SKETCH CALLAHAN MINE ' HARBORSIDE BROOKSVILLE, MAINE NOT TO SCALE REGION I SUPERFUNDTECHNICALASSESSMENTANDRESPONSE TEAU TDD i DRAWN ey: 00­ 06­ 0020 I W. SHAW a SURFACE WATER SEDIMENTSAMPLE * PROBABLE POINT LOCASlON OF ENTRY TO SOURCE 1 SOURCE 2 / PARK BOUNDRY / HOLBROOKISLAND SURFACE WATER SANCTUARYSTATE PATHWAY FLOWDIRECTION SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS CALLAHAN MINE . HARBORSIDE BROOKSVILLE, MAINE REGION I SUPERFUND TECHNtCAL ASSESSMENTANDRE5PONSETEAM 00­ 06­ 0020 W. SHAW 8/ 11 /0 0 FILE NAME: TDD # .. DRAWN BY: DATE S:\ 00060020\ FlG5. DWG FIGURE 5 ATTACHMENT B NPL CHARACTENSTICS DATA COLLECTION FORM

epa

2024-06-07T20:31:36.350190

regulations

FAA-2001-11128-0002

Proposed Rule

U.S.DOT/FAA - Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park (Working Draft)

XXXX 2001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 93 [Docket No. XXXX; Amendment No. 93- ] Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. ____________________________________________________________ SUMMARY: This supplemental proposal amends the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 31, 1996 (61 FR 69334; Notice 96-15) which proposed to establish noise efficiency limitations for certain aircraft operations in the vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). The NPRM is being re-examined because Congress passed legislation that directed the FAA to Specifically, the FAA has reexamined the December 1996 proposal in light of the direction provided in Section 804, Quiet Aircraft Technology for Grand Canyon, of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 106-181). Under the mandate, the Administrator shall designate reasonably achievable requirements for quiet technology in commercial air tour aircraft at GCNP. This SNPRM proposes standards for quiet technology that are reasonably achievable. fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft necessary for such aircraft to be considered as employing quiet aircraft technology for purposes of this section. The proposed quiet technology designations require air tour aircraft to be categorized according to each aircraft's noise efficiency. The eventual goal is The standards for quiet technology proposed in this SNPRM will be used to assist the National Park Service (NPS) in achievingachieve its statutory mandate mandate imposed by Public Law 100-91 to provide for the substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience in the GCNP. This proposed rulemaking is related to and consistent with other rulemaking actions being implemented by the FAA concerning the GCNP. The SNPRM also serves to disposes of the comments that had beenwere received in response to the December 1996 NPRM. This SNPRM drops the three noise efficiency categories that were proposed in the December 1996. This SNPRM only proposes to designate as quiet technology those aircraft complying with what was formerly described as Category C. This SNPRM does not include any incentive flight corridors through the park as proposed in December 1996 nor does it propose any phase-out of air tour aircraft that do not satisfy the quiet technology designation. The SNPRM does not propose to implement the provision of the National Air Tour Management Act of 2000 that would permit a lifting of the cap on commercial sightseeing air tour operations in the Park. The implementation of incentive flight corridors and cap removal for quiet technology aircraft will be the subject of future rulemaking as the FAA, in consultation with the NPS, works with an advisory group composed of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Indian Tribes. DATES: Comments must be received on or before <fill in date>. ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room PL401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify Docket Number FAA-2001-XXXX at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov. You may also review the entire public docket for this SNPRM at that same site. You may also review the public docket in person in the Docket Office between 9 9 a.m. and 5 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office is on the plaza level. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas L. Connor, AEE-100, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-8933. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments. Interested persons are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy, federalism, or economic impact that may result from adopting the proposals in this notice are also invited. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions. Communications should identify the regulatory docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the above-specified address. We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking.All communications and a report summarizing any substantive public contact with FAA personnel on this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for public inspection both before and after the closing date for receiving comments. Before taking any final action on this proposal, the Administratorwe will consider all comments made on or before the closing date for comments, and the proposal may be changed in light of the comments received. If you want the FAA to The FAA will acknowledge receipt of a your comments if the commenteron this proposal, includes with your comments a selfpre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appearswith the comment. The postcard should be marked ‘‘Comments to No. XXXXX.’’ When the FAA receives the comment, the postcard will be dated, time stamped, and returned to the commenter.We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you. Availability of the SNPRM You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by taking the following steps: (1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) web page (http://dms.dot.gov/search). (2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket number shown at the beginning of this notice. Click on "search." (3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information for the Docket you selected, click on the document number for the item you wish to view. You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the Office of Rulemaking’s web page at http://www.faa.gov/avr/armhome.htm or the Federal Register's web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html. You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the docket number, notice number or amendment number of this rulemaking. Any person may obtain a copy of this SNPRM by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267–9677. Communications must identify the notice number of this SNPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future FAA NPRM’s should request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes application procedures. An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section of the Fedworld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 703–321–3339) or the Federal Register’s electronic bulletin board service (telephone: 202–512– 1661). Internet users may reach the FAA’s web page at http://www.faa.gov or the Federal Register’s web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/suldocs for access to recently published rulemaking documents. History Table 1 provides a timeline of events related to the effort to designate quiet technology requirements for air tour operations in Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP). These events are described in this and succeeding sections. Beginning in the summer of 1986, the FAA initiated regulatory action to address increasing air traffic over GCNP. On March 26, 1987, the FAA issued Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 50 (subsequently amended on June 15, 1987; 52 FR 22734) establishing flight regulations in the vicinity of the Grand CanyonGCNP. The purpose of the SFAR was to reduce the risk of midair collision, reduce the risk of terrain contact accidents below the rim level, and reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the park environment. Table 1. Timeline of Events related to the Designation of Quiet Technology for Air Tour Operations in GCNP (Part 1 of 2) Year Month Event 1987 March/June The FAA publishes SFAR No. 50 to establish special flight regulations in vicinity of GCNP (52 FR 22734) August Congress enacts National Parks Overflights Act (Pub. L. 100-91) December The DOI transmits "Grand Canyon Aircraft Management Recommendation" to the FAA 1988 May/June The FAA publishes SFAR No. 50-2 to revise flight procedures in GCNP airspace (53 FR 20264) 1994 March The FAA and the NPS jointly issue ANPRM seeking public comment on quiet technology and incentives (59 FR 12740) September The DOI submits to Congress "Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park Systems” 1995 June The FAA extends SFAR No. 50-2 until June 15, 1997 (60 FR 31608) July The DOI report to Congress is published. 1996 April The President publishes a memorandum directing the substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP July The FAA publishes NPRM (Notice 96-11) to amend 14 CFR part 93 to codify SFAR No. 50-2 (61 FR 40120) December The FAA publishes final rule to codify SFAR 50-2 into a new subpart U of 14 CFR part 93 (61 FR 69302) December The FAA publishes NPRM (Notice 96-15) on noise limitations for air tour operations in GCNP (61 FR 69334) December The FAA publishes notice of availability of proposed commercial air tour routes (61 FR 69356) 1997 February The FAA delays the effective date of 14 CFR sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 and reinstates portions of SFAR No 50-2 (62 FR 8862) May The FAA publishes NPRM (Notice 97-6) to establish Bright Angel incentive corridor and the National Canyon corridor for air tour routes (62 FR 26902) October The FAA publishes clarification of its reevaluation of the economic and environmental impacts of the final rule published on 12/31/96 (62 FR 58898) December The FAA further delays the effective date of 14 CFR sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 and reinstates portions of SFAR No 50-2 (62 FR 66248) 1998 July The FAA withdraws the National Canyon corridor proposal (63 FR 38232) July The FAA also withdraws Notice 97-6, which proposed two quiet technology incentive corridors (63 FR 38233) December The FAA delays the effective date of 14 CFR sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 and reinstates portions of SFAR No 50-2 (63 FR 67544) 1999 January The NPS publishes a notice of agency policy, "Evaluation Methodology for Air Tour Operations Over Grand Canyon National Park" (64 FR 3969) February The FAA delays the effective of 14 CFR sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 and reinstates portions of SFAR No 50-2 (64 FR 5152) July The FAA published an NPRM (Notice 99-11) to modify the dimensions of the GCNP SFRA (64 FR 37296) July The FAA also published NPRM (Notice 99-12) to limit the number of commercial air tours conducted in GCNP (64 FR 37304) July The NPS evaluation methodology becomes effective (64 FR 38006) Table 1. Timeline of Events related to the Designation of Quiet Technology for Air Tour Operations in GCNP (Part 2 of 2) Year Month Activity 2000 February The FAA delays the effective of 14 CFR sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 and reinstates portions of SFAR No 50-2 (65 FR 5395) April The FAA publishes the commercial air tour limitations final rule (65 FR 17708) April The FAA publishes the airspace modification final rule (65 FR 17736) April Congress enacts the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-181, Title VIII) May The commercial air tour limitations final rule becomes effective (14 CFR §§ 93.315, 93.317, 93.319, 93.321, 93.323, and 93.325) November The FAA delays the effective date of the airspace modification final rule (65 FR 69846) 2001 January The FAA delays the effective date of the airspace modification final rule (66 FR 1002) March The FAA and the NPS jointly issue a notice establishing the NPOAG (66 FR 14429) March The FAA delays the effective date of the airspace modification final rule (66 FR 16582) April The airspace modifications final rule becomes effective (14 CFR §§ 93.301, 93.305, 93.307, and 93.309) June The FAA and the NPS announce the NPOAG membership (66 FR 32974) ANPRM Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking CFR Code of Federal Regulations FR Federal Register NPOAG National Parks Overflights Advisory Group NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking SFAR Special Federal Aviation Regulation In August 1987, Congress enacted Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-91, commonly known as the National Parks Overflights Act (or the Overflights Act). The Overflights Act stated, in part, that noise associated with aircraft overflights at GCNP was causing “a significant adverse effect on the natural quiet and experience of the park and current aircraft operations at the Grand Canyon National Park have raised serious concerns regarding public safety, including concerns regarding the safety of park users.” Section 3 of the Overflights Act required the Department of the Interior (DOI) to submit to the FAA recommendations to protect resources in the Grand CanyonGCNP from adverse impacts associated with aircraft overflights. The law mandated that the recommendations: (1) provide for substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience of the park and protection of public health and safety from adverse effects associated with aircraft overflight, (2) with limited exceptions, prohibit the flight of aircraft below the rim of the canyon, and (3) designate flight-free zones except for purposes of administration and emergency operations. In December 1987, the DOI transmitted its “Grand Canyon Aircraft Management Recommendation” to the FAA. The Overflights Act required the FAA to prepare and issue a final plan for the management of air traffic above the Grand CanyonGCNP, implementing the recommendations of the DOI without change unless the FAA determined that executing the recommendations would adversely affect aviation safety. On May 27, 1988, the FAA issued SFAR No. 50-2 revising the procedures for operation of aircraft in the airspace above the Grand CanyonGCNP (53 FR 20264). SFAR No. 50-2 established a Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA) from the surface to 14,499 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the area of the Grand CanyonGCNP. The SFAR prohibited flight below a certain altitude in each of five sectors of this area, with certain exceptions. The SFAR established four flight-free zones from the surface to 14,499 feet MSL covering large areas of the park. The SFAR provided for special routes for commercial sightseeing operators. These operators are required to conduct sightseeing operations under either part 121 or part 135 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as specified in their operations specifications. Finally, the SFAR SFAR 50-2 contained certain terrain avoidance and communications requirements for flights in the area. In March 1994, the two agencies jointly issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) seeking public comment on policy recommendations addressing the effects of aircraft overflights on national parks, including GCNP (59 FR 12740). The recommendations presented for comment included: (1) voluntary measures, (2) altitude restrictions, (3) flight-free periods, (4) flight-free zones, (5) allocation of noise equivalencies, and (6) incentives to encourage use of quiet aircraft technology. In response to the ANPRM, the FAA received 644 comments that specifically addressed GCNP. A second major provision of section 3 of the Overflights Act required the DOI to submit a report to Congress discussing whether SFAR No. 50 “has succeeded in substantially restoring the natural quiet in the park; and such other matters, including possible revisions in the plan, as may be of interest.” The report was to include comments by the FAA “regarding the effect of the plan's implementation on aircraft safety.” The Overflights Act mandated a number of studies related to the effect of overflights on parks. On September 12, 1994, the DOI submitted its final report and recommendations to Congress. This report “Report on Effects of Aircraft Overflights on the National Park System,” was published in July 1995. The report recommended numerous revisions to SFAR No. 50-2 in order to substantially restore natural quiet in GCNP. Recommendation No. 10, “Improve SFAR 50-2 to Effect and Maintain the Substantial Restoration of Natural Quiet at Grand Canyon National Park,” is of particular interest to this rulemaking. This recommendation incorporated the following general concepts: (1) simplification of the commercial sightseeing route structure, (2) expansion of flight-free zones, (3) accommodation of the forecast growth in the air tour industry, (4) phased-in use of quieter aircraft technology, (5) temporal restrictions (“flight-free” time periods), (6) use of the full range of methods and tools for problem solving, and (7) institution of changes in approaches to park management, including the establishment of an acoustic monitoring program by the NPS in coordination with the FAA. On June 15, 1995, the FAA published a final rule that extended the provisions of SFAR No. 50-2 to June 15, 1997 (60 FR 31608). This action allowed the FAA sufficient time to review the NPS recommendations and to initiate and complete appropriate rulemaking action. President's Memorandum The President, on April 22, 1996, issued a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies to address the significant impacts on visitor experience in national parks. Specifically, the President directed the Secretary of Transportation to issue proposed regulations for the Grand Canyon National Park that would appropriately limit sightseeing aircraft to reduce the noise immediately and to further restore natural quiet, as defined by the Secretary of the Interior, while maintaining aviation safety in accordance with the Overflights Act. On July 31, 1996 the FAA published an NPRM (61 FR 40120; Notice 96-11) to reduce the impact of aircraft noise on GCNP and to assist the NPS in achieving its statutory mandate imposed by the Overflights Act to provide for the substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience in GCNP. A final rule was issued on December 31, 1996 (61 FR 69302) to amend 14 CFR part 93 with a new subpart U (Sections 93.301 to 93.317). The amendment adopted the following: (1) modification of the dimensions of the GCNP SFRA, (2) establishment of new flight-free zones and flight corridors, as well as modification of existing flight-free zones and flight corridors, (3) establishment of flight-free periods (curfews) in the Dragon and Zuni Point Corridors, and (4) establishment of reporting requirements for commercial sightseeing companies operating in the SFRA. In addition, the FAA sought comments on a number of questions and alternatives regarding curfews and caps, as well as on the issue of quiet aircraft technology. This final rule also placed a temporary limit on the number of aircraft that could be used for commercial sightseeing operations in the GCNP SFRA. These provisions were to become effective on May 1, 1997. Only the reporting requirements, and aircraft cap were actually implemented. Implementation of the remaining provisions had been delayed. Additionally, on December 31, 1996, the FAA published an NPRM on Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park (61 FR 69334; Notice 96-15), and a Notice of Availability of Proposed Commercial Air Tour Routes in the Federal Register (61 FR 69356). These two documents were part of an overall strategy to reduce further the impact of aircraft noise on the park environment and to assist the NPS in achieving its statutory mandate imposed by the Overflights Act. 1996 Proposal for Quiet Technology Designation In the 1996 NPRM, Noise Limitations for Aircraft Operations in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park, FAA proposed to establish noise limitations for certain aircraft operating in the vicinity of GCNP. The proposed aircraft noise limitations rule generally would have required air tour aircraft to be categorized according to each aircraft’s noise efficiency. The 1996 proposal had three parts: (1) incentive flight corridor through the National Canyon, (2) categorize aircraft by noise efficiency, and (3) removal of the aircraft cap for the most noise efficient aircraft. The first part was to provide incentives for the use of quieter aircraft within the GCNP. The proposed rule would have implemented incentives for conversion to the most noise efficient category of air tour aircraft. The NPRM also provided an incentive route for the use of noise efficient aircraft within the GCNP by establishing the National Canyon Corridor, a route within the newly expanded Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone. The second part was to establish additional aircraft noise limitations to further reduce the impact of aircraft noise on the GCNP environment. The NPRM proposed to divide air tour aircraft into three categories according to their level of noise efficiency, as measured by the relationship between the certificated noise level of the aircraft and the number of passenger seats on the typical configuration of that aircraft type. The noise efficiency concept not only has had much in common with the FAA’s historic approach to aircraft noise standards but also supported the theme that the use of quieter, larger aircraft would provide a two-fold benefit. The replacement of a tour aircraft with a larger, more noise efficient aircraft would both reduce the noise of each operation and reduce the number of air tour operations while still accommodating the same number of passengers. This theme is in accord with the FAA’s general policy of using cumulative aircraft noise as an appropriate measure of potential impacts accounting for the number of flights and intensity of their noise. The FAA began to explore a noise efficiency approach as an incentive for operators to utilize aircraft equipped with the best available noise abatement technology in the GCNP. Additionally, the NPRM would have phased-out the use of the least noise efficient aircraft. The NPRM defined the three categories of noise efficiency as, Category A, the least noise efficient; Category B, more noise efficient than Category A; and, Category C, the most noise efficient. The third element was to minimize or eliminate the impact of the aircraft cap on operators using the quietest aircraft in the GCNP by lifting the immediate temporary cap placed on the number of aircraft permitted to be used for commercial sightseeing operations in the GCNP for Category C air tour aircraft, the most noise efficient aircraft. The intended goal of the 1996 NPRM requirements was to reduce the impact of air tour aircraft noise in the GCNP and to assist the NPS in achieving the statutory mandate to provide for the substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience in the GCNP. The FAA’s findings and recommendations were presented in full detail in the publication of the NPRM. Following the publication of the NPRM, as well as a number of other related rulemakings at the end of December 1996, the FAA and NPS jointly agreed that the best approach to substantially restore natural quiet in GCNP was to devote their resources to the development of those final rules that addressed critical near-term needs. Thus, priority was given to the promulgation of final rules on changes to the airspace over GCNP and establishment of operational operations limitations for air tour flights. The agencies delayed work on the final rule for noise limitations until the airspace and operations limitation final rules were promulgated. They once again began workingfocused on the quiet technology rulemaking immediately following publication of the final rulesas soon as the airspace and operations limitation final rules were published in April 2000. Related Federal Rulemaking and Policies since 1996 On Feb. ruary 26, 1997, the FAA published a final rule (62 FR 8862) that amended the effective date of modifications to the GCNP SFRA that were codified in an earlier final rule published on December 31, 1996. This action delayed the effective date for 14 CFR Sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 of the final rule and reinstated portions of and amended the expiration date of SFAR No. 50–2. On May 15, 1997, the FAA published an NPRM (62 FR 26902; Notice 97-6), which proposed to amend two of the Flight-Free Zones within the GCNP by establishing two corridors through the Flight-free Zones. The first corridor through the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone would have been an incentive corridor to be used only by the most noise efficient aircraft. The second corridor in the Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone through the National Canyon area would create a marketable air tour route in the central section of the Park while addressing some concerns of the Native Americans. On October 31, 1997, the FAA published a notice of clarification (62 FR 58898) to set forth its reevaluation of the economic and environmental impacts associated with the Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) Final Rule, published on December 31, 1996. After implementation of certain provisions of the final rule, the FAA discovered that it had underestimated the number of commercial air tour aircraft operating in GCNP in 1995. The FAA reevaluated the economic and environmental analyses completed for the final rule in light of this new information. The FAA determined that the changes were not of such magnitude as to affect the Agency’s position on the implementation of the final rule. On July 15, 1998, the FAA published a supplemental amendment (63 FR 38232) to the NPRM Notice 96-15 published on December 31, 1996, which proposed to establish noise limitations for certain aircraft operating in the vicinity of GCNP. Specifically, the FAA removed two sections from the 1996 NPRM that proposed to establish a corridor in the Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone through the National Canyon area as an incentive route for quiet technology aircraft. The FAA, in consultation with the NPS, removed these two sections from the NPRM because the agencies determined not to proceed with an air tour route in the vicinity of National Canyon and instead were considering alternatives to this route. Comments submitted by the air tour operators, the environmentalists, and the Native Americans led the 2 two agencies to conclude that the National Canyon air tour route was not a viable option. The supplemental amendment did not affect any other provisions contained in the 1996 NPRM. At the same time, the FAA withdrew NPRM Notice 97-6, which had proposed 2 quiet technology incentive corridors in the Park (63 FR 38233). On January 26, 1999, the NPS published a public notice of agency policy, “Evaluation Methodology for Air Tour Operations Over Grand Canyon National Park” (64 FR 3969). The intent of the notice was to solicit comments on refinements to NPS’ noise evaluation (i.e., impact assessment) methodology for air tour operations over GCNP. Specifically, the refinements contemplated a two-zone system for assessing impacts related to substantial restoration of natural quiet at GCNP. In Zone One, which would encompass about one-third of the Park’s area, the threshold of noticeability previously used in noise modeling for environmental analyses related to GCNP air tours would continue to be used (i.e., the average A-weighted natural ambient level plus 3 decibels). In Zone Two, which would encompass about two-thirds of the Park’s area, the threshold for the onset of impact would be audibility (i.e., the level at which aircraft can begin to be heard by people with normal hearing, determined to be 8 decibels below the average A-weighted natural ambient level at GCNP). Because the noise model used to assess air tour overflight noise in the park is based upon A-weighted data, the adjustments of +3 and –8 dB are the respective conversion factors related to the thresholds of noticeability and audibility in terms of the noise frequency on the one-third octave band. This noise assessment methodology became effective on July 14, 1999 (64 FR 38006). On July 9, 1999, the FAA published an NPRM to modify the dimensions of the GCNP SFRA (64 FR 37296; Notice 99-11). At the same time, the FAA proposed a rulemaking (64 FR 37304; Notice 99-12) to limit the number of commercial air tours that may be conducted in the GCNP SFRA and to revise the reporting requirements for commercial air tours in the SFRA. A final rule was published on April 4, 2000 (65 FR 17708). The final rule enables the FAA and the NPS to limit and further assess the impact of aircraft noise on the GCNP. In addition, this rule adopts non-substantive changes to 14 CFR part 93, subpart U to improve the organization and clarity of the rule. The rule temporarily limits commercial air tours in the SFRA at the level reported to the FAA by the operators for the year May 1, 1997–April 30, 1998 (the base year), pending implementation of the comprehensive noise management plan. During the implementation of the commercial air tour limitation, the FAA and the NPS will collect further information regarding commercial SFRA operations and aircraft noise in the GCNP. The NPS and the FAA will use the information collected during this time to determine whether the “substantial restoration of natural quiet” had been achieved at the GCNP. In the event that the agencies determine that the statutory goal is not met through the various noise mitigation techniques adopted, the FAA and NPS will need to take further steps to achieve the substantial restoration of natural quiet. This could mean that the commercial air tour limitation will become permanent and/or that commercial air tours will be further limited. The commercial air tour limitation replaces the current aircraft cap set forth in § 93.316(b). On April 4, 2000, the FAA also published a final rule (65 FR 17736) modifying the airspace in the SFRA. This rule went into effect on April 19, 2001. The National Parks Air Tours Management Act of 2000 The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Air Tour Act) was enacted on April 5, 2000, as Title VIII of Public Law 106–181 (Pub. L. 106–181). The Air Tour Act applies to ‘‘commercial air tour operations’’ occurring over a unit of the national park system or tribal lands within or abutting a national park. Section 804 of the Air Tour Act states that within 12 months after the date of its enactment (April 5, 2000), the Administrator shall designate reasonably achievable requirements for fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft necessary for such aircraft to be considered as employing quiet aircraft technology for purposes of this section. If the Administrator determines that it is not possible to make such designation before April 5, 2001, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report on the reasons for not meeting such time period and the expected date of such designation. Additionally, Congress mandated that once such a designation had been made, those commercial air tour operators who employ quiet aircraft technology shall not be subject to the operational flight allocations at Grand Canyon National Park, "...provided that the cumulative impact of such operations does not increase noise at Grand Canyon." Finally, the Air Tour Act also directsed that "...the Administrator shall establish, by rule, routes or corridors for commercial air tour operations...by fixed-wing or helicopter aircraft that employ quiet aircraft technology..." at Grand Canyon National Park, "...provided that such routes or corridors can be located in areas that will not negatively impact the substantial restoration of natural quiet, tribal lands, or safety." National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG) On March 12, 2001, the NPS and FAA in accordance with the Air Tour Act, invited persons interested in participating on the NPOAG to send a letter to the FAA by April 2, 2001 (66 FR 14429). The NPOAG membership was announced on June 19, 2001 (66 FR 32974). In accordance with the Air Tour Act, the advisory group will provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the Director— (1) On the implementation of this title [the Air Tour Act] and the amendments made by this title; (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands, which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour management plan; (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the interests of visitors to national parks; and (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands. The Air Tour Act also requires FAA to consult with the advisory group and the NPS on the establishment of routes or corridors for commercial air tour operations by fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft that employ quiet aircraft technology for-- (1) tours of the Grand Canyon originating in Clark County, Nevada; and (2) `local loop' tours originating at the Grand Canyon National Park Airport, in Tusayan, Arizona. GCNP Aircraft Noise Model Validation Study The noise modeling used in all of the GCNP environmental documents to date, remains the best science currently available and produces results consistent with available data. However, as noise modeling is a constantly evolving technology, both agencies are committed to making appropriate adjustments to the approaches and methodologies as new knowledge or science becomes available. In 1999, the NPS and the FAA jointly funded a noise model validation study to determine the degree of accuracy and precision of existing computer models. This study compares the existing candidate models of for assessing air tour noise exposure with noise measurements taken in GCNP. The ongoing noise model validation effort is part of the FAA and NPS commitment to work cooperatively to meet the mandated goal of a substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP. The final results of this project, when they become available, could have an effect on both the determination of substantial restoration of natural quiet already achieved and in the evaluation of alternative means of implementing quiet technology. The candidate models being validated are: The FAA’s Integrated Noise Model, which has been modified to address air tour aircraft noise exposure in GCNP and is referred to as the GCNP Integrated Noise Model (GCINM). The NPS’s National Park Service Overflight Decision Support System (NODSS) designed and programmed specifically for park applications where audibility, significant changes in terrain elevation, and shielding due to terrain must be addressed. NOISEMAP Simulation Model (NMSIM) developed by the US Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to simulate aircraft single event noise levels. As part of the Noise Model Validation Study efforts, the agencies jointly formed the Technical Review Committee (TRC) to review and comment on various technical issues that may arise related to the measurement, quantification and analysis of soundscapes. The TRC is composed of 8 acoustics and statistical experts from academia, private companies, and government agencies. Environmental Review In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, Appendix 4, Paragraph 4.j, the FAA has determined that this proposed rulemaking is categorically excluded from environmental review. The proposed rulemaking establishes quiet technology designations for air tour aircraft operating in GCNP. It does not impose a phase-out or any alteration of any air tour operator’s fleet of aircraft. In addition, the proposed rulemaking does not lift the operations limitation, alter any flight corridors through the Park, or make any change to the SFRA. Finally, the FAA notes that this proposed rulemaking has no impact on substantial restoration of natural quiet at GCNP and environmental and economic impacts will depend upon other future incentives yet to be defined. Accordingly, this proposed rulemaking will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. The FAA has determined that this proposal does not instigate any adverse environmental effects, which would require the preparation an environmental assessment (EA) for this rulemaking effort to assure conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). As directed by the Air Tour Act, this proposal does not “relieve or diminish-- (1) the statutory mandate imposed upon the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration under Public Law 100-91 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 note) to achieve the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience at the Grand Canyon National Park.” The reasoning behind the FAA determination include: The proposal simply establishes quiet technology designations for air tour aircraft operating in the Park. It does not impose a phaseout or any alteration of any air tour operator’s fleet of aircraft. The proposal does not lift the operational cap, alter any flight corridors through the Park, or make any change to the SFRA. As the eventual goal of this proposed rulemaking is the substantial restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP, the FAA has conducted some analyses to assess potential progress towards the goal. The FAA analysis included the use of the GCINM and with data input from the preferred alternative operational scenario found in the February 2000 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment. The analysis found that by replacing the entire current fleet of air tour aircraft that do not meet the quiet technology designation with equipment meeting the designation, almost 58% of the park area would achieve substantial restoration of natural quiet on an average annual day. By comparison, the mixed fleet used for the calculations in the 2000 assessment achieved about 44% substantial restoration for an annual average day. This estimate provides a relative measure of the gains that might be achieved with the one-for-one conversion to quiet technology aircraft. Consultation with Affected Indian Tribes Six Native American communities represented by eight separate tribal governments have ancestral ties to the Grand Canyon. Three of these communities have reservations that border the GCNP, the Navajo Nation to the east, and the Havasupai and Hualapai Tribes to the south. The Department of Transportation (DOT), FAA, DOI, NPS, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) have consulted with these tribes, on a government-to-government basis,The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the DOI have consulted with these tribes, on a government-to-government basis, according to the provisions of the NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations and other applicable laws and Executive Orders. In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the FAA issued a Determination of No Adverse Effect to the Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) for all of the tribes and/or nations, except the Hualapai Tribe, for the April 2000 rulemaking actions associated with the SFRA in the vicinity of the GCNP. As to the Hualapai Tribe, the FAA along with the NPS, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Hualapai Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) and the Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources signed a Programmatic Agreement on January 24, 2000 related to Section 106 compliance and their TCPs.As to the Hualapai Tribe, the FAA along with the NPS, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources signed a Programmatic Agreement on January 24, 2000 related to Section 106 compliance and their TCPs. Due to new safety concerns raised by the Air Tour Operators related to the proposed route and airspace modifications on the East End of the SFRA, only those modifications from west of the Dragon Corridor were implemented on April 19, 2001. In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, if significant modifications are proposed for the East End commercial air tour routes and airspace related to address the new safety concerns, raised are proposed for the East End, consultation with the Navajo Nation and the other interested Native American tribes, specifically the Hopi Tribe and Pueblo of Zuni will be re-initiatednotified. Public Input The FAA has reexamined the December 1996 proposal in light of the direction provided in Section 804 of the Air Tour Act. Under the mandate, the Administrator shall designate reasonably achievable requirements for fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft necessary for such aircraft to be considered as employing quiet aircraft technology for purposes of this section. The proposed quiet technology designations require air tour aircraft to be categorized according to each aircraft's noise efficiency. The eventual goal is to assist the National Park Service (NPS) in achieving its statutory mandate imposed by Public Law 100-91 to provide for the substantial restoration of natural quiet and experience in the GCNP. This proposed rulemaking is related to and consistent with other rulemaking actions being implemented by the FAA concerning the GCNP. In addition, the SNPRM does not propose to implement the provision of the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 that would permit a lifting of the cap on commercial sightseeing air tour operations in the Park. The implementation of any quiet technology incentive flight corridors and the removal of operations limitation for quiet technology aircraft will be the subject of future rulemaking as the FAA, in consultation with the NPS, works with an advisory group composed of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Indian Tribes. The SNPRM also serves to disposes of the comments that had beenwere received in response to the December 1996 NPRM (61 FR 69334). The 1996 NPRM proposed to establish noise limitations for certain aircraft operated in the vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park. The 1996 proposal had three parts: (1) incentive flight corridor through the National Canyon, (2) categorize aircraft by noise efficiency, and (3) removal of the aircraft cap for the most noise efficient aircraft. The first part of the 1996 proposal provided an incentive for the use of noise efficient aircraft within the GCNP by establishing a National Canyon Corridor within the newly expanded Toroweap/Shinumo Flight-free Zone. This SNPRM does not propose any incentive corridors. The second part of the 1996 proposal divided aircraft into three categories according to their level of noise efficiency and proposed to phase-out aircraft in the two least noise efficient categories (Categories A and B). Category A is the least noise efficient, Category B is more noise efficient than Category A, and Category C is the most noise efficient. This SNPRM drops proposes to replace the three categories and proposes to designate as quiet technology those aircraft that comply with what was formerly described as Category C, the most noise efficient category. The third part of the 1996 proposal lifted the cap placed on the number of aircraft permitted to be used for commercial sightseeing operations in GCNP for the most noise efficient aircraft (Category C). This SNPRM does not include this part of the 1996 proposal as explained in a later section of this notice. Interested persons were invited to participate in this the rulemaking action by submitting written data, views, or argumentscomments. The comment period for the NPRM closed March 31, 1997. The comment period for the draft Environmental Assessment also closed on March 31, 1997. In response to the NPRM the FAA received 107 comments. All comments received were considered before issuing this SNPRM. An analysis of the comments is summarized below. The comments presented in the subsections below were to the December 1996 NPRM. As one of the purposes of this SNPRM is to dispose of the 1996 comments, the FAA responses take into account related Federal actions since 1996. Commenters include air tour operators and their representatives, environmental groups, sightseeing organizations, Native American tribes, pilots and pilot associations, and individuals. Most commenters do not support some or all aspects of the proposal. Generally, air tour operators who do not currently operate quiet aircraft are against a phase-out of noisier aircraft as proposed in 1996; one Native American tribe is was against the 1996 proposal to reintroduce a flight route through the National Canyon; while environmental organizations argue that by itself the 1996 proposal would not adequately restore the natural quiet to GCNP. 1. General Comments on Proposal The FAA received a number of general comments on the NPRM, including comments related to statutory issues, procedural complaints, and environmental concerns. Eagle Canyon Airlines (Eagle) (54), Vision Air (Vision) (61), and King Airlines, Inc. (King) (56) state that the NPRM failed to state the basis for the FAA's statutory authority for the proposed rulemaking. They state that the FAA cited the Overflights Act as part of the statutory authority for the NPRM but that the final rule (December 31, 1996) did not cite the Overflights Act as statutory authority. These three commenters state that the Overflights Act gave the FAA the legal authority to issue SFAR 50, but not to take further action beyond that. These commenters also state that the FAA's cited authority from the FAA Act does not give the FAA authority to protect "environmental values" or to promulgate a noise management plan. The Helicopter Association International (HAI) (63) states that the proposals are arbitrary and capricious because unbiased data demonstrate that natural quiet has been restored at GCNP and air tour aircraft currently operating at GCNP are fully certificated by the FAA and in compliance with all applicable FAA safety and operating regulations. The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) (64) states that the NPRM does not contain the necessary scientific data or substantiation to prove that the proposal will accomplish its goal. GAMA believes that basing a rulemaking on a broad and indefinite range of terms and objectives, such as "interference" or "annoyance" of visitors and "substantial restoration of natural quiet," is subjective and arbitrary. GAMA fears that introducing noise limitations and forced attrition for aircraft presently operating in the vicinity of GCNP could be the beginning of a process that could progressively tear down the entire U.S. aviation system. GAMA believes that, if FAA's strategy were applied to the vast holding of federal lands, federal parks, state lands and state parks, it would severely impact the use of general aviation aircraft and some commercial airliners as well. Twin Otter (45) believes that quiet technology is the solution to the problem of achieving substantial restoration of natural quiet to the GCNP. However, the alternative, caps, curfews and ever more limitations on how air tours can be conducted, is totally unacceptable. Lake Mead Air (26, 53) suggests that protecting the park experience from noise will be more effectively accomplished by routing traffic away from the park visitors than by use of quiet technology and altitude. Clark County Department of Aviation and the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (Clark County) (62) believe that the piecemeal nature of the FAA's Grand Canyon rulemaking makes it impossible for the public to meaningfully comment on the proposals. Clark County suggests that the FAA propose its entire Grand Canyon strategy -- flight-free zones, tour routes, quiet aircraft requirements, and other measures -- as one package, so that the public can assess the best overall program. The United States Air Tour Association (USATA) (60) states that all of the various regulatory actions being implemented by the FAA should be combined into a single rulemaking effort to ensure that all the relevant issues are addressed as an integrated whole. Bell Helicopter Textron (91) and the Professional Helicopter Pilots Association (85) believe that there are substantial issues in controversy in this proposal, which should necessitate the use of negotiated rulemaking by means of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) process. The Sierra Club, Angeles and Grand Canyon Chapters (38, 75, 76), opposes the permissive growth of the air tour industry in the GCNP. The level of flight operations should be reduced to the levels, which existed in the Park in 1975. The Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter, believes that the Noise Limitations NPRM can be part of an acceptable plan, but would not by itself substantially restore natural quiet at GCNP. The proposal would not bring GCNP into compliance with the Overflights Act, nor would it bring the park into compliance with the management objectives of the GCNP General Management Plan. Furthermore, the proposal would not implement the actions directed by President Clinton in his Earth Day memorandum (April 1996). The Overflights Act directs the FAA to implement the recommendations of the NPS, revised only for safety. The FAA has ignored the law in this regard and continues to promote the air tour industry. FAA response The Overflights Act charged the FAA, in concert with the DOI, to enact rulemaking and take what action is necessary to substantially restore the natural quiet and experience of our national parks, and to protect the public health and safety from adverse effects associated with overflights. This mandate imbued the FAA with the necessary authority to carry out any measure recommended by the NPS that did not have safety issues and was necessary to effect the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience, which is an NPS designated “resource or value” of the park, and to protect the public safety. The practical effect of this second requirement is the implementation of operational rules for aircraft that facilitate the safe overflight of the Grand CanyonGCNP. In accordance with the Air Tour Act, the FAA has established the NPOAG to provide advice and counsel on the implementation of quiet aircraft technology at Grand CanyonGCNP. The FAA agencies acknowledges that the SNPRM on noise, alone, is inadequate to accomplish its stated goal and mandate under the Overflights Act. It is for this reason that the FAA has adopted rules to enhance flight free zones, modify the route structure, and limit the number of air tours in GCNP. 2. Natural Quiet A number of commenters address the question of whether the proposals would contribute to the substantial restoration of natural quiet in the GCNP. Grand Canyon Trust (Trust) (72) makes the following general observations: (1) Whatever regulatory scheme is ultimately implemented, that scheme must comply with the Overflights Act and that NPS, not the FAA, must determine whether and when natural quiet is substantially restored. (2) The FAA must implement rules that immediately restore natural quiet to the canyon. (3) The proposed rule must be substantially revised and strengthened because it will permit an immediate degradation of natural quiet. (4) Any revisions will have to include an immediate conversion to the quietest aircraft and a cap on the number of tour operators at well below the 1987 level. The Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter (76), states that the detectability level (D'L) for defining natural quiet should be less than 5, rather than 17, which is used by NPS. The higher criterion shows an unrealistic prevalence of natural quiet. Furthermore, the definition of "substantial restoration of natural quiet" is flawed. A more appropriate definition would require natural quiet all of the time in most of the park, and would require natural quiet most of the day in the rest of the park. Congress mandated action to restore natural quiet and to reduce negative impact from aircraft. The FAA and NPS policy of ignoring the effects of all aircraft except tour aircraft is inappropriate. HAI (63) states that banning some aircraft is not necessary to achieve "restoration of natural quiet" in GCNP, even when natural quiet is measured in the terms used by the NPS. HAI points out that the FAA's Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA), which accompanied the December 1996 NPRM, states that natural quiet at GCNP is within 1% of the NPS's goals without the imposition of any aircraft ban. HAI also believes that, in estimating aircraft operational and performance data, the FAA used inaccurate data and incorrect assumptions, thereby substantially overestimating the sound generated by the aircraft used in tour operations at GCNP. HAI further states that the FAA substantially underestimated the degree to which natural quiet has been restored under SFAR 50-2, and that, if the impact of aircraft overflight sound is measured in terms of visitor experience at GCNP, the data demonstrate that natural quiet has been restored to the Park. HAI believes that the FAA's aircraft sound prediction model substantially underestimates ground attenuation effects and that FAA estimates of ambient sound at GCNP are unrealistically low. Bell Helicopter Textron (91) states that the ambient noise projections assigned to different areas of the Park are unrealistically low. This has the resultant effect of greatly overstating how long the aircraft's sound is detectable. Equally as damaging as this unrealistic projection is the assumption that there is no lateral attenuation of aircraft sound in the Grand Canyon. Such false assumptions understate the substantial restoration of natural quiet that currently exists in the GCNP. Clark County (62) comments that the FAA has provided no adequate basis to demonstrate the reasonableness of the defined "natural quiet" goal. Further, the FAA's "time audible" metric does not reasonably measure natural quiet. Clark County also states that the models used to estimate aircraft audibility have not been adequately explained and may overstate the extent to which aircraft can be heard. FAA Response: Since the issuance of the 1996 NPRM, the NPS published a public notice of agency policy (64 FR 3969) titled Evaluation Methodology for Air Tour Operations Over Grand Canyon National Park. The policy refined the NPS’ noise evaluation (i.e., impact assessment) methodology for air tour operations over GCNP. Specifically, the refinements included a two-zone system for assessing impacts related to substantial restoration of natural quiet at GCNP. The ongoing noise model validation effort is also part of the FAA and NPS commitment to work cooperatively to meet the mandated goal of a substantial restoration of natural quiet in GCNP. The noise modeling used in all of the GCNP environmental documents to date, remains is the best science currently available. However, as noise modeling is a constantly evolving technology, both agencies are committed to making appropriate adjustments to the approaches and methodologies as new knowledge or science becomes available. With regard to the ambient noise database and the lateral attenuation calculation, the GCNP aircraft noise model validation project will address these facets. All existing evidence, including field measurements, support both the choice of an ambient noise level data file for the Park and the decision to suppress INM's lateral attenuation algorithm for GCNP noise modeling. 3. Native American Tribal Concerns The Hualapai Tribe (52) states that it supports the use of quiet technology and generally supports the NPRM with the following exceptions: (1) the FAA has failed to consult with the Hualapai Tribe on a government-to-government basis as required by federal law, (2) the multiple rulemakings published by the FAA on the GCNP make the comment process more cumbersome, more expensive and obscures the cumulative impact of the respective parts of the rulemakings, (3) there has been a double standard with respect to testing noise impact since no on-the-ground noise testing and modeling has been undertaken with respect to the Hualapai Reservation, in collaboration with the Tribe, (4) the FAA needs to look at alternatives to quiet technology such as location of air tour routes and caps, (5) there need to be "Tribal Flight Free Zones" to protect cultural resources and practices, natural resources, and tourism industry, as well as limitations on the number of NPS flights over the Hualapai Reservation, (6) the FAA should delegate to, or share with, the Hualapai Tribe oversight authority to make sure that the quiet technology rules are being complied with over the Reservation, and (7) there needs to be an exemption from quiet technology requirements for tribal administrative flights, analogous to the NPS exemption, to avoid burdening the Tribe's sovereign authority to run its own government and administer its lands. FAA Response: The FAA has been consulting with the Hualapai in accordance with the provisions of the President's April 24, 1994, memorandum on Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribes and Section 106 of the NHPA. The FAA has had numerous meetings with representatives of the tribe’s natural resources and cultural resources agencies since 1996. Additionally, the Hualapai have been part of the FAA and the NPS ongoing discussions with the other individual tribes. The Hualapai have also commented on several issues that have been addressed in previous rulemaking and were a cooperating agency on the February 2000 Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment. Concerning the flight-free zones over the Hualapai Reservation, although the Overflights Act does not expressly prohibit creation of flight free zones over the reservation, the Congress instructed the FAA to accept the recommendations of the NPS for substantially restoring natural quiet in the GCNP, unless safety was at issue. Moreover, with few exceptions, the general policy of the United States is that the skies should be generally open to aviation. Further, the routes over the Hualapai have developed under this general policy of open skies since the 1920s. The FAA began to document the de facto routes and established an SFAR in 1987. In light of the broad Federal policy favoring open skies, the FAA does not intend to create broad flight-free zones over the Hualapai reservation. Rather, the FAA can reduce effects of air tour operations through a number of other means, including but not limited to the introduction of quiet technology, the alignment and altitude of routes, and the number and time of operations. The FAA removed the National Canyon route from the routes notice consideration, in July 1998, in response to comments. In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the FAA issued a Determination of No Adverse Effect to the Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) for all of the tribes and/or nations, except the Hualapai Tribe, for the rulemaking actions associated with the SFRA in the vicinity of the GCNP. As to the Hualapai Tribe, the FAA along with the National Park ServiceNPS, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Hualapai THPO, and the Hualapai Department of Cultural Resources signed a Programmatic Agreement on January 24, 2000 related to Section 106 compliance and their TCPs. Concerning the flight-free zones over the Hualapai Reservation, with few exceptions, the general policy of the United States is that the skies should be generally open to aviation. The FAA removed the National Canyon route from the routes notice consideration, in July 1998, in response to comments. In response to the request for an exemption to conduct administrative flights, the FAA reiterates that this and other rulemakings and affect only flights satisfying the definition of a commercial air tour operation contained in 14 CFR §93.303. Moreover, this rule does not phase-out aircraft that do not meet the designation as quiet technology. The FAA encourages the Hualapai, and other government agencies that use public aircraft, to use quiet technology. 4. Classification of Aircraft by Noise Characteristics A number of commenters address the issues related to classification based on aircraft certification, as well as the 3 categories of aircraft classification. Lake Mead Air (26, 53) believes that the standard for quiet aircraft should not be linked to the Aircraft Noise Certification provisions prescribed in 14 CFR part 36, and listed in AC 36-1F, since it is possible for aircraft to be reconfigured and flown differently than AC 36-1F. The FAA should make sound measuring equipment available at Las Vegas and Grand Canyon for determining actual flyover sound levels in the tour "cruise configuration." If Category A aircraft can be retrofitted to Category B it should be encouraged since such a conversion would be more easily implemented than direct conversion to Category C. Clark County Department of Aviation and the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (Clark County) (62) states that the NPRM will unreasonably and arbitrarily burden air tour operators and the Las Vegas tourist economy. However if the FAA based its categorization of aircraft on noise performance, rather than on certification, and provided options for compliance flexibility, there would be significantly less burden on tour operators, airborne visitors, and the economy of the Las Vegas area. Clark County states that it conducted a study of actual ambient and aircraft noise in GCNP in an attempt to validate FAA's methodology and found that using certification data, as a basis does not accurately represent aircraft noise levels in the GCNP, because it does not account for actual atmospheric and operational conditions in the GCNP. As a result, the FAA has placed aircraft in the noisier A or B Categories that should belong in the B or C Categories. Clark County states that the NPRM provides no means for operators to comply with the performance standards through the use of retrofitted equipment, quiet operating procedures, or other enforceable steps to reduce noise. This is at odds with the Federal government's increasing attempt to use performance standards and provide compliance flexibility to reduce regulatory burden. An airline transport pilot (40) states that the noise propagation of a propeller driven airplane is largely dependent on the design and speed of its propeller. Design and speed are responsible for a greater share of the decibel level discernible in the hearing range than exhaust output, wing shape, loading of the airplane, cowl and airframe vibration, or accessory operation (e.g., flap extension, gear drag and parasitic friction). Since the design and speed factors affect all aircraft operating in the Grand Canyon a simple change, for example, operating a Cessna 207 at 2300 RPM instead of 2400 or 2500 RPM, can affect whether an aircraft should be placed in one category or another, if the categories are defined by noise values. Lake Mead Air (26, 53) states that the decibel range for quiet Category C helicopters starts at 80dB whereas the fixed wing threshold is 69dB. If 80 dB meets Category C standards for helicopters it should also meet Category C standards for fixed wing. Eagle (54) states that its F27 aircraft would not be covered under the NPRM. Size (48 passenger), noise tests, and decibel adjustments do not take the F27 into consideration. Professional Helicopter Pilots Association (85) states that the existence of aircraft capable of achieving the lower sound levels is still in the developmental stage such that only one manufacturer has any such helicopters available which have the performance capability for air tour operations. As a result the NPRM is premature and should not be implemented until technology improves. The Grand Canyon River Guides (GCRG) (50) state that helicopters, which are generally accepted to be the most obnoxious of aircraft and carry fewer people, should not fall into Category B, but should be put into Category A. Twin Otter (45) states that it is appropriate to take into account both the flyover sound level and aircraft passenger seating capacity in establishing which models qualify as Category C aircraft because a single Vistaliner replaces two flights with the nine passenger Cessna 402/Piper Chieftain, nearly three flights in the seven passenger Cessna 207 and four flights in the 4-5 passenger Bell Jetranger. Twin Otter adds that the Beechcraft C-99 and the Piper Chieftain could be retrofitted with four bladed props, as have the Vistaliners, thus converting them to Category C aircraft. Air Vegas (57) believes that its 15 Beechcraft C-99 aircraft should be deemed Category C since it utilizes the same basic power plant, the PT-6, as the Caravan and the Vistaliner, and has been modified for sightseeing operations to include extra windows. The average price for these aircraft, configured to meet Air Vegas specifications, is in excess of $1,300,000. These aircraft are adequately available and have proven to be cost effective. Furthermore, the FAA studies, which placed the Beechcraft C-99 into Category B, were based on max RPM level 2200 RPM. If the RPM is reduced to 1900 (a reduction of 14%), there is an equal reduction of 14% in the dB level of the propeller, thus 68.2 dB. Air Vegas operations specifications require pilots to maintain propeller RPM at 1900 and with this power setting a Beechcraft C-99 is well below the Category C cut off of 78 dB for a 15 passenger aircraft. Air Vegas believes there should be an incentive for decreasing the percent of time audible for the aircraft. Because of the higher speeds achievable by the Beechcraft C-99, as compared to the Vistaliner, the C-99s have an impact for less time. Scenic Airlines (74) states that the deHavilland DHC-6-300 Twin Otter with quiet propellers and the Cessna 208 (A & B models) must be classified as quiet aircraft technology (Category C). Furthermore, in developing Sound Exposure Level (SEL) dB limits, consideration must be given to the speed of an aircraft. Since disruption of natural quiet is measured in terms of "Time of exposure" the faster of two aircraft with the same dB output should be shown as the quieter. The Grand Canyon Trust (72) states that by defining the aircraft categories in terms of sound exposure level per passenger seat, the FAA obscures the fact that some Category C aircraft (e.g., the Vistaliner) are noisier than some Category A or B aircraft. The Trust further states that unless a cap is established on the number of operations Category C can fly, ultimately there will be no advantage to conversion to certain Category C aircraft. Therefore, the Trust's additional comments assume that such a cap will be implemented. Clark County (62) states that the FAA should set default noise levels and GCNP noise categories for the aircraft operating in GCNP using methodologies that accurately reflect conditions in GCNP and should validate the noise levels through field-testing. If this were done, some aircraft, such as the Beechcraft C-99 would actually meet Category C standards. Eagle (54), King (56), and Vision (61) state that the FAA's formulation of the aircraft categories in the NPRM is arbitrary and capricious for the following reasons: (1) The FAA fails to justify its placement of the dividing line between categories and has not consulted operators on this issue before establishing the categories. (2) Use of part 36 test results is not appropriate (see discussion under "Links to aircraft noise certification"). (3) The proposed 4 decibel distinction between Category A and Category C is inappropriate since it attempts to draw distinctions that cannot be discerned by most humans. (4) Distinctions between categories fail to account for the effect of speed on aircrafts' ”noiseprint.” (5) Tests that serve as a certification basis do not simulate actual operating conditions. (6) Categories discriminate against propeller driven airplanes. (7) Proposed Category C could be met by only two types of existing aircraft, one of which is unavailable while the other is prohibitively expensive. Bell Helicopter Textron (91) states that the FAA's noise analysis incorrectly assumed that there is no lateral attenuation of aircraft sound. The effect of this false assumption is great considering that if the sound exposure levels attributed to aircraft were even 5 dB less, then up to six additional aircraft would be in compliance with the proposed Category C noise efficiency criteria. FAA Response: While this SNPRM drops replaces the three noise efficiency categories proposed in the December 1996 NPRM, the currently proposed quiet technology designation is based upon the same rationale and criteria. The FAA criteria for “reasonably achievable” quiet technology requirements include what is technologically practicable, economically reasonable, appropriate to the aircraft type design, and, in the final analysis, environmentally beneficial. The FAA also set forth the followingthat as desired attributes for the quiet technology designation, the designation should: Is Be based on aircraft noise certification (14 CFR part 36) Judges fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft on a common basis Correlates with aircraft performance and operation at GCNP Offers basis for incentives Is Be manageable Levels Noise levels obtained from aircraft noise certification represent the highest quality of data available. The flight tests are conducted under controlled conditions with an FAA representative or designee in attendance to witness the test setup and test activities. Data obtained during these flight tests are corrected to standard reference conditions as prescribed in 14 CFR part 36. The certification tests are designed to acquire noise levels representing the noisiest flight configurations for small propeller-driven airplanes and helicopters. FAA believes that this is appropriate for the GCNP situation as the certification flight configurations are also the noisiest configurations that could be used over the park. Thus, the sightseeing aircraft can be judged equally, fairly, and without the concern that the noise levels are undervalued. The airport community has many years of experience using the certificated noise levels. FAA publishes these levels in Advisory Circular (AC) 36-1, "Noise Levels for U.S. Certificated and Foreign Aircraft." The current version of this AC is 36-1F1G, dated June 5, 1992August 27, 1997. These data have been used to establish use restrictions, curfews, and noise budgets at some airports in the country. The certificated noise levels are not only available in the advisory circulars, which are updated and published periodically, but the levels are readily available to the aircraft owners from the aircraft flight manuals (AFM). Thus tThe quiet technology designation based on certificated noise levels is proposed not only because of the long-standing precedent, but it also because it eliminates the need for someone to make such measurements in the field. Years of experience with using data obtained from airport noise monitoring systems have shown that noise levels obtained under uncontrolled conditions are highly variable. This problem can only be overcome by obtaining very large samples of measured data to reduce the statistically uncertainty. Thus, FAA believes that a quiet technology designation based on measured data taken at GCNP would be economically unreasonable and susceptible to statistical error. Unfortunately there is no single method applicable to all aircraft for determining the certificated noise level. Depending on date of application for type certificate and whether the aircraft is a helicopter or small propeller-driven airplane, the noise level could have been obtained from one of 4 different tests. With measurements taken for different flight operations, at 3 different altitudes, and in 3 different units of noise, it is not possible to directly compare certificated noise levels obtained for helicopters with those of small propeller-driven airplanes. As reported in the study, "Methodology to Categorize the Noise Efficiency of Air Tour Aircraft in GCNP," FAA developed a procedure for: (1) extrapolating from the controlled conditions of a certification test to the operating conditions at GCNP and (2) converting levels to a common noise unit, thus making it possible to judge fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft on a common basis under conditions that pertain to air tour operations over GCNP. As a result of the study, FAA found that it is possible to extrapolate from the certification conditions applicable to helicopters and small propeller-driven airplanes to produce a consistent set of noise levels under conditions similar to those at GCNP. FAA finds that the noise efficiency concept, which was proposed in the December 1996 NPRM and re-proposed in this SNPRM, albeit modified to designate quiet technology, exhibits all of the desired attributes for the quiet technology designation. The concept is technically sound as it takes into account aircraft design, flight configuration, acoustic characteristics, productivity, and economic reasonableness. As the concept is based upon the certificated noise levels, the FAA is able to judge the noise of the commercial sightseeing aircraft consistently, fairly, and without the additional cost and technical problems found in field monitoring. In concert with related actions with respect to the airspace and air tour operations, the quiet technology designation can be an effective means toward achieve the substantially restoration restoringof natural quiet at GCNP. 5. Phase-Out of Less Noise Efficient Aircraft A number of commenters addressed the proposal to phase-out noisier aircraft to further reduce noise impacts in GCNP. As described in the 1996 NPRM, the less noise efficient aircraft would have been gradually phased-out starting in the year 2000 with the phase-out of Category A aircraft and continuing through to the end of 2008 at which point all Category B aircraft would be phased-out and only Category C aircraft would remain. The phase-out would have limited future use of less noise efficient aircraft in GCNP and would also have provided an incentive for the use of the most noise efficient aircraft. Air Vegas (57) believes that from a business perspective there is no reason for an interim conversion from Category A to Category B aircraft. Air Vegas supports the alternative proposal that the upgrade to Category C should be the only choice for either new entrants or existing operators. Air Vegas supports the use of incentives to encourage operators to invest in the best available aircraft to reduce aircraft noise intrusion and the number of flights in GCNP. For the incentives to be of benefit they must be available to any operator who wishes to invest in the available technology. The only two aircraft identified as quiet are the Vistaliner and the Cessna Caravan. By exclusive leasing contract the Vistaliners are not available to any operators in the southwest area other than Scenic and Grand Canyon Airlines. The Cessna Caravan, a 9 seat aircraft, is not economically practicable since it costs in excess of $1,000,000 when other 9 passenger aircraft sell for less than $100,000. Lake Mead Air (26, 53) states that the availability of used single engine Category C aircraft is rare. The only other aircraft listed as fixed wing is the Raisback Conversion deHavilland Twin Otter, and the supply is limited and the fleet is aged. Lake Mead Air says that conversion from Category A to Category B is less burdensome than direct conversion to Category C. It is possible that simply changing propellers will convert Category A to Category B. Conversion of three Cessna 207 aircraft ($180,000 for 18-21 seats - i.e., $10,000/seat) to two Cessna 208 Caravans ($2.4 million for 18 seats - i.e., $133,000/seat), for a net reduction of 5 dB, is not sensible or cost effective. Lake Mead Air (26, 53) believes that there will be no noise-reduction effect of conversion to quiet aircraft. Lake Mead Air adds that for operators to pay the debt service on "quieter aircraft" they may be forced to make more flights per day. Lake Mead points out that the Cessna T207, which seats 8 passengers, generates the same decibels as the Vistaliner, which seats 19. The Vistaliner is deemed a noise efficient aircraft according to the NPRM based on the noise per seat accounting. However, to pay for the Vistaliners the operators must make up to 5 or 6 round trip flights per day. Papillon (55) states that conversion from Category A to Category B is less burdensome since at the present time there is limited availability of Category C aircraft. With regard to helicopters the cost is higher by approximately 20-30% for new Category C aircraft as compared with purchasing Category B aircraft. With used Category B helicopters available the cost to convert to a new Category C aircraft is approximately 125% higher compared to purchasing a used Category B. This commenter says that there are presently no used Category C aircraft available for the helicopter industry. Papillon states that in some cases it would be sound business practice to go directly from Category A to Category C to spread the acquisition costs over more years. The direct conversion from Category A to Category C would accelerate the transition to greater quiet, since the Category A aircraft have the loudest sound signature, however it would prove to be a significant economic hardship on some operators and an impossibility for others. Papillon states that, once operators do acquire Category C aircraft, no cap should apply, and they should be permitted to increase the number of Category C aircraft in their fleet until such time as further expansion would endanger aviation safety. However, quiet technology would not stop here since through further advancement in technology there is the prospect of Category D and beyond. Eagle (54), King (56), and Vision (61) state that the NPRM unnecessarily discourages the transfer of aircraft between operators or other business combinations among air tour operators. Eagle states that the existence of new part 119 may make it most efficient for an operator to split its operations between companies based on aircraft size (e.g., > 9 passengers). GAMA (64) objects to the proposal because it will force the near term phase-out of 75% or more of the airplanes currently operating in the vicinity of GCNP. GAMA cites a NASA statement that a quantum leap in technology is required to produce any measurable future noise reduction and states that FAA is aware that it will be years before the necessary research and development is completed and industry can begin to apply new noise reduction technologies that will make measurable improvement over today's technology. Scenic Airlines (74) agrees with the FAA recommendation that new entrant operators be required to use Category C aircraft. However, current operators of Category A aircraft should not be forced to convert directly to Category C aircraft. They should be allowed to convert from Category A to Category B to Category C. Furthermore, operators should only be permitted to convert from Category A to Category B aircraft if the aircraft can be used for a minimum of five years, otherwise the transition should be directly to Category C. GCRG (50) states that it would hasten the reduction of noise in the GCNP if operators were required to convert from Category A directly to Category C. New entrants should not be allowed to start operations even with Category C aircraft. They should be required to buy existing operations only. Furthermore, the GCRG state that the temporary cap on growth of the air tour industry should not be removed for Category C aircraft, as this would negate the intended gains made by the conversion to quieter aircraft. Category C aircraft are not quiet. Any changes in the cap should be stayed until the comprehensive noise management plan is completed. The Grand Canyon Trust (72) states that if the FAA decides to allow Category B replacements, the FAA must, at a minimum, "retain its proposal to phase-out an increment of 25 percent of Category B aircraft every two years from 2002 to 2008...." The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) (65) believes strongly that tour operators should be required to convert Category A aircraft directly to Category C aircraft, rather than allowing the interim substitution of Category B aircraft, because the FAA must do whatever is necessary and safe to restore natural quiet. However, NPCA believes that the conversion to Category C aircraft may constitute little or no progress toward reducing noise in the Grand Canyon because, contrary to the premise of the NPRM, some Category C aircraft, such as the Vistaliner, are in fact no more quiet than many Category A or B aircraft. NPCA states that the FAA obscures this point by defining the categories in terms of sound exposure per passenger seat. To the ground visitor whose visit is disrupted by overflight noise, the number of passengers a plane is carrying is irrelevant; it is the absolute amount of noise generated by each flight and the number of flights that matters. The Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter (76), recommends that the transition to quieter aircraft should be accomplished in five years. FAA Response: This SNPRM only proposes to define quiet aircraft technology designation. The quiet technology designation is predicated on the notion that the use of larger, relatively quieter aircraft (on a per seat basis) is helpful in reaching the goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet through a combination of reduction of noise at the source and reduction in number of tour operations necessary to meet demand. Under the provisions of Section 804 of the Air Tour Act, all incentives to replace current aircraft with those satisfying the definition must be recommended by the NPOAG. Thus, all proposals to encourage the transition to quiet technology will be addressed in subsequent FAA rulemaking in consultation with the NPS and the NPOAG. Upon promulgation of a quiet aircraft technology designation for GCNP, the FAA, in consultation with the NPS and the NPOAG, will address the implementation of quiet technology in the Park. A phaseout is one of the options that will be addressed. As described in the section “Environmental Review,” the FAA has done some preliminary calculations and found that almost 58% of the park area would achieve substantial restoration of natural quiet on an average annual day if all the air tour operations met the quiet technology designation. This compares to 44% substantial restoration level calculated in the final supplemental environmental assessment (SEA) accompanying the final rules issued on April 4, 2000 (65 FR 17708 and 65 FR 17736). The 58% estimate assumes that the current non-quiet technology in the Grand Canyon air tour fleet would be replaced one-for-one with quiet technology aircraft. Any judgment on this initial finding must be tempered with the knowledge that the ongoing model validation effort could reveal the need to re-calibrate the noise model if it is over representing the amount of substantial restoration achieved. The assumption of an airplane-for-airplane replacement, used in the above analysis, will need to be addressed in any implementation of the quiet technology designation. The quiet technology designation is predicated on the notion that the use of larger, relatively quieter aircraft (on a per seat basis) achieves the goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet through a combination of reduction of noise at the source and reduction in number of tour operations necessary to meet demand. Thus, any implementation of the quiet technology designation should include a mechanism to achieve the two-fold benefit described in the previous sentence. The assumption of the average annual day, also used in the above analysis, has been the subject of continuing debate and will require further consideration when it comes time to assess the rulemaking proposal. The NPS and some commenters to the earlier GCNP environmental assessments have expressed concerns that the average annual day is not the most appropriate measure to assess aircraft noise impact on the Park. With the highly seasonal use patterns in GCNP, some parties believe substantial restoration of natural quiet should be present any day of the year, thus peak day rather than average annual day is the more appropriate measure. 6. Removal of Temporary Cap A number of commenters addressed the proposal to remove the cap on air tour aircraft for all Category C aircraft. This change was proposed as an incentive for conversion to noise efficient aircraft. NPCA (65) believes that the cap on the number of tour aircraft should not be lifted and that operators should be allowed only a one-to-one replacement of Category A with Category C aircraft. Further, to be effective in restoring natural quiet, the cap must be imposed on tour flights, rather than on the number of tour aircraft; otherwise, operators will conduct more flights and extend the tour season, thereby destroying the natural quiet throughout the year. Finally, to restore natural quiet to the 1987 level, the number of operations should be reduced. By using Category C aircraft that carry more passengers, it would be possible to reduce the number of operations, while still increasing the number of passengers. The Havasupai Tribe (71) opposes the proposal to lift the cap on Category C aircraft. Lifting the cap would only permit more aircraft to fly over the Reservation. According to the Tribe, "the largest operators at the Grand Canyon have either converted to quiet technology or are in the process of converting" and thus lifting the cap in the future would not create an incentive since the conversion has already begun or taken place. The air tours over the GCNP have nearly doubled in the ten years ending in 1996 and without the temporary cap on all aircraft it will only continue to grow. Not only will the noise impact, but also the visual impact, on the reservation will be greater without the cap. The Tribe agrees with the statement in the DEA that "the visual impact of air traffic on the scenic vistas of GCNP and over cultural areas, including sacred sites and historic sites, in the GCNP and surrounding lands is of concern." Grand Canyon Trust (72) states that the cap on the number of aircraft should not be lifted. At most, operators should be allowed a one-to-one replacement of Category A with Category C aircraft. Since Category C aircraft are not necessarily quieter than the aircraft they are replacing (noise efficiency is a function of per seat and not per aircraft) operators should not be allowed a greater number of Category C aircraft than the number of "noisier aircraft" they are replacing. Furthermore, any caps must be applied to the number of flights and not the number of aircraft. The Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter (38, 75) opposes the proposal to lift the caps on Category C aircraft. The Sierra Club believes that at a minimum the cap on fleet size should remain in effect until the completion of the comprehensive noise management plan, however, it would be more appropriate to apply the cap to the number of flights, rather than the number of aircraft. Along with the proposed caps the Sierra Club supports the curfews and recommends that additional curfews be proposed to create flight-free season(s) or period(s). The Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter (76), recommends a permanent cap on the number of all air tour flights. There is no reason to allow one interest--the air tour industry--continued growth while all other activities have reasonable limits. Initially the number of operations should be capped at the 1996 level. By 2008 the number of operations should be reduced to the level of 1987, and by 2018 they should be reduced to the number of operations prevailing in 1975. Scenic Airlines (74) agrees with the proposal to remove the cap on Category C aircraft. The comprehensive noise management plan should address any future restrictions on number of aircraft. FAA Response: Since the 1996 NPRM, the FAA has issued a final rule that replaced the cap on the number of air tour aircraft with a capan operations limitation on the annual number of commercial air tour operations in the GCNP SFRA (65 FR 17708). As documented in the February 2000 Final SEA accompanying the commercial air tour limitation final rule, only 44% of the Park (on an annual average day) achieves substantial restoration of natural quiet upon implementation of the air tour limitations and changes to routes and airspace adopted in April 2000. The FAA has evaluated whether the designation of quiet technology requirements, contained in this SNPRM, will enable the FAA to relieve commercial air tour operators from the present commercial air tour operations limitations. More specifically, the FAA conducted studies to determine the extent to which use of quiet technology aircraft could possibly enable air tour operators to increase operations without increasing cumulative noise levels at Grand Canyon National ParkGCNP pursuant to section 804 of the Air Tour Act. The FAA test was conducted by assessing the sensitivity of the 25% TA12hr contour to increases in quiet technology aircraft operations using the GCINM. The 25% TA12hr contour has been the measure used in the environmental assessments associated with all GCNP SFRA rulemaking to assess progress towards the goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet. The particular GCNP air tour scenario chosen for this test was the preferred alternative of the February 2000 Ffinal SEA that accompanied the April 2000 final rules (65 FR 17708 and 65 FR 17736). Two separate runs of the GCINM were performed; fixed wing aircraft operations on Zuni Reverse and helicopter operations on the Green 1 loop. The analysis found that adding less than 4 annual fixed wing operations or 3 annual helicopter operations would increase the 25% TA12hr contour area by 0.01 sq. mi. FAA chose a hundredth of a square mile as the threshold of significance because contour areas in the GCNP EA documents have been reported to that significant digit. The above result supports the FAA’s preliminary finding that operators using aircraft that meet the quiet technology designation operating without operations limitation will likely cumulatively increase noise in the GCNP. not enable Given that a condition of relief from the operations limitation is that the cumulative impact of such operations does not increase noise at GCNP, the FAA would likely be unable to relieve these operators from the commercial air tour operations limitations. This analysis suggests that the operational cap can only be lifted through a mechanism in which an air tour operator replaces a current fleet not meeting the quiet technology designation with quiet technology aircraft by some replacement ratio that reduces aircraft noise exposure towards the goal. That is, the reduction in noise gained through the conversion to quiet technology aircraft might allow for a limited number of additional operations of the quiet technology aircraft should this reduction exceed the amount needed to reach the goal of substantial restoration of natural quiet. Such a mechanism must ensure fair and equitable treatment of current and future operators under the condition that the cumulative effect of any change in the operations must not increase noise in the Park. Thus, rRemoval of the operational operations limitation will be addressed in subsequent FAA rulemaking in consultation with the NPS and the NPOAG as directed by the Air Tour Act. 7. Other or Alternative Incentives A number of commenters responded to the FAA's request for comments regarding alternative or additional incentives for operators to convert to noise efficient technology. Lake Mead Air (26, 53) states that with the conversion to "quieter aircraft" several companies will not be able to meet the standard and will sell or close. Other incentives for quiet aircraft technology should be considered such as tax credits or subsidies, for example the FAA could pay the air tour operators not to fly Category A aircraft, similar to soil banks. Furthermore, more noise efficient aircraft should be phased phased-in rather than phasing phasing-out the less noise efficient aircraft. Twin Otter (45) states that it is an oversight that the FAA has not provided for a quiet aircraft corridor in the eastern section of the canyon. Twin Otter then comments on routes proposed in 1996 that are no longer part of this rulemaking. Twin Otter recommends the following additional incentives for Category C aircraft: (1) lift the aircraft cap immediately on the number of Category C aircraft that may be operated, (2) eliminate the curfew for Category C aircraft, and if this is not possible, then permit Category C aircraft to operate one hour before and one hour later than curfew hours for conventional aircraft (official sunrise at GCNP is two hours earlier than the curfew permits for most of the summer), (3) roll back the overflights fee for Category C aircraft as an additional incentive, and (4) require helicopters to fly at the highest possible altitude in the Zuni Corridor so that fixed wing aircraft can conduct tours at a lower altitude and establish the lowest fixed wing tours in the Zuni for Category C qualifying aircraft. Grand Canyon Airlines (GCA) (46) supports the concept of the proposed amendment to part 93. GCA also believes that the FAA needs to provide quiet aircraft incentive routes in the eastern region. Category B helicopters are permitted to operate at the lowest possible altitude in the eastern region and they are even encouraged to fly in the most sensitive Dragon Corridor with the lowest altitudes and shortest direct routes. This makes the fixed wing Category C air tours less attractive than the noisier Category B helicopters in this region. To correct this disparity the Category C aircraft should be given the lowest possible routes in the eastern region. GCA makes the following recommendations: (1) provide a Category C incentive route over the existing Black 1 route, (2) minimize advantages to Category B helicopter routes by creating new Category C routes that provide superior tour features, (3) waive overflight fees to Category C aircraft, and (4) eliminate caps and curfews on Category C aircraft. Papillon (55) also supports the time frame for transition to quiet technology and the guidelines for qualifying aircraft as quiet technology, but recommends 35 dB as the threshold of substantial natural quiet for the GCNP. Further incentives for quiet technology should be implemented for Category C aircraft only: (1) eliminate the GCNP overflight fee, (2) create route across the North Rim (through the Bright Angel Flight-free Zone), (3) permit Category C aircraft to use alternate routes that may enter flight-free zones to show specific landmarks, (4) establish new curfews of one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset, and (5) restore the two-way helicopter loop in the Zuni Corridor. An individual commenter (68) states that more incentives need to be utilized to help air tour operators convert to quiet technology. This commenter suggests the following incentives: (1) waiving overflight fees and park admission fees for passengers, (2) offering and approving low-cost government loans and tax credits, and (3) establishing new quality view corridors through which only Category C aircraft could fly at lower altitudes. Scenic Airlines (74) states that while 75% of the passengers it flew in 1996 were flown in Category C aircraft about one half of its air tour fleet are Category A aircraft. While Scenic would like to convert these Category A to Category C it must be provided with incentives, in the form of privileges that operators and passengers can value, before it would voluntarily do so. Operators have only invested in Category C aircraft in the past based on the promise by the NPS that they will be rewarded in the future. If no such rewards materialize there will be a disincentive to convert to Category Cs in the future. Scenic states that the following Category C incentives should be provided: (1) a route through the northern portion of the expanded Bright Angel Flight-free Zone using the existing Black 1A and Green 1A (SFAR 50-2), (2) a route along the current Brown 3 (SFAR 50-2) departure which goes through the north-west corner of the Toroweap Flight-free Zone, (3) waiver of curfews in Dragon and Zuni corridors to extend the hours of operation to Daylight hours, (4) waiver of overflight fees, (5) investment tax credits, and (6) low cost government loans. AirStar Helicopters, Inc. (84) states that the following incentives for transition to noise efficient aircraft should be considered: low cost loans, overflight fee rebates or investment tax credits. AirStar also states that it has already begun the transition to quiet technology. The Grand Canyon Trust (72) proposes the use of Dragon and Zuni Corridors as quiet aircraft incentives routes for Category C aircraft only. FAA Response: This SNPRM only proposes to define quiet aircraft technology designation. Under the provisions of Section 804 of the Air Tour Act, all incentives to replace current aircraft with those satisfying the definition must be recommended by the NPOAG. Thus, all proposals to encourage the transition to quiet technology will be addressed in subsequent FAA rulemaking in consultation with the NPS and the NPOAG. Under the conditions established in Section 804, the NPOAG will provide advice and recommendations on, among other things, the establishments of routes and corridors for the operation of quiet technology aircraft for tours originating in Clark County, Nevada and for “local loop” tours originating at the GCNP Airport in Tusayan, Arizona. 8. Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) Some commenters addressed their concerns regarding the draft environmental assessment that accompanied the December 1996 NPRM. For example, several commenters raise concern over compliance with NEPA and the NHPA. The Hualapai Tribe (35) states that the DOT must assess socio-cultural impacts of the regulation under NEPA and potential impacts to integrity of cultural resources under NHPA. Region IX of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (70) encourages the FAA and NPS to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that environmental concerns expressed by the Native American tribes potentially affected by the proposed action are fully reflected in the Final Environmental Assessment (FEA). The EPA also criticizes the FAA for considering only two alternatives in the DEA -- no action and the proposed action. The EPA believes that, in terms of substantially restoring natural quiet of GCNP, an earlier phase-out date for Category A and B aircraft would be a more environmentally preferable alternative that the FAA should consider in the FEA. The Havasupai Tribe (71) states that the conclusions of the DEA are either disingenuously misleading or false. While the Reservation is within the SFRA, the Reservation is deleted from the analysis area depicted in the DEA. Therefore the conclusion about "substantial improvement" and "continued improvement" in natural quiet do not apply to the Reservation or to the entire SFRA. The Havasupai Tribe states that the DEA is inadequate and grossly deficient under NEPA and should be rewritten and distributed again for public comment. Furthermore, with respect to the proposal to lift the temporary cap on Category C aircraft the DEA does not discuss whether more noise would be created by one overflight of a Category A aircraft, as compared with 3, 5, or 10 overflights of Category C aircraft. According to the Tribe, an impact statement must "set forth sufficient information for the general public to make an informed evaluation, . . . and for the decision-maker to 'consider fully the environmental factors involved and to make a reasoned decision after balancing the risks of harm to the environment against the benefits to be derived from the proposed action.'" Clark County (62) comments that the DEA narrowly construes the purpose and need of this rulemaking to include only the reduction of aircraft noise and improperly ignores the important Congressional goals of ensuring the value of air tours and the safety of aircraft in GCNP. Also, despite correctly identifying its duty to rigorously review alternatives, the FAA failed to comply by limiting its review to only two alternatives. The FAA should also have considered alterations in the flight-free zones or tour routes, the use of retrofit equipment to meet the quiet aircraft standards, the use of limitations on aircraft operating parameters to reduce noise, the use of lower altitudes, or other steps to minimize non-natural noise in GCNP. The American Helicopter Society (AHS) Acoustics Technical Committee (48) comments that current FAA modeling has demonstrated that the No Action Alternative has effectively achieved the goal of restoration of the natural quiet because the results show a deficiency of less than 1 percent, a statistically insignificant amount. Further, the goal would be reached by the year 2000 with the elimination of all Category A aircraft alone, so phase-outs of Category B aircraft are not needed. AHS suggests alternatives that the FAA should consider, such as careful scheduling of air tour flights to achieve overlapping audibility or allowing helicopters to fly below the rim and take advantage of the acoustic shielding provided by canyon features. The Grand Canyon Air Tour Council (Council) (77) states that it is difficult to comment on the DEA for the following reasons: (1) The FAA has not yet determined whether a finding of no significant impact will be issued or an environmental impact statement will be required. (2) The comprehensive noise management plan is yet to be developed. (3) Meanings of "natural quiet" and "substantial restoration of the natural quiet" have not been resolved. (4) Full consultation with tribal governments cannot have occurred since at least one tribe has initiated legal proceedings. FAA Response: In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, the FAA has determined that this proposed rulemaking is categorically excluded from environmental review under section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The proposed rule is categorically excluded under FAA Order 1050.1D, Appendix 4, Paragraph 4.j, which covers regulations “excluding those which if implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment.” Unlike the DEA completed with the 1996 NPRM, this proposed rulemaking simply establishes quiet technology designations for air tour aircraft operating in GCNP. It does not impose a phaseout or any alteration of any air tour operator’s fleet of aircraft. In addition, the proposed rulemaking does not lift the operations limitation, alter any flight corridors through the Park, or make any change to the SFRA. Finally, the FAA notes that this proposed rulemaking alone has no impact on substantial restoration of natural quiet at GCNP and environmental and economic impacts will depend upon other future incentives yet to be defined. Accordingly, this proposed rulemaking will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. The FAA has determined that the action proposed in this SNPRM does not require environmental assessment. The FAA has determined that this proposal does not instigate any adverse environmental effects, which would require the preparation an environmental assessment (EA) for this rulemaking effort to assure conformance with NEPA. As directed by the Air Tour Act, this proposal does not “relieve or diminish-- (1) the statutory mandate imposed upon the Secretary of the Interior and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration under Public Law 100-91 (16 U.S.C. 1a-1 note) to achieve the substantial restoration of the natural quiet and experience at the Grand Canyon National Park.” The reasoning behind the FAA determination include: The proposal simply establishes quiet technology designations for air tour aircraft operating in the Park. It does not impose a phaseout or any alteration of any air tour operator’s fleet of aircraft. The proposal does not lift the operational cap, alter any flight corridors through the Park, or make any change to the SFRA. ECONOMIC SUMMARY Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. And fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more, in any one year (adjusted for inflation.) However, for regulations with an expected minimal impact the above-specified analyses are not required. The Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If it is determined that the expected impact is so minimal that the proposal does not warrant a full Evaluation, a statement to that effect and the basis for it is included in proposed regulation. Since this SNPRM serves only to refine the quiet technology definition applied to air tour aircraft operating in GCNP developed in the 1996 NPRM and removes all compliance requirements proposed in that NPRM, the expected outcome is to have a minimal impact. The SNPRM retains the “noise efficiency” concept defined by the relationship between the certificated noise level of an aircraft and the number of passenger seats on the typical configuration of that aircraft type as initially proposed in the 1996 NPRM. However, the three principal rulemaking elements of 61 FR 69334 have been eliminated. The SNPRM drops replaces the three noise efficiency categories that were proposed in the December 1996 NPRM and proposes to temporarily continue to rely on the designation of quiet technology aircraft, those that were formerly described as Category C. Furthermore, the SNPRM does not propose any phase-out of air tour aircraft that do not comply with the Category C quiet technology designation. Nor does it include any incentive flight corridors through the park as proposed in December 1996. Finally, as noted above, the SNPRM does not lift the cap operations limitation on commercial air tour operations conducted in the Park that has replaced the 1996 aircraft cap for those aircraft meeting the Category C noise efficiency standard. Therefore, this SNPRM is essentially a definition of quiet technology and has negligible economic impact on the operators of GCNP air tours. The FAA seeks public comment before moving to future FAA rulemaking in consultation with the NPS. Future rulemaking would be coordinated with an advisory group composed of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American interests. Regulatory Flexibility determination The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations and small governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the determination is that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear. This action merely defines quiet technology but does not impose any requirements. Therefore, the FAA does not expect this rule to impose any cost on small entities. Consequently, the FAA certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small air tour operators. International Trade Impact Analysis The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. In accordance with the above statute, the FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule to be minimal and therefore has determined that this rule will not result in an impact on international trade by companies doing business in or with the United States. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act), enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” This final rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply. Federalism Implications The regulations herein would not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 12866, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Paperwork Reduction Act In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), there are no requirements for information collection associated with the SNPRM. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93 14 CFR Part 93 Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (Air), Reporting and record keeping requirements. Adoption ofThe Amendments AccordinglyFor reasons set forth above, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 93, in chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES AND AIRPORT TRAFFIC PATTERNS 1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 46301. 2. Section 93.303 is revised to add the definition to read as follows: § 93.303 Definitions. * * * (d) Quiet technology aircraft means an aircraft that is subject to §93.301 and has been shown to comply with the noise limit specified in appendix A of this part. * * * 3. Appendix A is added to read as follows: Appendix A - GCNP Aircraft Quiet Technology Designation This appendix contains procedures for determining the quiet technology status for each aircraft subject to §93.301 determined during the noise certification process as prescribed under part 36 of this chapter. Where no certificated noise level is available, the Administrator may approve an alternative measurement procedure. 1. Aircraft Noise Limit for Quiet Technology A. For helicopters with a flyover noise level obtained in accordance with the measurement procedures prescribed in Appendix H of 14 CFR part 36, the limit is 80 dB for helicopters having 2 or fewer passenger seats, increasing at 3 decibels per doubling of the number of passenger seats for helicopters having 3 or more passenger seats. The limit at number of passenger seats of 3 or more can be calculated by the formula: EPNL(H) = 80 +10log(# PAX seats/2) dB B. For helicopters with a flyover noise level obtained in accordance with the measurement procedures prescribed in Appendix J of 14 CFR part 36, the limit is 77 dB for helicopters having 2 or fewer passenger seats, increasing at 3 decibels per doubling of the number of passenger seats for helicopters having 3 or more passenger seats. The limit at number of passenger seats of 3 or more can be calculated by the formula: SEL(J) = 77 +10log(# PAX seats/2) dB C. For propeller-driven airplanes with a measured flyover noise level obtained in accordance with the measurement procedures prescribed in Appendix F of 14 CFR part 36 without the performance correction defined in Sec. F35.201(c), the limit is 69 dB for airplanes having 2 or fewer passenger seats, increasing at 3 decibels per doubling of the number of passenger seats for airplanes having 3 or more passenger seats. The limit at number of passenger seats of 3 or more can be calculated by the formula: LAmax(F) = 69 +10log(# PAX seats/2) dB D. In the event that a flyover noise level is not available in accordance with Appendix F of 14 CFR part 36, the noise limit for propeller-driven airplanes with a takeoff noise level obtained in accordance with the measurement procedures prescribed in Appendix G is 74 dB for airplanes having 2 or fewer passenger seats, increasing at 3 decibels per doubling of the number of passenger seats for airplanes having 3 or more passenger seats. The limit at number of passenger seats of 3 or more can be calculated by the formula: LAmax(G) = 74 +10log(# PAX seats/2) dB Issued in Washington, DC on The provisions of SFAR No. 50-2 have been extended numerous times (62 FR 8862; 62 FR 66248; 63 FR 67544; 64 FR 5152; 65 FR 5395) with the last extension in January 2001 (66 FR 1002). The effective date for 14 CFR Sections 93.301, 93.305, and 93.307 was delayed by subsequent amendments (62 FR 66248; 63 FR 67544; 64 FR 5152; 65 FR 5395; 65 FR 69846; 66 FR 1002) until finally becoming effective on April 19, 2001. The effective date for the airspace modification rule was delayed by subsequent amendments (65 FR 69846; 66 FR 1002; 66 FR 16582) until finally becoming effective on April 19, 2001. The candidate models being validated are: The FAA’s Integrated Noise Model, which has been modified to address air tour aircraft noise exposure in GCNP and is referred to as the GCNP Integrated Noise Model (GCINM). The NPS’s National Park Service Overflight Decision Support System (NODSS) designed and programmed specifically for park applications to consider audibility, significant changes in terrain elevation, and shielding due to terrain. NOISEMAP Simulation Model (NMSIM) developed by the US Air Force and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to simulate aircraft single event noise levels. The time above (TA) metric provides the duration that aircraft related noise exceed specified sound threshold. For assessment of aircraft noise in GCNP, the %TA12h represents the percentage of time aircraft are audible during the 12-hour daytime period of primary visitor activity. The 25 %TA12h contour (the area where aircraft are audible greater 25% of the time) measures the extent that the criterion for substantial restoration of natural quiet is met. When the 25 %TA12h contour for a particular alternative occupies less than half of the area of GCNP then that alternative has achieved substantial restoration of natural quiet at the Park. Sierra Club v. Army Corps of Engineers, 701 F.2d 1011, 1029 (2d Cir. 1983). This is a working DRAFT only. It is not a final proposal, and may or may not become a final proposal. DRAFT 7 revised: SAVEDATE \* MERGEFORMAT 09/28/2001 7:15 AM09/26/2001 8:14 AM PAGE 1

faa

2024-06-07T20:31:36.549693

regulations

FDA-1998-D-0037-0003

Notice

Content and Format for Geriatric Labeling

fda

2024-06-07T20:31:36.938274

regulations

FDA-1999-D-1301-0001

Notice

Information Request and Discipline Review Letters Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act

fda

2024-06-07T20:31:36.940591

regulations

FDA-2000-N-0044-0004

Notice

Requirements on Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drugs and Biologics; Requirements for Prescription Drug Porduct Lables - Notice of Extension of Comments

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export"> <META name="creation-date" content="22/07/2008 11:51:34 "> <TITLE></TITLE> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript1.2"> var agt=navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase();if ( (parseInt(navigator.appVersion)>=4) &&(agt.indexOf('mozilla')!=-1) && (agt.indexOf('spoofer')==-1)&& (agt.indexOf('compatible') == -1) ){msie = false;} else if ( (parseInt(navigator.appVersion)>=4) &&(agt.indexOf('msie') != -1) ) {msie = true; } page=0;</SCRIPT> </HEAD> <BODY bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000" topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 marginheight=0 marginwidth=0 > <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:-0.45pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p0.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:24.05pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p1.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:48.50pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p2.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:73.00pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p3.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:97.50pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p4.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:121.95pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p5.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:146.45pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p6.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:170.90pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p7.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:195.40pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p8.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:219.90pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p9.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:244.35pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p10.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:268.85pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p11.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:293.30pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p12.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:317.80pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p13.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:342.30pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p14.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:366.75pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p15.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:391.25pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p16.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:415.70pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p17.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:440.20pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p18.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:464.70pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p19.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:489.15pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p20.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:513.65pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p21.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:538.10pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p22.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:562.60pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p23.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:587.10pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p24.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:611.55pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p25.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:636.05pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p26.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:660.50pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p27.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:685.00pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p28.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:709.50pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p29.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:733.95pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p30.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:758.45pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=102 style="width:612pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p31.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:782.90pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2550 HEIGHT=36 style="width:612pt;height:8pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p32.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:21.10pt;top:22.45pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:41.05pt;top:22.45pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:53.50pt;top:22.45pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:13.70pt;top:35.65pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:437.75pt;top:42.60pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.55pt;top:79.10pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:53.05pt;top:119.70pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:306.70pt;top:116.35pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:307.45pt;top:117.30pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.30pt;top:145.85pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:450.50pt;top:144.40pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.80pt;top:184.25pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:100.10pt;top:184.25pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:53.05pt;top:213.80pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:53.05pt;top:252.40pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:53.05pt;top:278.30pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.55pt;top:304.50pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.55pt;top:336.35pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.30pt;top:367.05pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.30pt;top:422.25pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.10pt;top:448.40pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:51.85pt;top:474.35pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:51.85pt;top:500.25pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:51.85pt;top:526.40pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.10pt;top:552.60pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.10pt;top:578.50pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.55pt;top:604.90pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:53.05pt;top:635.85pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.80pt;top:666.10pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:52.80pt;top:692.00pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:53.05pt;top:717.70pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:417.35pt;top:717.70pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:54.50pt;top:752.70pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="position:absolute;left:71.76pt;top:793.00pt"> </SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:792.95pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p33.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:817.20pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p34.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:841.45pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p35.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:865.70pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p36.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:889.90pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p37.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:914.15pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p38.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:938.40pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p39.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:962.65pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p40.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:986.90pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p41.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1011.10pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p42.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1035.35pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p43.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1059.60pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p44.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1083.85pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p45.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1108.10pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p46.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1132.30pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p47.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1156.55pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p48.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1180.80pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p49.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1205.05pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p50.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1229.30pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p51.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1253.50pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p52.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1277.75pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p53.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1302.00pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p54.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1326.25pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p55.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1350.50pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p56.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1374.70pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p57.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1398.95pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p58.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1423.20pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p59.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1447.45pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p60.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1471.70pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p61.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1495.90pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p62.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1520.15pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p63.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1544.40pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=101 style="width:616pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p64.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1568.65pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2568 HEIGHT=88 style="width:616pt;height:21pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p65.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:58.30pt;top:872.00pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:58.10pt;top:898.40pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:565.45pt;top:896.45pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:58.55pt;top:924.05pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:58.10pt;top:954.55pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:58.10pt;top:990.30pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:69.85pt;top:990.30pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:83.50pt;top:1018.40pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:57.35pt;top:1044.05pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:57.85pt;top:1069.50pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:57.10pt;top:1094.95pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:57.10pt;top:1120.60pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:356.90pt;top:1119.65pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:56.65pt;top:1146.30pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:69.85pt;top:1146.30pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:56.90pt;top:1172.00pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:56.40pt;top:1197.40pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:56.15pt;top:1223.10pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:55.70pt;top:1248.55pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:55.90pt;top:1274.20pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:55.45pt;top:1299.90pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:55.45pt;top:1325.60pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:55.45pt;top:1351.25pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:55.45pt;top:1376.70pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:55.45pt;top:1402.40pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:55.20pt;top:1428.30pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:55.20pt;top:1454.00pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:80.90pt;top:1479.65pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:55.70pt;top:1505.35pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:55.45pt;top:1530.30pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="position:absolute;left:71.76pt;top:1590.00pt"> </SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1589.80pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p66.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1614.05pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p67.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1638.30pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p68.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1662.50pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p69.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1686.75pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p70.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1711.00pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p71.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1735.25pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p72.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1759.50pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p73.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1783.70pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p74.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1807.95pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p75.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1832.20pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p76.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1856.45pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p77.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1880.70pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p78.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1904.90pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p79.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1929.15pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p80.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1953.40pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p81.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:1977.65pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p82.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2001.90pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p83.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2026.10pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p84.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2050.35pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p85.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2074.60pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p86.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2098.85pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p87.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2123.10pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p88.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2147.30pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p89.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2171.55pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p90.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2195.80pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p91.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2220.05pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p92.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2244.30pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p93.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2268.50pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p94.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2292.75pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p95.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2317.00pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p96.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2341.25pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p97.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2365.50pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=96 style="width:620pt;height:23pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p98.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:21.60pt;top:1646.50pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:319.45pt;top:1646.50pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:61.20pt;top:1673.60pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:356.65pt;top:1671.00pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:61.70pt;top:1699.80pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:61.20pt;top:1725.95pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:61.20pt;top:1752.35pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:61.45pt;top:1778.00pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:86.65pt;top:1807.05pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:60.95pt;top:1833.45pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:60.50pt;top:1859.40pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:60.70pt;top:1885.55pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:60.50pt;top:1911.70pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:60.25pt;top:1937.60pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:59.75pt;top:1975.55pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:85.45pt;top:2006.25pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:59.50pt;top:2032.40pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:59.75pt;top:2058.35pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:59.50pt;top:2084.25pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:59.05pt;top:2110.40pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:59.05pt;top:2136.35pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:84.50pt;top:2165.40pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:547.20pt;top:2164.90pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:59.05pt;top:2191.55pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:59.05pt;top:2217.95pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="position:absolute;left:71.76pt;top:2389.00pt"> </SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2389.40pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p99.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2413.65pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p100.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2437.90pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p101.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2462.10pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p102.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2486.35pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p103.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2510.60pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p104.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2534.85pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p105.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2559.10pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p106.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2583.30pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p107.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2607.55pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p108.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2631.80pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p109.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2656.05pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p110.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2680.30pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p111.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2704.50pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p112.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2728.75pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p113.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2753.00pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p114.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2777.25pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p115.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2801.50pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p116.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2825.70pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p117.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2849.95pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p118.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2874.20pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p119.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2898.45pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p120.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2922.70pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p121.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2946.90pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p122.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2971.15pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p123.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:2995.40pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p124.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:3019.65pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p125.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:3043.90pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p126.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:3068.10pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p127.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:3092.35pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p128.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:3116.60pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p129.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:3140.85pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=101 style="width:620pt;height:24pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p130.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;position:absolute;left:0.00pt;top:3165.10pt;z-index:2;"><IMG WIDTH=2584 HEIGHT=96 style="width:620pt;height:23pt;" SRC="outputfile-1900126806.htm_files\outputfile-1900126806_p131.png"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:520.30pt;top:2433.65pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:74.15pt;top:2553.65pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:73.90pt;top:2565.65pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:115.45pt;top:2565.65pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:175.20pt;top:2565.65pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:252.50pt;top:2565.65pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:276.00pt;top:2565.65pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:59.30pt;top:2601.25pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:12.25pt;top:2628.85pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:61.45pt;top:2631.35pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="color:#000000;position:absolute;left:105.35pt;top:2631.35pt;z-index:3;"></SPAN> <SPAN STYLE="position:absolute;left:71.76pt;top:3197.00pt"> </SPAN> </BODY> </HTML>

fda

2024-06-07T20:31:36.972568

regulations

FDA-2001-N-0202-0002

Notice

Workshop on Preclinical Testing for Endovascular Grafts

[Federal Register: July 2, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 127)] [Notices] [Page 34945] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02jy01-87] [[Page 34945]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration Workshop on Preclinical Testing for Endovascular Grafts AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice of meeting. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This notice announces the forthcoming workshop on preclinical testing for endovascular grafts, sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will be open to the public. Date and Time: The meeting will be held on July 31, 2001, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., and August 1, 2001, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Location: Gaithersburg Holiday Inn, Walker-Whetstone Room, Two Montgomery Village Ave., Gaithersburg, MD. Contact: The workshop organizers are Megan Moynahan, 301-443-8517, ext. 171, mbm@cdrh.fda.gov, and Dorothy Abel, 301-443-8262, ext. 165, dba@cdrh.fda.gov, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-450), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850. Agenda: The workshop will concern endovascular grafts used in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. The goal of the workshop is to find ways to improve how these grafts are tested. Participants of the workshop will first be asked to describe the environment to which these grafts are exposed. Then they will identify the failure modes of the grafts and examine how the devices have been tested to date. Finally, the participants will be asked to suggest ways to modify the testing of these devices by taking into consideration the graft environment. Workshop participation is by invitation only and is therefore limited. However, the public may observe as audience members. Background information for the workshop will be available to the public on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/meetings/ 073101workshop.html. Procedure: Members of the public who are interested in attending as audience members should contact the workshop organizers by July 13, 2001. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact either one of the contact persons listed above at least 7 days in advance. Dated: June 25, 2001. Margaret M. Dotzel, Associate Commissioner for Policy. [FR Doc. 01-16471 Filed 6-29-01; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S

fda

2024-06-07T20:31:36.995705

regulations

OSHA-S775A-2006-0731-0035

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:BARFIELD GENE, ASSE; BARFIELD GENE, ASSE; BARFIELD GENE, ASSE; BARFIELD GENE, ASSE

osha

2024-06-07T20:31:37.532753

regulations

USCG-1998-3798-0009

Supporting & Related Material

Comment Info: ================= General Comment:

uscg

2024-06-07T20:31:37.713415

regulations

DOT-OST-1995-165-0004

Notice

Notice of Action Taken Dismissing Applications of Various Dockets

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 25, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN DISMISSING APPLICATIONS—VARIOUS DOCKETS ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the actions described below, taken on the date shown above by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in these matters). The carriers listed below have applied for various forms of authority or relief under Title 49 of the United States Code in order to perform the air transportation activities described. Each application has either been withdrawn by the applicant or otherwise become moot. Therefore, under authority assigned by the Department in its Regulations, 14 CFR § 385.3 and 385.13, we find that these applications should be dismissed. Docket Description of Application OST-2002-11374 Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., filed January 23, 2002. Exemption to conduct scheduled combination service between Mexico City, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. By letter dated February 19, 2002, Aeromexico stated that it does not intend to pursue this application and that the application may be dismissed. OST-98-4401 Itapemirim Transportes Aereos, S.A., filed August 31, 1998. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in Brazil, on the one hand, and the coterminal points Los Angeles/New York/Miami and Atlanta, via intermediate points; and authority to conduct all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Itapemirim has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-98-3739 Société Air France, filed February 8, 2002. Renew exemption, last granted by Notice of Action Taken, dated May 24, 2000, to allow Air France to continue to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in France and any point or points in the United States, either directly or via intermediate points. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-96-1862 Air Atlantic Dominicana, C. por A., filed October 11, 1996. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and the coterminal points Miami, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Atlantic Dominicana has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-96-1516 Aerocomercial de Transporte Y Rutas, S.A., filed July 8, 1996, as supplemented. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Ecuador and the United States, and other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerocomercial has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-758 Haiti National Airlines, filed October 7, 1999. Renew exemption, last granted October 28, 1998, in Order 98-10-30, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami, Fort Lauderdale, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Haiti National has no plans to prosecute this application.  OST-95-428 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Exemption to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-427 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-165 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-97-2194 Atlant-Soyuz Airlines, filed May 15, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between the Russian Federation and the United States; and to conduct other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Atlant-Soyuz has no plans to prosecute this application. 50127 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. 49965 Haytian Aviation Lines, S.A. d/b/a Halisa Air, filed December 13, 1994. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Information available to the Department indicates that Halisa Air has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-595 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Exemption to allow Air France to continue operating under all existing exemption authorities and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-95-594 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Renew and amend foreign air carrier permit to permit Air France to continue operating under all existing permits and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. 48630 Japan Universal System Transport Co., Ltd., filed January 29, 1993. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Japan Universal System has no plans to prosecute this application. 47556 World Air Network Co., Ltd., filed May 28, 1991. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that World Air Network has no plans to prosecute this application. 46016 Société Air France, filed October 10, 1991. Renew exemption, last granted October 31, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to commingle all-cargo traffic in foreign air transportation between specified points in the United States and France, with all-cargo traffic not in foreign air transportation between specified points in Canada and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 45652 Société Air France, filed August 4, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted August 7, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and San Juan, via intermediate or beyond points Martinique and Guadeloupe. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 44313 Société Air France, filed August 25, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted October 9, 1991, and confirmed by Order 93-3-3, to among other things, (a) serve Los Angeles on all-cargo operations as a coterminal point on the route specified in paragraph 2 of its effective foreign air carrier permit (Order 76-2-25); (2) serve Montreal as an intermediate point and San Francisco as a coterminal point on its authorized France-Los Angeles route; and (3) provide scheduled service between Tahiti and Los Angeles. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 46845 Air Liberté S.A., filed March 15, 1990. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Liberté has no plans to prosecute this application. DISPOSITION Action: We dismiss the applications described above. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. The actions set forth in this Notice shall be effective and become the actions of the Department of Transportation upon expiration of the above period unless within such period a petition for Department review is filed or the Department gives notice that it will review one or more actions on its own motion. The filing of a petition for review with respect to one of the dismissed items will not alter the effectiveness of this Notice with respect to the others. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.031798

regulations

DOT-OST-1995-219-0020

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Aeromexpress, S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 26, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1995-219 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: AEROMEXPRESS, S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: August 5, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct scheduled, all-cargo service between Mexico City, Mexico, and Atlanta, Georgia. If renewal, date and citation of last action: August 8, 2001, in this Docket. Applicant representative(s): William C. Evans, 202-371-6030 Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved. Action date: August 26, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: August 26, 2002, through August 26, 2003. Basis for approval: United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Remarks: Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.047012

regulations

DOT-OST-1995-243-0012

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Aeromexpress, S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 6, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1995-243 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: AEROMEXPRESS, S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: August 21, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct all-cargo charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other all-cargo charters in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212. If renewal, date and citation of last action: August 28, 2001, in this Docket. Applicant representative(s): William C. Evans, 202-371-6030 Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved. Action date: September 6, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: September 6, 2002, through September 6, 2003. Basis for approval: United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Remarks: Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.051303

regulations

DOT-OST-1995-427-0002

Notice

Notice of Action Taken Dismissing Applications of Various Dockets

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 25, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN DISMISSING APPLICATIONS—VARIOUS DOCKETS ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the actions described below, taken on the date shown above by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in these matters). The carriers listed below have applied for various forms of authority or relief under Title 49 of the United States Code in order to perform the air transportation activities described. Each application has either been withdrawn by the applicant or otherwise become moot. Therefore, under authority assigned by the Department in its Regulations, 14 CFR § 385.3 and 385.13, we find that these applications should be dismissed. Docket Description of Application OST-2002-11374 Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., filed January 23, 2002. Exemption to conduct scheduled combination service between Mexico City, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. By letter dated February 19, 2002, Aeromexico stated that it does not intend to pursue this application and that the application may be dismissed. OST-98-4401 Itapemirim Transportes Aereos, S.A., filed August 31, 1998. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in Brazil, on the one hand, and the coterminal points Los Angeles/New York/Miami and Atlanta, via intermediate points; and authority to conduct all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Itapemirim has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-98-3739 Société Air France, filed February 8, 2002. Renew exemption, last granted by Notice of Action Taken, dated May 24, 2000, to allow Air France to continue to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in France and any point or points in the United States, either directly or via intermediate points. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-96-1862 Air Atlantic Dominicana, C. por A., filed October 11, 1996. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and the coterminal points Miami, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Atlantic Dominicana has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-96-1516 Aerocomercial de Transporte Y Rutas, S.A., filed July 8, 1996, as supplemented. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Ecuador and the United States, and other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerocomercial has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-758 Haiti National Airlines, filed October 7, 1999. Renew exemption, last granted October 28, 1998, in Order 98-10-30, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami, Fort Lauderdale, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Haiti National has no plans to prosecute this application.  OST-95-428 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Exemption to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-427 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-165 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-97-2194 Atlant-Soyuz Airlines, filed May 15, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between the Russian Federation and the United States; and to conduct other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Atlant-Soyuz has no plans to prosecute this application. 50127 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. 49965 Haytian Aviation Lines, S.A. d/b/a Halisa Air, filed December 13, 1994. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Information available to the Department indicates that Halisa Air has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-595 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Exemption to allow Air France to continue operating under all existing exemption authorities and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-95-594 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Renew and amend foreign air carrier permit to permit Air France to continue operating under all existing permits and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. 48630 Japan Universal System Transport Co., Ltd., filed January 29, 1993. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Japan Universal System has no plans to prosecute this application. 47556 World Air Network Co., Ltd., filed May 28, 1991. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that World Air Network has no plans to prosecute this application. 46016 Société Air France, filed October 10, 1991. Renew exemption, last granted October 31, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to commingle all-cargo traffic in foreign air transportation between specified points in the United States and France, with all-cargo traffic not in foreign air transportation between specified points in Canada and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 45652 Société Air France, filed August 4, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted August 7, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and San Juan, via intermediate or beyond points Martinique and Guadeloupe. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 44313 Société Air France, filed August 25, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted October 9, 1991, and confirmed by Order 93-3-3, to among other things, (a) serve Los Angeles on all-cargo operations as a coterminal point on the route specified in paragraph 2 of its effective foreign air carrier permit (Order 76-2-25); (2) serve Montreal as an intermediate point and San Francisco as a coterminal point on its authorized France-Los Angeles route; and (3) provide scheduled service between Tahiti and Los Angeles. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 46845 Air Liberté S.A., filed March 15, 1990. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Liberté has no plans to prosecute this application. DISPOSITION Action: We dismiss the applications described above. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. The actions set forth in this Notice shall be effective and become the actions of the Department of Transportation upon expiration of the above period unless within such period a petition for Department review is filed or the Department gives notice that it will review one or more actions on its own motion. The filing of a petition for review with respect to one of the dismissed items will not alter the effectiveness of this Notice with respect to the others. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.062724

regulations

DOT-OST-1995-428-0002

Notice

Notice of Action Taken Dismissing Applications of Various Dockets

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 25, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN DISMISSING APPLICATIONS—VARIOUS DOCKETS ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the actions described below, taken on the date shown above by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in these matters). The carriers listed below have applied for various forms of authority or relief under Title 49 of the United States Code in order to perform the air transportation activities described. Each application has either been withdrawn by the applicant or otherwise become moot. Therefore, under authority assigned by the Department in its Regulations, 14 CFR § 385.3 and 385.13, we find that these applications should be dismissed. Docket Description of Application OST-2002-11374 Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., filed January 23, 2002. Exemption to conduct scheduled combination service between Mexico City, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. By letter dated February 19, 2002, Aeromexico stated that it does not intend to pursue this application and that the application may be dismissed. OST-98-4401 Itapemirim Transportes Aereos, S.A., filed August 31, 1998. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in Brazil, on the one hand, and the coterminal points Los Angeles/New York/Miami and Atlanta, via intermediate points; and authority to conduct all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Itapemirim has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-98-3739 Société Air France, filed February 8, 2002. Renew exemption, last granted by Notice of Action Taken, dated May 24, 2000, to allow Air France to continue to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in France and any point or points in the United States, either directly or via intermediate points. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-96-1862 Air Atlantic Dominicana, C. por A., filed October 11, 1996. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and the coterminal points Miami, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Atlantic Dominicana has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-96-1516 Aerocomercial de Transporte Y Rutas, S.A., filed July 8, 1996, as supplemented. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Ecuador and the United States, and other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerocomercial has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-758 Haiti National Airlines, filed October 7, 1999. Renew exemption, last granted October 28, 1998, in Order 98-10-30, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami, Fort Lauderdale, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Haiti National has no plans to prosecute this application.  OST-95-428 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Exemption to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-427 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-165 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-97-2194 Atlant-Soyuz Airlines, filed May 15, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between the Russian Federation and the United States; and to conduct other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Atlant-Soyuz has no plans to prosecute this application. 50127 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. 49965 Haytian Aviation Lines, S.A. d/b/a Halisa Air, filed December 13, 1994. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Information available to the Department indicates that Halisa Air has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-595 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Exemption to allow Air France to continue operating under all existing exemption authorities and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-95-594 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Renew and amend foreign air carrier permit to permit Air France to continue operating under all existing permits and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. 48630 Japan Universal System Transport Co., Ltd., filed January 29, 1993. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Japan Universal System has no plans to prosecute this application. 47556 World Air Network Co., Ltd., filed May 28, 1991. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that World Air Network has no plans to prosecute this application. 46016 Société Air France, filed October 10, 1991. Renew exemption, last granted October 31, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to commingle all-cargo traffic in foreign air transportation between specified points in the United States and France, with all-cargo traffic not in foreign air transportation between specified points in Canada and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 45652 Société Air France, filed August 4, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted August 7, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and San Juan, via intermediate or beyond points Martinique and Guadeloupe. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 44313 Société Air France, filed August 25, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted October 9, 1991, and confirmed by Order 93-3-3, to among other things, (a) serve Los Angeles on all-cargo operations as a coterminal point on the route specified in paragraph 2 of its effective foreign air carrier permit (Order 76-2-25); (2) serve Montreal as an intermediate point and San Francisco as a coterminal point on its authorized France-Los Angeles route; and (3) provide scheduled service between Tahiti and Los Angeles. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 46845 Air Liberté S.A., filed March 15, 1990. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Liberté has no plans to prosecute this application. DISPOSITION Action: We dismiss the applications described above. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. The actions set forth in this Notice shall be effective and become the actions of the Department of Transportation upon expiration of the above period unless within such period a petition for Department review is filed or the Department gives notice that it will review one or more actions on its own motion. The filing of a petition for review with respect to one of the dismissed items will not alter the effectiveness of this Notice with respect to the others. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.067195

regulations

DOT-OST-1995-554-0013

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: U.S. Airways, Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 30, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-95-554 ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Application of US Airways, Inc. filed 5/7/2002 to: XX Amend its exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service: Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between a point or points in the United States, on the one hand, and a point or points in St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles, and points beyond, on the other. USAirways states that it initially plans to offer San Juan, Puerto Rico-St. Maarten and beyond service pursuant to a code-share agreement with Daystar Airways, Ltd. d/b/a Nevis Express. USAirways further states that it plans to begin this service on or about June 2002. Applicant rep: Joel Stephen Burton (202) 383-5300 DOT Analyst: Linda Senese (202) 366-2367 D I S P O S I T I O N XX Granted The above action was effective when taken: May 30, 2002, through May 30, 2004. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation XX The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement between the United States and the Netherlands Antilles. Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity XX Standard exemption conditions (attached) (See Reverse Side) 2 ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide the services authorized. Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp  Attachment U.S. CARRIER Standard Exemption Conditions In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the applicant(s) shall: (1) Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government of each country served; (2) Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized); (3) Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR 241; (4) Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205; (5) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses; (6) Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations and with all U.S. Government requirements concerning security; and (7) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States. The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above. USAirways has an existing exemption to conduct scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between Charlotte, NC, Philadelphia, PA, and Baltimore/Washington, on the one hand, and St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles, on the other. (See Notice of Action Taken in this docket dated June 8, 2001.) We note that although Daystar Airways Ltd. d/b/a Nevis Express may conduct the requested operations on behalf of USAirways under its worldwide charter authority, it may not serve these points using it own code (i.e. on a scheduled basis) until its pending application in Docket OST-99-5062 for an amendment to its certificate for Route 786 has been approved and an amended certificate of public convenience and necessity has been issued.

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.074503

regulations

DOT-OST-1995-594-0004

Notice

Notice of Action Taken Dismissing Applications of Various Dockets

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 25, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN DISMISSING APPLICATIONS—VARIOUS DOCKETS ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the actions described below, taken on the date shown above by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in these matters). The carriers listed below have applied for various forms of authority or relief under Title 49 of the United States Code in order to perform the air transportation activities described. Each application has either been withdrawn by the applicant or otherwise become moot. Therefore, under authority assigned by the Department in its Regulations, 14 CFR § 385.3 and 385.13, we find that these applications should be dismissed. Docket Description of Application OST-2002-11374 Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., filed January 23, 2002. Exemption to conduct scheduled combination service between Mexico City, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. By letter dated February 19, 2002, Aeromexico stated that it does not intend to pursue this application and that the application may be dismissed. OST-98-4401 Itapemirim Transportes Aereos, S.A., filed August 31, 1998. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in Brazil, on the one hand, and the coterminal points Los Angeles/New York/Miami and Atlanta, via intermediate points; and authority to conduct all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Itapemirim has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-98-3739 Société Air France, filed February 8, 2002. Renew exemption, last granted by Notice of Action Taken, dated May 24, 2000, to allow Air France to continue to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in France and any point or points in the United States, either directly or via intermediate points. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-96-1862 Air Atlantic Dominicana, C. por A., filed October 11, 1996. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and the coterminal points Miami, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Atlantic Dominicana has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-96-1516 Aerocomercial de Transporte Y Rutas, S.A., filed July 8, 1996, as supplemented. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Ecuador and the United States, and other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerocomercial has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-758 Haiti National Airlines, filed October 7, 1999. Renew exemption, last granted October 28, 1998, in Order 98-10-30, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami, Fort Lauderdale, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Haiti National has no plans to prosecute this application.  OST-95-428 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Exemption to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-427 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-165 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-97-2194 Atlant-Soyuz Airlines, filed May 15, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between the Russian Federation and the United States; and to conduct other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Atlant-Soyuz has no plans to prosecute this application. 50127 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. 49965 Haytian Aviation Lines, S.A. d/b/a Halisa Air, filed December 13, 1994. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Information available to the Department indicates that Halisa Air has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-595 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Exemption to allow Air France to continue operating under all existing exemption authorities and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-95-594 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Renew and amend foreign air carrier permit to permit Air France to continue operating under all existing permits and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. 48630 Japan Universal System Transport Co., Ltd., filed January 29, 1993. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Japan Universal System has no plans to prosecute this application. 47556 World Air Network Co., Ltd., filed May 28, 1991. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that World Air Network has no plans to prosecute this application. 46016 Société Air France, filed October 10, 1991. Renew exemption, last granted October 31, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to commingle all-cargo traffic in foreign air transportation between specified points in the United States and France, with all-cargo traffic not in foreign air transportation between specified points in Canada and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 45652 Société Air France, filed August 4, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted August 7, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and San Juan, via intermediate or beyond points Martinique and Guadeloupe. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 44313 Société Air France, filed August 25, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted October 9, 1991, and confirmed by Order 93-3-3, to among other things, (a) serve Los Angeles on all-cargo operations as a coterminal point on the route specified in paragraph 2 of its effective foreign air carrier permit (Order 76-2-25); (2) serve Montreal as an intermediate point and San Francisco as a coterminal point on its authorized France-Los Angeles route; and (3) provide scheduled service between Tahiti and Los Angeles. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 46845 Air Liberté S.A., filed March 15, 1990. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Liberté has no plans to prosecute this application. DISPOSITION Action: We dismiss the applications described above. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. The actions set forth in this Notice shall be effective and become the actions of the Department of Transportation upon expiration of the above period unless within such period a petition for Department review is filed or the Department gives notice that it will review one or more actions on its own motion. The filing of a petition for review with respect to one of the dismissed items will not alter the effectiveness of this Notice with respect to the others. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.081210

regulations

DOT-OST-1995-595-0008

Notice

Notice of Action Taken Dismissing Applications of Various Dockets

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 25, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN DISMISSING APPLICATIONS—VARIOUS DOCKETS ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the actions described below, taken on the date shown above by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in these matters). The carriers listed below have applied for various forms of authority or relief under Title 49 of the United States Code in order to perform the air transportation activities described. Each application has either been withdrawn by the applicant or otherwise become moot. Therefore, under authority assigned by the Department in its Regulations, 14 CFR § 385.3 and 385.13, we find that these applications should be dismissed. Docket Description of Application OST-2002-11374 Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., filed January 23, 2002. Exemption to conduct scheduled combination service between Mexico City, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. By letter dated February 19, 2002, Aeromexico stated that it does not intend to pursue this application and that the application may be dismissed. OST-98-4401 Itapemirim Transportes Aereos, S.A., filed August 31, 1998. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in Brazil, on the one hand, and the coterminal points Los Angeles/New York/Miami and Atlanta, via intermediate points; and authority to conduct all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Itapemirim has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-98-3739 Société Air France, filed February 8, 2002. Renew exemption, last granted by Notice of Action Taken, dated May 24, 2000, to allow Air France to continue to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in France and any point or points in the United States, either directly or via intermediate points. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-96-1862 Air Atlantic Dominicana, C. por A., filed October 11, 1996. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and the coterminal points Miami, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Atlantic Dominicana has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-96-1516 Aerocomercial de Transporte Y Rutas, S.A., filed July 8, 1996, as supplemented. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Ecuador and the United States, and other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerocomercial has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-758 Haiti National Airlines, filed October 7, 1999. Renew exemption, last granted October 28, 1998, in Order 98-10-30, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami, Fort Lauderdale, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Haiti National has no plans to prosecute this application.  OST-95-428 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Exemption to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-427 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-165 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-97-2194 Atlant-Soyuz Airlines, filed May 15, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between the Russian Federation and the United States; and to conduct other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Atlant-Soyuz has no plans to prosecute this application. 50127 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. 49965 Haytian Aviation Lines, S.A. d/b/a Halisa Air, filed December 13, 1994. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Information available to the Department indicates that Halisa Air has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-595 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Exemption to allow Air France to continue operating under all existing exemption authorities and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-95-594 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Renew and amend foreign air carrier permit to permit Air France to continue operating under all existing permits and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. 48630 Japan Universal System Transport Co., Ltd., filed January 29, 1993. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Japan Universal System has no plans to prosecute this application. 47556 World Air Network Co., Ltd., filed May 28, 1991. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that World Air Network has no plans to prosecute this application. 46016 Société Air France, filed October 10, 1991. Renew exemption, last granted October 31, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to commingle all-cargo traffic in foreign air transportation between specified points in the United States and France, with all-cargo traffic not in foreign air transportation between specified points in Canada and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 45652 Société Air France, filed August 4, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted August 7, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and San Juan, via intermediate or beyond points Martinique and Guadeloupe. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 44313 Société Air France, filed August 25, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted October 9, 1991, and confirmed by Order 93-3-3, to among other things, (a) serve Los Angeles on all-cargo operations as a coterminal point on the route specified in paragraph 2 of its effective foreign air carrier permit (Order 76-2-25); (2) serve Montreal as an intermediate point and San Francisco as a coterminal point on its authorized France-Los Angeles route; and (3) provide scheduled service between Tahiti and Los Angeles. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 46845 Air Liberté S.A., filed March 15, 1990. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Liberté has no plans to prosecute this application. DISPOSITION Action: We dismiss the applications described above. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. The actions set forth in this Notice shall be effective and become the actions of the Department of Transportation upon expiration of the above period unless within such period a petition for Department review is filed or the Department gives notice that it will review one or more actions on its own motion. The filing of a petition for review with respect to one of the dismissed items will not alter the effectiveness of this Notice with respect to the others. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.086111

regulations

DOT-OST-1995-752-0010

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Skyservice Airlines Inc./Lignes Aeriennes Skyservice Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on July 3, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN – DOCKET OST-1995-752 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: SKYSERVICE AIRLINES INC./LIGNES AERIENNES SKYSERVICE INC. Date Filed: June 6, 2001 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Canada and the United States, and other charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212. If renewal, date of last action: June 8, 2000; in this Docket. Applicant representative(s): Aaron A. Goerlich and Don H. Hainbach, 202-822-9070 Responsive pleadings: None DISPOSITION Action: Approved. Action date: July 3, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: July 3, 2002, through July 3, 2004. Basis for approval: United States-Canada Air Transport Agreement. Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: X Standard exemption conditions Special conditions/Remarks: Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effe瑣癩湥獥⹳഍湁攠敬瑣潲楮⁣敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤 畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢⁥湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩⁥敗⁢瑡ഺ瑨 灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳 7

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.094990

regulations

DOT-OST-1995-758-0010

Notice

Notice of Action Taken Dismissing Applications of Various Dockets

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 25, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN DISMISSING APPLICATIONS—VARIOUS DOCKETS ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the actions described below, taken on the date shown above by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in these matters). The carriers listed below have applied for various forms of authority or relief under Title 49 of the United States Code in order to perform the air transportation activities described. Each application has either been withdrawn by the applicant or otherwise become moot. Therefore, under authority assigned by the Department in its Regulations, 14 CFR § 385.3 and 385.13, we find that these applications should be dismissed. Docket Description of Application OST-2002-11374 Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., filed January 23, 2002. Exemption to conduct scheduled combination service between Mexico City, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. By letter dated February 19, 2002, Aeromexico stated that it does not intend to pursue this application and that the application may be dismissed. OST-98-4401 Itapemirim Transportes Aereos, S.A., filed August 31, 1998. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in Brazil, on the one hand, and the coterminal points Los Angeles/New York/Miami and Atlanta, via intermediate points; and authority to conduct all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Itapemirim has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-98-3739 Société Air France, filed February 8, 2002. Renew exemption, last granted by Notice of Action Taken, dated May 24, 2000, to allow Air France to continue to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in France and any point or points in the United States, either directly or via intermediate points. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-96-1862 Air Atlantic Dominicana, C. por A., filed October 11, 1996. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and the coterminal points Miami, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Atlantic Dominicana has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-96-1516 Aerocomercial de Transporte Y Rutas, S.A., filed July 8, 1996, as supplemented. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Ecuador and the United States, and other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerocomercial has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-758 Haiti National Airlines, filed October 7, 1999. Renew exemption, last granted October 28, 1998, in Order 98-10-30, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami, Fort Lauderdale, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Haiti National has no plans to prosecute this application.  OST-95-428 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Exemption to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-427 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-165 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-97-2194 Atlant-Soyuz Airlines, filed May 15, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between the Russian Federation and the United States; and to conduct other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Atlant-Soyuz has no plans to prosecute this application. 50127 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. 49965 Haytian Aviation Lines, S.A. d/b/a Halisa Air, filed December 13, 1994. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Information available to the Department indicates that Halisa Air has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-595 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Exemption to allow Air France to continue operating under all existing exemption authorities and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-95-594 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Renew and amend foreign air carrier permit to permit Air France to continue operating under all existing permits and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. 48630 Japan Universal System Transport Co., Ltd., filed January 29, 1993. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Japan Universal System has no plans to prosecute this application. 47556 World Air Network Co., Ltd., filed May 28, 1991. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that World Air Network has no plans to prosecute this application. 46016 Société Air France, filed October 10, 1991. Renew exemption, last granted October 31, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to commingle all-cargo traffic in foreign air transportation between specified points in the United States and France, with all-cargo traffic not in foreign air transportation between specified points in Canada and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 45652 Société Air France, filed August 4, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted August 7, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and San Juan, via intermediate or beyond points Martinique and Guadeloupe. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 44313 Société Air France, filed August 25, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted October 9, 1991, and confirmed by Order 93-3-3, to among other things, (a) serve Los Angeles on all-cargo operations as a coterminal point on the route specified in paragraph 2 of its effective foreign air carrier permit (Order 76-2-25); (2) serve Montreal as an intermediate point and San Francisco as a coterminal point on its authorized France-Los Angeles route; and (3) provide scheduled service between Tahiti and Los Angeles. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 46845 Air Liberté S.A., filed March 15, 1990. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Liberté has no plans to prosecute this application. DISPOSITION Action: We dismiss the applications described above. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. The actions set forth in this Notice shall be effective and become the actions of the Department of Transportation upon expiration of the above period unless within such period a petition for Department review is filed or the Department gives notice that it will review one or more actions on its own motion. The filing of a petition for review with respect to one of the dismissed items will not alter the effectiveness of this Notice with respect to the others. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.100769

regulations

DOT-OST-1996-1195-0018

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Servicios Aereos Regiomontanos, S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 12, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1996-1195 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: SERVICIOS AEREOS REGIOMONTANOS, S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: May 22, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment. Applicant representative(s): Lee A. Bauer, 202-331-3300 Date of last action: June 5, 2001, in this Docket. Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved Action date: June 12, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: June 12, 2002, through June 15, 2003 Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended (Agreement). Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: X Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks: In the conduct of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement. In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment). The above grant includes authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations. While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft. (Other charter operations to/from the United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.) Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is av楡慬汢⁥湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩⁥敗⁢瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮 瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.112697

regulations

DOT-OST-1996-1196-0020

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Federal Express Corporation

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 21, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-1996-1196 _____________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Application of Federal Express Corporation filed 9/12/02 to: XX Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service: Scheduled foreign all-cargo air transportation between a point or points in the United States and certain named points in Brazil, either directly or via intermediate points, and beyond Brazil to points in Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Chile. Applicant rep.: M. Rush O’Keefe, Jr. 901-434-8584 DOT analyst: Sylvia Moore, 202-366-6519 DISPOSITION XX Granted (subject to conditions, see below) The above action was effective when taken: October 21, 2002, through October 21, 2004, or until 90 days after final Department action on Federal Express’ corresponding certificate application in Docket 45985, whichever occurs earlier. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation XX The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreements between the United States and Brazil, the United States and Argentina, the United States and Uruguay, the United States and Paraguay, and the United States and Chile. Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity XX Standard exemption conditions (attached) (See Reverse Side) 2 Conditions: The authority granted to serve intermediate points is limited to countries with which the United States has signed open-skies agreements and/or countries for which the carrier holds authority to serve under certificates or exemptions issued by the Department, and for which it holds route integration authority by virtue of either the present action or other action of the Department. On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide the services authorized. Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the requested authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp  APPENDIX U.S. CARRIER Standard Exemption Conditions In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the applicant(s) shall: (1) Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government of each country served; (2) Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized); (3) Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR 241; (4) Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205; (5) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses; (6) Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security; and (7) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States. The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above. 10/2002 The points in Brazil which Federal Express is authorized to serve are: Porto Alegre, Recife, Belo Horizonte, Salvador de Bahia, Belem, Manaus, Brasilia, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, the holder should, before commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, inform its Principal Security Inspector of its plans.

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.115183

regulations

DOT-OST-1996-1231-0019

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Aerocer, S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 11, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1996-1231 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: AEROCER, S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: May 8, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment. If renewal, date and citation of last action: June 5, 2001, in this Docket. Applicant representative(s): Lee A. Bauer, 202-331-3300 Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved. Action date: June 11, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: June 11, 2002, through June 14, 2003. Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended (Agreement). Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks: In the conduct of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement. In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment). The above grant includes authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations. While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft. (Other charter operations to/from the United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.) Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this do畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢⁥湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩⁥敗⁢瑡ഺ 瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.118125

regulations

DOT-OST-1996-1487-0014

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Corporacion Aeroangeles, S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 21, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1996-1487 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: CORPORACION AEROANGELES, S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: June 5, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment. Applicant representative(s): Antonio Ortiz Palero, 011-527-273-11-79 Date of last action: June 11, 2001, in this Docket. Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved Action date: June 21, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: June 21, 2002, through June 21, 2003 Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended (Agreement). Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: X Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks: In the conduct of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement. In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment). The above grant includes authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations. While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft. (Other charter operations to/from the United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.) Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.123834

regulations

DOT-OST-1996-1501-0016

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Avemex, S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 25, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1996-1501 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: AVEMEX, S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: October 9, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment. If renewal, date and citation of last action: November 29, 2001, in this Docket. Applicant representative(s): Lee A. Bauer, 202-331-3300 DOT analyst: Allen F. Brown, 202-366-2405 Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved. Action date: November 25, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: November 25, 2002, through November 30, 2003. Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended (Agreement). Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks: In the conduct of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement. In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment). The above grant includes authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations. While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft. (Other charter operations to/from the United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.) Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for r癥敩⁷楷汬渠瑯愠瑬牥猠捵⁨晥敦瑣癩湥獥⹳഍湁攠 敬瑣潲楮⁣敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢⁥ 湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩⁥敗⁢瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲 潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.125767

regulations

DOT-OST-1996-1516-0004

Notice

Notice of Action Taken Dismissing Applications of Various Dockets

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 25, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN DISMISSING APPLICATIONS—VARIOUS DOCKETS ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the actions described below, taken on the date shown above by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in these matters). The carriers listed below have applied for various forms of authority or relief under Title 49 of the United States Code in order to perform the air transportation activities described. Each application has either been withdrawn by the applicant or otherwise become moot. Therefore, under authority assigned by the Department in its Regulations, 14 CFR § 385.3 and 385.13, we find that these applications should be dismissed. Docket Description of Application OST-2002-11374 Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., filed January 23, 2002. Exemption to conduct scheduled combination service between Mexico City, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. By letter dated February 19, 2002, Aeromexico stated that it does not intend to pursue this application and that the application may be dismissed. OST-98-4401 Itapemirim Transportes Aereos, S.A., filed August 31, 1998. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in Brazil, on the one hand, and the coterminal points Los Angeles/New York/Miami and Atlanta, via intermediate points; and authority to conduct all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Itapemirim has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-98-3739 Société Air France, filed February 8, 2002. Renew exemption, last granted by Notice of Action Taken, dated May 24, 2000, to allow Air France to continue to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in France and any point or points in the United States, either directly or via intermediate points. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-96-1862 Air Atlantic Dominicana, C. por A., filed October 11, 1996. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and the coterminal points Miami, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Atlantic Dominicana has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-96-1516 Aerocomercial de Transporte Y Rutas, S.A., filed July 8, 1996, as supplemented. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Ecuador and the United States, and other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerocomercial has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-758 Haiti National Airlines, filed October 7, 1999. Renew exemption, last granted October 28, 1998, in Order 98-10-30, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami, Fort Lauderdale, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Haiti National has no plans to prosecute this application.  OST-95-428 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Exemption to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-427 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-165 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-97-2194 Atlant-Soyuz Airlines, filed May 15, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between the Russian Federation and the United States; and to conduct other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Atlant-Soyuz has no plans to prosecute this application. 50127 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. 49965 Haytian Aviation Lines, S.A. d/b/a Halisa Air, filed December 13, 1994. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Information available to the Department indicates that Halisa Air has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-595 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Exemption to allow Air France to continue operating under all existing exemption authorities and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-95-594 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Renew and amend foreign air carrier permit to permit Air France to continue operating under all existing permits and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. 48630 Japan Universal System Transport Co., Ltd., filed January 29, 1993. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Japan Universal System has no plans to prosecute this application. 47556 World Air Network Co., Ltd., filed May 28, 1991. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that World Air Network has no plans to prosecute this application. 46016 Société Air France, filed October 10, 1991. Renew exemption, last granted October 31, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to commingle all-cargo traffic in foreign air transportation between specified points in the United States and France, with all-cargo traffic not in foreign air transportation between specified points in Canada and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 45652 Société Air France, filed August 4, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted August 7, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and San Juan, via intermediate or beyond points Martinique and Guadeloupe. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 44313 Société Air France, filed August 25, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted October 9, 1991, and confirmed by Order 93-3-3, to among other things, (a) serve Los Angeles on all-cargo operations as a coterminal point on the route specified in paragraph 2 of its effective foreign air carrier permit (Order 76-2-25); (2) serve Montreal as an intermediate point and San Francisco as a coterminal point on its authorized France-Los Angeles route; and (3) provide scheduled service between Tahiti and Los Angeles. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 46845 Air Liberté S.A., filed March 15, 1990. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Liberté has no plans to prosecute this application. DISPOSITION Action: We dismiss the applications described above. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. The actions set forth in this Notice shall be effective and become the actions of the Department of Transportation upon expiration of the above period unless within such period a petition for Department review is filed or the Department gives notice that it will review one or more actions on its own motion. The filing of a petition for review with respect to one of the dismissed items will not alter the effectiveness of this Notice with respect to the others. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.128395

regulations

DOT-OST-1996-1839-0009

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re US Airways, Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Issued by the Department of Transportation on July 22, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-1996-1839 ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Application of US Airways, Inc. filed 7/3/02 to: XX Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service: Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between Charlotte, North Carolina, and Bermuda. Applicant rep: Joel Stephen Burton, 703-383-5300 DOT Analyst: Sylvia Moore, 202-366-6519 D I S P O S I T I O N XX Granted The above action was effective when taken: July 22, 2002, through July 22, 2004 Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation XX The authority granted is consistent with the November 1991 exchange of letters between the United States and the United Kingdom. Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity XX Standard exemption conditions (attached) ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide the services authorized. Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp APPENDIX U.S. CARRIER Standard Exemption Conditions In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the applicant(s) shall: (1) Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government of each country served; (2) Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized); (3) Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR 241; (4) Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205; (5) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses; (6) Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations and with all U.S. Government requirements concerning security; and (7) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States. The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.133929

regulations

DOT-OST-1996-1862-0006

Notice

Notice of Action Taken Dismissing Applications of Various Dockets

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 25, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN DISMISSING APPLICATIONS—VARIOUS DOCKETS ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the actions described below, taken on the date shown above by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in these matters). The carriers listed below have applied for various forms of authority or relief under Title 49 of the United States Code in order to perform the air transportation activities described. Each application has either been withdrawn by the applicant or otherwise become moot. Therefore, under authority assigned by the Department in its Regulations, 14 CFR § 385.3 and 385.13, we find that these applications should be dismissed. Docket Description of Application OST-2002-11374 Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., filed January 23, 2002. Exemption to conduct scheduled combination service between Mexico City, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. By letter dated February 19, 2002, Aeromexico stated that it does not intend to pursue this application and that the application may be dismissed. OST-98-4401 Itapemirim Transportes Aereos, S.A., filed August 31, 1998. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in Brazil, on the one hand, and the coterminal points Los Angeles/New York/Miami and Atlanta, via intermediate points; and authority to conduct all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Itapemirim has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-98-3739 Société Air France, filed February 8, 2002. Renew exemption, last granted by Notice of Action Taken, dated May 24, 2000, to allow Air France to continue to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in France and any point or points in the United States, either directly or via intermediate points. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-96-1862 Air Atlantic Dominicana, C. por A., filed October 11, 1996. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and the coterminal points Miami, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Atlantic Dominicana has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-96-1516 Aerocomercial de Transporte Y Rutas, S.A., filed July 8, 1996, as supplemented. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Ecuador and the United States, and other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerocomercial has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-758 Haiti National Airlines, filed October 7, 1999. Renew exemption, last granted October 28, 1998, in Order 98-10-30, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami, Fort Lauderdale, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Haiti National has no plans to prosecute this application.  OST-95-428 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Exemption to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-427 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-165 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-97-2194 Atlant-Soyuz Airlines, filed May 15, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between the Russian Federation and the United States; and to conduct other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Atlant-Soyuz has no plans to prosecute this application. 50127 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. 49965 Haytian Aviation Lines, S.A. d/b/a Halisa Air, filed December 13, 1994. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Information available to the Department indicates that Halisa Air has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-595 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Exemption to allow Air France to continue operating under all existing exemption authorities and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-95-594 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Renew and amend foreign air carrier permit to permit Air France to continue operating under all existing permits and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. 48630 Japan Universal System Transport Co., Ltd., filed January 29, 1993. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Japan Universal System has no plans to prosecute this application. 47556 World Air Network Co., Ltd., filed May 28, 1991. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that World Air Network has no plans to prosecute this application. 46016 Société Air France, filed October 10, 1991. Renew exemption, last granted October 31, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to commingle all-cargo traffic in foreign air transportation between specified points in the United States and France, with all-cargo traffic not in foreign air transportation between specified points in Canada and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 45652 Société Air France, filed August 4, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted August 7, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and San Juan, via intermediate or beyond points Martinique and Guadeloupe. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 44313 Société Air France, filed August 25, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted October 9, 1991, and confirmed by Order 93-3-3, to among other things, (a) serve Los Angeles on all-cargo operations as a coterminal point on the route specified in paragraph 2 of its effective foreign air carrier permit (Order 76-2-25); (2) serve Montreal as an intermediate point and San Francisco as a coterminal point on its authorized France-Los Angeles route; and (3) provide scheduled service between Tahiti and Los Angeles. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 46845 Air Liberté S.A., filed March 15, 1990. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Liberté has no plans to prosecute this application. DISPOSITION Action: We dismiss the applications described above. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. The actions set forth in this Notice shall be effective and become the actions of the Department of Transportation upon expiration of the above period unless within such period a petition for Department review is filed or the Department gives notice that it will review one or more actions on its own motion. The filing of a petition for review with respect to one of the dismissed items will not alter the effectiveness of this Notice with respect to the others. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.136346

regulations

DOT-OST-1996-1993-0016

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Gemini Air Cargo, Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 5, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-96-1993 ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Application of Gemini Air Cargo, Inc. filed 6/24/2002 to: XX Renew exemption under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the following service: Scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between New York, New York; Columbus, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; San Francisco, California; and Los Angeles, California, on the one hand, and Taipei, Taiwan, on the other hand. Gemini also requests authorization to integrate the services to be operated under the above exemption with Gemini’s existing exemption and certificate authority. Applicant rep: Moffett B. Roller (202) 331-3300 DOT Analyst: Michael D. Bodman (202) 366-9667 D I S P O S I T I O N XX Granted, subject to conditions (see below) The above action was effective when taken: August 5, 2002, through August 5, 2004. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation XX The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement governing air services between the United States and Taiwan. Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity XX Standard Exemption Conditions (attached) __________________________ Conditions: The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that such operations are consistent with the applicable aviation agreements; and provided further, that (a) nothing in the award of the route integration authority requested should be construed as conferring upon Gemini additional rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless Gemini first notifies the Department of Gemini’s intent to serve such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in Gemini’s authority by virtue of the route integration authority granted here, but not being used, the holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as providing any preference for Gemini in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue. _____________________________ On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide the services authorized. Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this order is available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp APPENDIX A U.S. CARRIER Standard Exemption Conditions In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the applicant(s) shall: (1) Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government of each country served; (2) Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized); (3) Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR 241; (4) Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205; (5) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses; (6) Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations, including all U.S. Government requirements concerning security; and (7) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States. The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above. PAGE 3

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.139449

regulations

DOT-OST-1996-2018-0016

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Federal Express Corporation

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 21, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-96-2018 _____________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Application of Federal Express Corporation filed 5/7/02 for: XX Waiver of the 90-day dormancy condition By Order 96-2-17 the Department granted Federal Express exemption authority to provide scheduled all-cargo service in the New York/Memphis-Moscow market and allocated it five weekly all-cargo frequencies for this service. That award was subject to the condition that the frequency allocation would expire automatically and the frequencies would revert to the Department for reallocation if they were not used for a period of 90 days. On November 1, 1999, Federal Express temporarily suspended its direct flight operations serving Moscow. By Notices of Action Taken dated January 24, 2000, and October 10, 2000; Order 2001-11-15; and Notice of Action Taken dated March 27, 2002, the Department granted Federal Express waivers of the 90-day dormancy condition. The latest waiver is through June 30, 2002, for one frequency, and through November 1, 2002, for four frequencies. Federal Express now seeks a further waiver from the dormancy condition for all five of its frequencies until April 11, 2004, when the Annexes to the U.S.-Russia agreement will expire. Federal Express stated that it had planned to provide one weekly round trip between Memphis and Moscow via Paris, before June 30, 2002, but during U.S.-Russia negotiations in April 2002, revisions to the Annexes made it impossible for Federal Express to use the frequencies as planned. Applicant rep. : Melissa Paul, 901-434-8580 DOT analyst : Sylvia Moore, 202-366-6519 DISPOSITION XX Granted (See Remarks) The above action was effective when taken for all five frequencies: June 21, 2002, until April 11, 2004 Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation 2 Remarks: As a result of revisions to the Annexes of the 1994 U.S.-Russia Air Transport Agreement, temporarily suspending all U.S. carrier traffic rights between European points and Russia until April 11, 2004, we have granted Federal Express’ request for a waiver until April 11, 2004, based on the circumstances stated in the request. ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy, and (2) the authority granted is consistent with the public interest. To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp Federal Express’ waiver from the dormancy condition is effective through April 11, 2004, or until the date on which Federal Express begins service with each of the frequencies, whichever occurs earlier. The 90-day dormancy period will begin on the date Federal Express begins service. As to any frequency with which Federal Express does not begin service by April 11, 2004, its frequency allocation with respect to that frequency expires automatically.

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.142569

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-2073-0013

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Aviacion Comercial de America, S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 23, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1997-2073 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: AVIACION COMERCIAL de AMERICA, S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: September 5, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment. Applicant representative(s): Michelle C. Pardo, 202-662-0200 Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved. Action date: September 23, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: September 23, 2002, through September 23, 2003. Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended (Agreement). Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks: In the conduct of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement. In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment). The above grant includes authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations. While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft. (Other charter operations to/from the United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.) Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviati湯愮灳

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.145963

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-2194-0005

Notice

Notice of Action Taken Dismissing Applications of Various Dockets

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 25, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN DISMISSING APPLICATIONS—VARIOUS DOCKETS ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the actions described below, taken on the date shown above by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in these matters). The carriers listed below have applied for various forms of authority or relief under Title 49 of the United States Code in order to perform the air transportation activities described. Each application has either been withdrawn by the applicant or otherwise become moot. Therefore, under authority assigned by the Department in its Regulations, 14 CFR § 385.3 and 385.13, we find that these applications should be dismissed. Docket Description of Application OST-2002-11374 Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., filed January 23, 2002. Exemption to conduct scheduled combination service between Mexico City, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. By letter dated February 19, 2002, Aeromexico stated that it does not intend to pursue this application and that the application may be dismissed. OST-98-4401 Itapemirim Transportes Aereos, S.A., filed August 31, 1998. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in Brazil, on the one hand, and the coterminal points Los Angeles/New York/Miami and Atlanta, via intermediate points; and authority to conduct all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Itapemirim has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-98-3739 Société Air France, filed February 8, 2002. Renew exemption, last granted by Notice of Action Taken, dated May 24, 2000, to allow Air France to continue to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in France and any point or points in the United States, either directly or via intermediate points. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-96-1862 Air Atlantic Dominicana, C. por A., filed October 11, 1996. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and the coterminal points Miami, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Atlantic Dominicana has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-96-1516 Aerocomercial de Transporte Y Rutas, S.A., filed July 8, 1996, as supplemented. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Ecuador and the United States, and other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerocomercial has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-758 Haiti National Airlines, filed October 7, 1999. Renew exemption, last granted October 28, 1998, in Order 98-10-30, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami, Fort Lauderdale, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Haiti National has no plans to prosecute this application.  OST-95-428 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Exemption to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-427 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-165 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-97-2194 Atlant-Soyuz Airlines, filed May 15, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between the Russian Federation and the United States; and to conduct other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Atlant-Soyuz has no plans to prosecute this application. 50127 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. 49965 Haytian Aviation Lines, S.A. d/b/a Halisa Air, filed December 13, 1994. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Information available to the Department indicates that Halisa Air has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-595 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Exemption to allow Air France to continue operating under all existing exemption authorities and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-95-594 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Renew and amend foreign air carrier permit to permit Air France to continue operating under all existing permits and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. 48630 Japan Universal System Transport Co., Ltd., filed January 29, 1993. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Japan Universal System has no plans to prosecute this application. 47556 World Air Network Co., Ltd., filed May 28, 1991. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that World Air Network has no plans to prosecute this application. 46016 Société Air France, filed October 10, 1991. Renew exemption, last granted October 31, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to commingle all-cargo traffic in foreign air transportation between specified points in the United States and France, with all-cargo traffic not in foreign air transportation between specified points in Canada and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 45652 Société Air France, filed August 4, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted August 7, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and San Juan, via intermediate or beyond points Martinique and Guadeloupe. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 44313 Société Air France, filed August 25, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted October 9, 1991, and confirmed by Order 93-3-3, to among other things, (a) serve Los Angeles on all-cargo operations as a coterminal point on the route specified in paragraph 2 of its effective foreign air carrier permit (Order 76-2-25); (2) serve Montreal as an intermediate point and San Francisco as a coterminal point on its authorized France-Los Angeles route; and (3) provide scheduled service between Tahiti and Los Angeles. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 46845 Air Liberté S.A., filed March 15, 1990. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Liberté has no plans to prosecute this application. DISPOSITION Action: We dismiss the applications described above. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. The actions set forth in this Notice shall be effective and become the actions of the Department of Transportation upon expiration of the above period unless within such period a petition for Department review is filed or the Department gives notice that it will review one or more actions on its own motion. The filing of a petition for review with respect to one of the dismissed items will not alter the effectiveness of this Notice with respect to the others. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.149024

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-2419-0017

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: American Airlines, Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 16, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-1997-2419 ________________________________________________________________________ ______ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Application of American Airlines, Inc. filed 7/31/02 for: XX Amend its exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service: Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between a point or points in the United States and Campo Grande, Londrina, and Maceio, Brazil. American also seeks the right to integrate this requested authority with its existing certificate and exemption authority. American states that it will serve these points under its code-share arrangement with TAM-Lineas Aereas, S.A. Applicant rep.: Carl B. Nelson, Jr. (202) 496-5647 DOT analyst: Linda Senese (202) 366-2367 DISPOSITION XX Granted, subject to conditions (see below) The above action was effective when taken: August 16, 2002, through August 16, 2004. XX Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation XX The authority requested is consistent with the U.S.-Brazil Air Transport Agreement, as amended. Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: XX Holder’s Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity XX Standard exemption conditions (attached) ________________________________________________________________________ ______ Conditions: The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign countries involved, and further (a) nothing in the award of the route (See Reverse Side) 2 integration authority granted should be construed as conferring upon American rights (including fifth-freedom, intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless American notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such rights, and (b) should there be a request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in American’s authority by virtue of the route integration exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by American, the holding of such authority by virtue of route integration will not be considered as providing American a preference in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue. ________________________________________________________________________ ______ Under the authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the action taken in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp  Attachment U.S. CARRIER Standard Exemption Conditions In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the applicant(s) shall: (1) Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government of each country served; (2) Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized); (3) Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR 241; (4) Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205; (5) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses; (6) Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations and with all U.S. Government requirements concerning security; and (7) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States. The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.152770

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-2801-0011

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Mexico Transportes Aereos S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 7, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1997-2801 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: MEXICO TRANSPORTES AEREOS S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: October 22, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment. If renewal, date and citation of last action: October 22, 2001, in this Docket. Applicant representative(s): Scott L. Johnston, 713-932-1540 DOT analyst: Allen F. Brown, 202-366-2405 Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved. Action date: November 7, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: November 7, 2002, through November 7, 2003. Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended (Agreement). Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks: In the conduct of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement. In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment). The above grant includes authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations. While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft. (Other charter operations to/from the United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.) Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such ef敦瑣癩湥獥⹳഍湁攠敬瑣潲楮⁣敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤 畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢⁥湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩⁥敗⁢瑡ഺ瑨 灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.157018

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-2878-0013

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re Aeroservicios Ejectivos, Corporativos, S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 20, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1997-2878 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: AEROSERVICIOS EJECUTIVOS, CORPORATIVOS, S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: November 27, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment. If renewal, date and citation of last action: December 13, 2001, in this Docket. Applicant representative: Lee A. Bauer, 202-331-3300 DOT analyst: Allen Brown, 202-366-2405 Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved Action date: December 20, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: December 20, 2002, through December 20, 2003 Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended (Agreement). Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: X Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks: In the conduct of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement. In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment). The above grant includes authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations. While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft. (Other charter operations to/from the United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.) Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for revie⁷楷汬渠瑯愠瑬牥猠捵⁨晥敦瑣癩湥獥⹳഍湁攠敬 瑣潲楮⁣敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢⁥湯 琠敨圠牯摬圠摩⁥敗⁢瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰 瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.160392

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-2884-0011

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Taxirey, S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 23, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1997-2884 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: TAXIREY, S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: September 17, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment. If renewal, date and citation of last action: October 5, 2001, in this Docket. Applicant representative(s): Daniel Elizondo, 210-927-2581 DOT analyst: Allen F. Brown, 202-366-2405 Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved Action date: October 23, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: October 23, 2002, through October 23, 2003 Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended (Agreement). Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: X Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks: In the conduct of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement. In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment). The above grant includes authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations. While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft. (Other charter operations to/from the United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.) Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, an⁤桴⁥楦楬杮漠⁦⁡数楴楴湯映牯爠癥敩⁷楷汬渠瑯 愠瑬牥猠捵⁨晥敦瑣癩湥獥⹳഍湁攠敬瑣潲楮⁣敶獲潩 景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢⁥湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩 ⁥敗⁢瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡 慩楴湯愮灳

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.163779

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-2909-0010

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Aeroservicios de Nuevo Leon, S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 8, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 97-2909 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: AEROSERVICIOS de NUEVO LEON, S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: December 3, 2001 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment. Applicant representative(s): Julio Gonzalez Santos, 011-52-81-8319-7784 If renewal, date and citation of last action: December 21, 2000, in this Docket. Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved. Action date: January 8, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: January 8, 2002, through January 8, 2003. Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended (Agreement). Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: X Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks: In the conduct of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement. In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment). The above grant includes authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations. While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft. (Other charter operations to/from the United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.) Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within ten (10) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this docu敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢⁥湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩⁥敗⁢瑡ഺ 瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.166738

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-2998-0013

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Aerolider, S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 25, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1997-2998 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: AEROLIDER, S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: October 21, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment. If renewal, date and citation of last action: November 27, 2001, in this Docket. Applicant representative: Lee A. Bauer, 202-331-3300 DOT analyst: Allen Brown, 202-366-2405 Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved Action date: November 25, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: November 25, 2002, through November 27, 2003 Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended (Agreement). Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: X Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks: In the conduct of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement. In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment). The above grant includes authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations. While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft. (Other charter operations to/from the United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.) Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when t歡湥‬湡⁤桴⁥楦楬杮漠⁦⁡数楴楴湯映牯爠癥敩⁷ 楷汬渠瑯愠瑬牥猠捵⁨晥敦瑣癩湥獥⹳഍湁攠敬瑣潲楮 ⁣敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬汢⁥湯琠敨圠 牯摬圠摩⁥敗⁢瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲 潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.170169

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-3124-0015

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Delta Air Lines, Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 12, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-97-3124 ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Application of DELTA AIR LINES, INC filed 9/18/02 to: XX Renew and amend, for two years, exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service: Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between any point in the United States and any point in Peru, via any intermediate point to any beyond point. Delta also requests authority to combine service on this route with all other Delta services authorized by existing certificates and exemptions. Applicant rep: Robert E. Cohn, (202)-663-8060 DOT Analyst: Keith A. Glatz, (202)-366-3260 D I S P O S I T I O N XX Granted (subject to conditions, see below) The above action was effective when taken: November 12, 2002 through November 12, 2004 or until 90 days after final action on Delta’s certificate application in Docket OST-99-6246, or whichever occurs earlier. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation XX The authority granted is consistent with the Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation to which the United States and Peru are parties. Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity XX Standard exemption conditions (attached) _____________________ Conditions: The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign countries involved. Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route integration authority requested should be construed as conferring upon Delta rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless Delta notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in Delta’s authority by virtue of the route integration exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by Delta, the holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as providing any preference to Delta in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue. ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide the services authorized. Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp APPENDIX U.S. CARRIER Standard Exemption Conditions In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the applicant(s) shall: (1) Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government of each country served; (2) Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized); (3) Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR 241; (4) Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205; (5) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses; (6) Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security; and (7) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States. The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above. 10/2002 Delta requests to broaden its existing Atlanta-Lima exemption (See Notice of Action Taken November 22, 2002 in this Docket.) To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, the holder should, before commencing any new service (including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, inform its Principal Security Inspector of its plans.

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.175483

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-3289-0064

Notice

30-Day Notice of Delta, ASA, Comair and Aeromexico (Intra-U.S. Codesharing)

Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 Shaw Pittman LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 March 15, 2002 By Facsimile and Electronic Submission Mr. Paul L. Gretch Director, Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 6402 Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: 30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”), Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. (“ASA”), Comair, Inc. (“Comair”) and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Aeromexico”) (Intra-U.S. codesharing), Dockets OST-97-3289 and OST-2000-7708 Dear Mr. Gretch: Pursuant to Order 99-6-6 (Docket OST-97-3289) and Notice of Action Taken dated August 25, 2000 (Docket OST-2000-7708), Delta, ASA, Comair and Aeromexico hereby notify the Department that, beginning on or about April 14, 2002, the carriers plan to display Aeromexico’s “AM” designator code on the Delta/ Delta Connection flights within the United States identified on Exhibit A. Respectfully submitted, /s/ William C. Evans /s/ A. Van der Bellen William C. Evans Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 Robert E. Cohn Alexander Van der Bellen ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 Counsel for Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Counsel for Delta Air Lines, Inc. Atlantic Southeast Airlines, Inc. and Comair, Inc. Attachment Exhibit A New Delta/ASA/Comair/Aeromexico Intra-U.S. Codeshare Routes Effective April 14, 2002 Flights Operated by Delta Between: Dallas Ft. Worth and San Francisco Flights Operated by ASA Between: Atlanta and Akron Albany, GA Asheville Augusta, GA Baltimore Baton Rouge Brunswick Charleston, SC Charleston, WV Charlotte Chattanooga Cleveland Columbia, SC Columbus, GA Columbus, MS Corpus Christi Daytona Beach Des Moines Detroit Dothan Evansville Fayetteville, NC Florence, SC Fort Walton Beach Fort Wayne Gainesville Grand Rapids Greenville Gulfport Huntington Huntsville Islip Jackson, MS Knoxville Lexington Louisville Lynchburg Macon Melbourne, FL Meridian Mobile Monroe Montgomery Myrtle Beach Newburgh Norfolk Panama City, FL Peoria Roanoke Sarasota Shreveport South Bend Tallahassee Toledo Tri Cities, TN Valdosta White Plains Wichita Wilmington, NC Worcester Dallas/Ft. Worth and Amarillo Austin Baton Rouge El Paso Fayetteville, AR Houston Killeen Lubbock Mobile Monroe Oklahoma City San Antonio Shreveport Texarkana Tulsa Flights Operated by Comair Between: Atlanta and Allentown Harrisburg Footnote continued from previous page Footnote continued on next page

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.191786

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-3289-0067-0001

Notice

30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 April 24, 2002 Via electronic submission Mr. Paul L. Gretch Director, Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 6402 Washington, D.C. 20590 RE: 30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Aeromexico”) (Intra-U.S. codesharing), Docket OST-97-3289 Dear Mr. Gretch: Pursuant to Order 99-6-6, Delta and Aeromexico hereby notify the Department that, beginning on or about May 24, 2002, Delta will display Aeromexico's “AM” designator code on flights operated by Delta between Salt Lake City, on the one hand, and Atlanta, Boston and Washington, D.C. (IAD), on the other hand. Respectfully submitted, /s/ William C. Evans /s/ A. Van der Bellen William C. Evans Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 Robert E. Cohn Alexander Van der Bellen ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 Counsel for Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Counsel for Delta Air Lines, Inc. Footnote continued from previous page Footnote continued on next page

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.195944

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-3289-0067-0002

Notice

30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 April 24, 2002 Via electronic submission Mr. Paul L. Gretch Director, Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 6402 Washington, D.C. 20590 RE: 30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Aeromexico”) (Intra-U.S. codesharing), Docket OST-97-3289 Dear Mr. Gretch: Pursuant to Order 99-6-6, Delta and Aeromexico hereby notify the Department that, beginning on or about May 24, 2002, Delta will display Aeromexico's “AM” designator code on flights operated by Delta between Salt Lake City, on the one hand, and Atlanta, Boston and Washington, D.C. (IAD), on the other hand. Respectfully submitted, /s/ William C. Evans /s/ A. Van der Bellen William C. Evans Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 Robert E. Cohn Alexander Van der Bellen ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 Counsel for Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Counsel for Delta Air Lines, Inc. Footnote continued from previous page Footnote continued on next page

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.199364

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-3289-0067-0003

Notice

30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 April 24, 2002 Via electronic submission Mr. Paul L. Gretch Director, Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 6402 Washington, D.C. 20590 RE: 30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Aeromexico”) (Intra-U.S. codesharing), Docket OST-97-3289 Dear Mr. Gretch: Pursuant to Order 99-6-6, Delta and Aeromexico hereby notify the Department that, beginning on or about May 24, 2002, Delta will display Aeromexico's “AM” designator code on flights operated by Delta between Salt Lake City, on the one hand, and Atlanta, Boston and Washington, D.C. (IAD), on the other hand. Respectfully submitted, /s/ William C. Evans /s/ A. Van der Bellen William C. Evans Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 Robert E. Cohn Alexander Van der Bellen ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 Counsel for Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Counsel for Delta Air Lines, Inc. Footnote continued from previous page Footnote continued on next page

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.202939

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-3289-0068-0001

Notice

30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 June 4, 2002 Mr. Paul L. Gretch Director, Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 6402 Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: 30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Aeromexico”) (Intra-Mexico codesharing), Docket OST-97-3289 Dear Mr. Gretch: Pursuant to Order 99-6-6, Delta and Aeromexico hereby notify the Department that, beginning on or about July 8, 2002, Aeromexico will display Delta’s “DL” designator code on flights operated by Aeromexico between Monterrey and Cancun. Respectfully submitted, /s/ William C. Evans /s/ A. Van der Bellen William C. Evans Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 Robert E. Cohn Alexander Van der Bellen ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 Counsel for Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Counsel for Delta Air Lines, Inc. Footnote continued from previous page Footnote continued on next page

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.208613

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-3289-0068-0002

Notice

30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 June 4, 2002 Mr. Paul L. Gretch Director, Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 6402 Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: 30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Aeromexico”) (Intra-Mexico codesharing), Docket OST-97-3289 Dear Mr. Gretch: Pursuant to Order 99-6-6, Delta and Aeromexico hereby notify the Department that, beginning on or about July 8, 2002, Aeromexico will display Delta’s “DL” designator code on flights operated by Aeromexico between Monterrey and Cancun. Respectfully submitted, /s/ William C. Evans /s/ A. Van der Bellen William C. Evans Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 Robert E. Cohn Alexander Van der Bellen ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 Counsel for Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Counsel for Delta Air Lines, Inc. Footnote continued from previous page Footnote continued on next page

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.213428

regulations

DOT-OST-1997-3289-0068-0003

Notice

30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.

Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 June 4, 2002 Mr. Paul L. Gretch Director, Office of International Aviation U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 6402 Washington, D.C. 20590 Re: 30-Day Notice of Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (“Aeromexico”) (Intra-Mexico codesharing), Docket OST-97-3289 Dear Mr. Gretch: Pursuant to Order 99-6-6, Delta and Aeromexico hereby notify the Department that, beginning on or about July 8, 2002, Aeromexico will display Delta’s “DL” designator code on flights operated by Aeromexico between Monterrey and Cancun. Respectfully submitted, /s/ William C. Evans /s/ A. Van der Bellen William C. Evans Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson and Hand, Chartered 901 15th Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-371-6030 Robert E. Cohn Alexander Van der Bellen ShawPittman LLP 2300 N Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20037 202-663-8060 Counsel for Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Counsel for Delta Air Lines, Inc. Footnote continued from previous page Footnote continued on next page

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.216909

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-20-0268-0001

Notice

Advertisements of Percentage Discounts on the Internet and Disclosure of Insurance Surcharges and Security Fees

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Advertisements of Percentage Discounts on the Internet and Disclosure of Insurance Surcharges and Security Fees NOTICE The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (“Enforcement Office”) has become aware of a number of advertising practices on Internet travel sites which may constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and related Department rules. The purpose of this notice is to clarify the applicability of section 41712 and our advertising rule, 14 CFR 399.84, to the use of banner ads announcing percentage-off discounts and sale fares. This notice also addresses the disclosure of insurance surcharges and security fees in print and Internet fare advertisements. In a letter addressed to airlines and travel industry associations dated December 20, 1994, then-Secretary Peña gave notice of the Department’s position on a number of consumer issues, including those involving certain airfare advertising practices. The Secretary clarified that discount sales which offered a percentage off must indicate the benchmark fare to which the discount applied and that that benchmark fare must be an actual fare available for purchase at the time of the sale or just prior to the discount sale. As stated in the December 20, 1994, letter: Advertisements sometimes promote air fares in terms of a percentage savings (e.g. “Save up to 50%”). However, many such ads make it impossible to determine what the advertised fare is being compared to and how the percentage savings are calculated.   Consumers are entitled to real savings to match what the promotions promise. It is thus the Department’s position that “percentage off” ads are deceptive unless (1) the “benchmark” fare (the fare to which the advertised fare is being compared) was offered for sale in reasonable quantities for a reasonable period immediately prior to the ad for the new fare, and (2) either the ad clearly identifies and describes the “benchmark” fare, or the “benchmark” fare is a discount fare comparable to the advertised fare, with similar restrictions. This notice is intended to clarify our enforcement policy with regard to “banner” percentage-off advertisements that appear on Internet sites, some of which are not themselves travel sites (i.e., travel agent or airline sites) but subsequently lead the reader to such sites. In some cases, after clicking on the banner, a consumer is sent to the site of a major Internet travel agent. Once transferred to this location, there is no indication which fares are subject to the stated percentage discounts. Generally, a consumer is led from a banner apparently promising a large percentage reduction in fares to an Internet travel agent’s site that has a standard front page inquiry form which seeks information on a consumer’s travel plans. However, the site makes no mention of the percentage discount sale, much less gives an indication of the markets or carriers to which the sale may apply or the applicable benchmark fares. Moreover, there is no way for a consumer to request a list of fares that are subject to the percentage-off sale, nor does the consumer know after providing specific travel plans if the fare quoted is one of the advertised percentage-off fares. This notice is to advise Internet travel vendors that, although banner advertisements on their own sites or on other sites are permissible, the banner, if it offers a percentage discount, must lead the consumer, within a short sequence of links, to a screen that displays the markets, carriers, and a description of the pertinent benchmark fares to which the discount applies. In addition, banner advertisements which do state a price should (1) provide notice if the advertised fares do not include all taxes and fees and state the amount of those taxes and fees, and (2) list all significant fare conditions in the advertisement or state that conditions apply with a link to another screen or pop-up display that describes those conditions. If the banner advertisement states a price that is an each-way price that is only available with a round-trip purchase, that fact must be stated in the banner advertisement itself. A second topic which we wish to address is the listing of insurance surcharges and security fees in fare advertisements. All insurance surcharges, since they are not government-imposed or -approved fees assessed on a per-passenger basis, must be included in the advertised price. As the Department has indicated in a number of consent orders and in guidance provided to the industry since 1994, only those fees that meet both criteria, that is, are both government-imposed or -approved fees and are assessed on a per-passenger basis, may be excluded and be stated separately from the advertised fare. With respect to security fees, 49 C.F.R. 1510.7 precludes the separate listing of any security fees other than the September 11th Security Fee. These guidelines apply to both printed and Internet advertising. Questions regarding this notice may be addressed to the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (C-70), 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. By: Samuel Podberesky Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings Dated: June 5, 2002 (SEAL) An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov/reports The Department has allowed taxes and fees collected by carriers and other sellers of air transportation, such as passenger facility charges (PFCs) and departure taxes, to be stated separately in fare advertisements so long as the charges are levied or approved by a government entity, are not ad valorem in nature, are collected on a per-passenger basis, and their existence and amount are clearly indicated in the advertisement so that the consumer can determine the full fare to be paid. However, any fuel surcharges, as well as ad valorem taxes, must be included in the advertised fare. By Notice of December 17, 2001, the Department set out the very limited circumstances in which travel agent service fees may be stated separately from the advertised fare on internet sites. (See, the Department website at HYPERLINK "http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer" http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer ). (footnote continued on next page)3 PAGE 3

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.224028

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-20-0268-0002

Notice

Advertisements of Percentage Discounts on the Internet and Disclosure of Insurance Surcharges and Security Fees

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Advertisements of Percentage Discounts on the Internet and Disclosure of Insurance Surcharges and Security Fees NOTICE The Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (“Enforcement Office”) has become aware of a number of advertising practices on Internet travel sites which may constitute unfair or deceptive trade practices in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and related Department rules. The purpose of this notice is to clarify the applicability of section 41712 and our advertising rule, 14 CFR 399.84, to the use of banner ads announcing percentage-off discounts and sale fares. This notice also addresses the disclosure of insurance surcharges and security fees in print and Internet fare advertisements. In a letter addressed to airlines and travel industry associations dated December 20, 1994, then-Secretary Peña gave notice of the Department’s position on a number of consumer issues, including those involving certain airfare advertising practices. The Secretary clarified that discount sales which offered a percentage off must indicate the benchmark fare to which the discount applied and that that benchmark fare must be an actual fare available for purchase at the time of the sale or just prior to the discount sale. As stated in the December 20, 1994, letter: Advertisements sometimes promote air fares in terms of a percentage savings (e.g. “Save up to 50%”). However, many such ads make it impossible to determine what the advertised fare is being compared to and how the percentage savings are calculated.   Consumers are entitled to real savings to match what the promotions promise. It is thus the Department’s position that “percentage off” ads are deceptive unless (1) the “benchmark” fare (the fare to which the advertised fare is being compared) was offered for sale in reasonable quantities for a reasonable period immediately prior to the ad for the new fare, and (2) either the ad clearly identifies and describes the “benchmark” fare, or the “benchmark” fare is a discount fare comparable to the advertised fare, with similar restrictions. This notice is intended to clarify our enforcement policy with regard to “banner” percentage-off advertisements that appear on Internet sites, some of which are not themselves travel sites (i.e., travel agent or airline sites) but subsequently lead the reader to such sites. In some cases, after clicking on the banner, a consumer is sent to the site of a major Internet travel agent. Once transferred to this location, there is no indication which fares are subject to the stated percentage discounts. Generally, a consumer is led from a banner apparently promising a large percentage reduction in fares to an Internet travel agent’s site that has a standard front page inquiry form which seeks information on a consumer’s travel plans. However, the site makes no mention of the percentage discount sale, much less gives an indication of the markets or carriers to which the sale may apply or the applicable benchmark fares. Moreover, there is no way for a consumer to request a list of fares that are subject to the percentage-off sale, nor does the consumer know after providing specific travel plans if the fare quoted is one of the advertised percentage-off fares. This notice is to advise Internet travel vendors that, although banner advertisements on their own sites or on other sites are permissible, the banner, if it offers a percentage discount, must lead the consumer, within a short sequence of links, to a screen that displays the markets, carriers, and a description of the pertinent benchmark fares to which the discount applies. In addition, banner advertisements which do state a price should (1) provide notice if the advertised fares do not include all taxes and fees and state the amount of those taxes and fees, and (2) list all significant fare conditions in the advertisement or state that conditions apply with a link to another screen or pop-up display that describes those conditions. If the banner advertisement states a price that is an each-way price that is only available with a round-trip purchase, that fact must be stated in the banner advertisement itself. A second topic which we wish to address is the listing of insurance surcharges and security fees in fare advertisements. All insurance surcharges, since they are not government-imposed or -approved fees assessed on a per-passenger basis, must be included in the advertised price. As the Department has indicated in a number of consent orders and in guidance provided to the industry since 1994, only those fees that meet both criteria, that is, are both government-imposed or -approved fees and are assessed on a per-passenger basis, may be excluded and be stated separately from the advertised fare. With respect to security fees, 49 C.F.R. 1510.7 precludes the separate listing of any security fees other than the September 11th Security Fee. These guidelines apply to both printed and Internet advertising. Questions regarding this notice may be addressed to the Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings (C-70), 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. By: Samuel Podberesky Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings Dated: June 5, 2002 (SEAL) An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov/reports The Department has allowed taxes and fees collected by carriers and other sellers of air transportation, such as passenger facility charges (PFCs) and departure taxes, to be stated separately in fare advertisements so long as the charges are levied or approved by a government entity, are not ad valorem in nature, are collected on a per-passenger basis, and their existence and amount are clearly indicated in the advertisement so that the consumer can determine the full fare to be paid. However, any fuel surcharges, as well as ad valorem taxes, must be included in the advertised fare. By Notice of December 17, 2001, the Department set out the very limited circumstances in which travel agent service fees may be stated separately from the advertised fare on internet sites. (See, the Department website at HYPERLINK "http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer" http://www.dot.gov/airconsumer ). (footnote continued on next page)3 PAGE 3

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.229514

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-20-0289

Notice

2002/2003 U.S.-Hong Kong Service Opportunities

Posted: 10/24/2002 10:45am UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Served: October 29, 2002 2002/2003 U.S.-HONG KONG SERVICE OPPORTUNITIES NOTICE INVITING APPLICATIONS By this Notice, we invite all U.S. carriers interested in making use of new service opportunities in the U.S.-Hong Kong aviation market to file applications as set forth below, no later than seven calendar days after the service date of this Notice. Background On October 19, 2002, the United States and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (Hong Kong), signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) authorizing new services in the U.S.-Hong Kong market. The agreement between the United States and Hong Kong represents a significant expansion of opportunities for U.S. carriers and the traveling and shipping public. The agreement provides for 28 additional weekly flights for U.S. combination services between Hong Kong and third countries, including Japan. With respect to all-cargo services, the new agreement provides for an increase of 56 weekly all-cargo flights by U.S. carriers between Hong Kong and third countries. Additionally, the new agreement provides for first-time code-sharing for U.S.-Hong Kong services. Finally, the new agreement provides that both U.S. and Hong Kong combination and all-cargo carriers may fly between Hong Kong and any U.S. city. In light of the fact that certain of these new route opportunities have limitations, restrictions, and/or phase-in clauses, and in the interest of convenience to interested parties, we have attached a copy of the U.S. carrier combination and all-cargo route schedules and related notes as set forth in Appendices 1 and 2 of the MOU.  Applications In order to ensure that U.S. carriers are given the opportunity to use these valuable new route rights, we invite interested carriers to file exemption applications, designation requests, and frequency applications, as well as, where applicable, third-country code-share authorization applications and requests for statements of authorization. By this notice, we are soliciting applications and requests for all of the new U.S. carrier rights set forth in the MOU that are frequency-limited, with the exception of those all-cargo frequencies that do not become available until the third year of the phase-in. We shall award these rights subsequently. Except for the procedural dates, exemption/frequency applications should conform to Part 302, Subpart C of our regulations (14 CFR Part 302). All applications and other related requests should be filed with the Department of Transportation (Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590), and should include, at a minimum and as applicable, the proposed startup date(s); routings from origin to destination of all proposed flights; days scheduled; frequencies requested per market, and the duration of service in each market, if not provided on a year-round basis; route integration authority, if desired; equipment types (including seating configuration—first, business, and economy); and existing authority held to conduct the operations. In cases where the U.S. carrier proposes to conduct code-share operations involving fifth-freedom traffic rights, applications should include, at a minimum, the code-share partner(s) involved; which carrier(s) would be operating the flights; and the country and specific intermediate point(s) over which the services would be provided. In addition, unless previously filed and approved by the Department, the carriers must provide as part of their applications, copies of any relevant cooperative service arrangements. Applicants are also free to submit any additional information that they believe will help us in making our decisions here. In view of the immediate availability of the majority of the new rights, we will request that these applications, etc., be filed no later than seven calendar days from the service date of this Notice. We intend to award the available opportunities based on the applications filed in response to this notice. Should comparative selection among the applicants be necessary, we will establish further proceedings to handle the requests. We will authorize service of documents by facsimile and by electronic mail. Carriers that are interested in such service, however, should state if they want service by email and should provide interested parties with their fax number and/or email address. Therefore, acting under authority assigned in 14 CFR 385.3, we invite the applications as described above to be filed no later than seven calendar days from the service date of this Notice.  We will serve this Notice on all U.S. certificated carriers operating large aircraft; the U.S. Department of State (Office of Aviation Negotiations); and the Federal Aviation Administration. By: PAUL L. GRETCH Director Office of International Aviation (SEAL) Attachment Dated: October 24, 2002 An electronic version of this order is available on the World Wide Web at HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp These increases will be phased in over a two-year period. These increases will be phased in over a three-year period. Previously, U.S. and Hong Kong carriers were limited to service from only six U.S. gateways in the continental United States. “Where applicable” refers to situations in which the U.S. carrier is proposing to exercise fifth-freedom traffic rights on a code-share operation. The original filing is to be unbound and without tabs on 8-1/2” X 11” white paper, using dark ink (not green) to facilitate use of the Department’s docket imaging system. In the alternative, filers are encouraged to use the electronic submission capacity available through the Dockets/DMS Internet site ( HYPERLINK https://dms.dot.gov https://dms.dot.gov ) by following the instructions at the web site. It will not be necessary for applicants to file separate motions to consolidate to assure that the Department considers mutually exclusive applications contemporaneously; the Department will consolidate all mutually exclusive applications filed in response to this Notice on its own initiative for contemporaneous consideration. PAGE 4 PAGE 2

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.241608

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-20-0291

Notice

Notice of Registration of Trade Name

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. ------------------------------------------------------------Served: November 27, 2002 AIR WISCONSIN AIRLINES CORPORATION ------------------------------------------------------------ NOTICE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE NAME On November 18, 2002, Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation (Air Wisconsin), a U.S. certificated air carrier, requested that the Department register the trade name, “AirTran JetConnect” for use in its certificated air carrier operations. Air Wisconsin advises us that it is using this name in connection with a code-sharing and marketing agreement it has entered into with AirTran Airways, another U.S. certificated air carrier. Part 215 of the Department’s regulations provides that any carrier wishing to use an alternative trade name must register that name with the Department. The rule further states that the Department may register such name after the carrier gives notification of the proposed name to similarly named carriers. AirTran Airways is aware of Air Wisconsin’s use of the “AirTran JetConnect” name, and we identified no other carriers using a similar name. Under these circumstances, on November 19, we orally advised AirWisconsin that we would register “AirTran JetConnect” as a trade name to be used by the carrier. This notice confirms that registration. Dated at Washington, D.C., November 22, 2002 RANDALL D. BENNETT Director Office of Aviation Analysis (SEAL) SERVICE LIST FOR AIR WISCONSIN AIRLINES CORPORATION MR. WILLIAM P JORDAN EXECUTIVE V.P. –ADMINISTRATION & GENERAL COUNSEL W6390 CHALLENGER DR, STE. 203 APPLETON, WI 54914-9120 MR. RICHARD DUTTON ASST. MANAGER CSET FAA, AFS-900 45005 AVIATION DRIVE DULLES, VIA 20166-7537 MR. PERRY KUPIETZ, AGL-7 OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COUNSEL FAA, GREAT LAKES REGION HQ 2300 E DEVON AVENUE DES PLAINES, IL 60018 MR. DAVID HANLEY, MANAGER FLIGHT STANDARDS DIV, AGL-200 FAA, GREAT LAKES REGION HQ. 2300 E DEVON AVENUE DES PLAINES, IL 60018 MANAGER FLIGHT STANDARDS DISTRICT OFFICE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 4915 S. HOWELL AVENUE MILWAUKEE, WI 53207 MR.PETER LYNCH, ASST CHIEF COUNSEL FOR ENFORCEMENT AGC-300 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW WASHINGTON DC 20591 MR. DONALD BRIGHT, ACTG DIR OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFO K-25 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 400 SEVENTH ST SW WASHINGTON DC 20590 MR. ALLAN MUTEN ASSISTANT TREASURER AIRLINES REPORTING CORPORATION 1530 WILSON BLVD, STE 800 ARLINGTON, VA. 22209-2448 MS. JONI MOUNT OFFICIAL AIRLINE GUIDE 2000 CLEARWATER DRIVE OAK BROOK IL 60521 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES 601 MADISON ST, STE 400 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314-1756 MR. JIM ZAMMAR DIRECTOR OF REVENUE ACCOUNTING AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION 1709 NEW YORK AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20006 See Order 98-7-6, issued July 8, 1998. page 4

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.250882

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-20-0293

Notice

Notice - Japan Charter Authorizations 2003

Served: December 4, 2002 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC NOTICE Japan Charter Authorizations (January 1 – December 31, 2003) Under the terms of a 1998 U.S.-Japan Memorandum of Understanding (1998 MOU), U.S. carriers can operate 800 one-way charter flights (hereinafter we refer to “one-way charters” simply as “charters”) between the United States and Japan during the calendar year 2003 (January 1-December 31, 2003), subject to the limitation that no more than 300 of these flights may serve Tokyo. By Orders 92-6-32 and 92-9-21, we established new procedures to simplify the distribution of the annual charters available to U.S. carriers for operation in the U.S.-Japan market. Specifically, we replaced our year-to-year comparative allocation proceedings with streamlined advance allotment/charter pool procedures. Under these procedures, a portion of the available charters are allotted in advance to carriers that have operated an average of at least 20 charters over the previous two years. The balance is maintained in a charter pool for distribution on a first-come, first-served basis. We stated that allotments would be issued in advance of the beginning of the charter year to qualifying carriers for the upcoming charter year. Under our streamlined procedures, two carriers—Continental Micronesia and Polar Air Cargo—are entitled to advance allocations. Based on the attached summary of carrier operations in the U.S. Japan market, consistent with the procedures established in Orders 92-6-32 and 92-9-21, Continental Micronesia would receive an advance allocation of 32 charters, and Polar 38 charters. The remaining 730 flights are reserved in a charter pool for distribution on a first-come, first-served basis. As discussed in Order 92-9-21, we require carriers issued advance allotments to notify the U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division (X-44), Office of International Aviation, by letter no later than 14 days after the service date of this notice as to what portion of their advance allotment they intend to operate, together with an estimate of the number of charters to be used for Tokyo service in calendar year 2003. They also are required to file monthly reports of the charter flights operated from their advance allocations. Carriers operating flights from the charter pool must also file post flight reports, identifying the date of the Notice of Consistency under which those flights were approved. 2 The advance allotments issued by this notice and flights operated from the charter pool for operations in calendar year 2003 are subject to the conditions and procedures established in the Appendix. As a final matter, in order to facilitate maximum usage of the available charter opportunities, and taking into account recent patterns of use (where supply has considerably exceeded demand) and the fact that under the terms of the 1998 MOU the total number of available charters has increased from 600 to 800, we have decided to increase the number of charters for which carriers may apply each month from 30 to 50. By: READ C. VAN DE WATER Assistant Secretary for Aviation International Affairs (SEAL) Dated: December 4, 2002 Attachment An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp  APPENDIX Page 1 of 2 1. The advance allotments are subject to the following condition: Where fewer than 40 percent of a carrier’s allocated charters have been used or been committed for use by contracts during the six-month period ending June 30, the remaining charter allotments exceeding or equal to the number of those already operated or committed by contract in the preceding six months would be forfeited and placed in the charter pool. 2. The charters not subject to advance allotment for the charter year are reserved in a charter pool for distribution on a first-come, first-served basis subject to the following conditions: (a) For the period January 1 through October, 31, 2003, carriers may apply for up to 50 charters per month; (b) After October 31, 2003, no restrictions apply on the number of charters that may be applied for each month; (c) Applications to operate charters may be filed no earlier than 90 days in advance of the flight date; and (d) Applications must identify the type of charter (passenger or cargo); the date of each one-way flight; the charterer(s); the city-pair markets involved by direction; the type of aircraft to be used; and (for cargo charters) the type of cargo transported. After October 31, 2003, a copy of the charter contract would also be required. 3. Each carrier granted an advance allotment must notify the U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division (X-44), Office of International Aviation, by letter, no later than July 10, 2003, of the number of charters it has operated through June 30, 2003, and the number of flights committed by firm contracts for the balance of the charter year. For charters under contract, carriers shall indicate the charterer(s), dates, city-pair markets, and nature of the traffic. 4. Each carrier granted either an advance allotment or pool charters must notify the U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division (X-44), Office of International Aviation, no later than the tenth day of each month (or until its charters are exhausted, whichever occurs earlier) of: (1) the number of Japan charters operated during the preceding month; (2) the city pairs served by direction; and (3) the number of charters for which Japanese authority was obtained for that month which  APPENDIX Page 2 of 2 subsequently were canceled or rescheduled. Carriers with advance allotment charters shall notify the Department whether or not any charters have been operated by the carrier during the month and such carriers shall return to the Department immediately any allotted flights(s) that it will not use; and 5. The Director of the Office of International Aviation is assigned the authority for this and subsequent charter years, to administer distribution of flights from the charter pool established by this order and, where deemed in the public interest, to waive the restrictions on the charter pool. U.S.-JAPAN CHARTER OPERATIONS 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total Continental Micronesia 0 8 0 0 2 6 12 0 4 4 8 0 44 Federal Express 0 1 4 2 0 2* 0 0 0 1 8 0 18 Polar Air Cargo 1* 3* 10* 15* 11* 3* 1* 2* 2* 1* 3* 2* 53* 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total Continental Micronesia 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 3 8 0 17 Federal Express 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 6 Polar Air Cargo 1* 3* 1* 4* 3* 0 2 1 2 1 1 2 21 *Flights obtained from the charter pool Two Year Average Rounded to Next 2000/2001 2001/2002 Average Even Number Continental Micronesia 44 17 30.5 32 Federal Express 18 6 12 12 Polar Air Cargo 53* 21 37 38 Our procedures provide that the average number will be rounded to the next even number. See Order 92-6-32 at page 4. Based on Federal Express’ monthly reports filed with the Department, Federal Express did not operate an average of at least 20 charters over the previous two years and, thus, does not qualify to receive an advance allotment for the 2003 charter year.

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.313517

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-3376-0006

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: American Airlines, Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 6, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-98-3376 ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Application of American Airlines, Inc. , filed 1/16/02 to: XX Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service: Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between the coterminal points New York, New York; and Chicago, Illinois; and the terminal point Warsaw, Poland. American intends to operate this service pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Polski Linie Lotnicze LOT S.A. American will place its designator code on LOT’s nonstop flights between New York and Chicago, on the one hand, and Warsaw, on the other. Applicant rep: Carl B. Nelson, Jr. (202) 496-5647 DOT Analyst: Sylvia Moore (202) 366-6519 D I S P O S I T I O N XX Granted (subject to conditions, see below) The above action was effective when taken: February 6, 2002, through February 6, 2004 Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation XX The exemption authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement between the United States and Poland. Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity XX Standard exemption conditions (attached) XX Statement of authorization for American/LOT code-share operations dated December 10, 1998, and conditions therein ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide the services authorized. Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a “major regulatory action” under the Energy, Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. (See Reverse Side) 2 Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within ten (10) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp  APPENDIX U.S. CARRIER Standard Exemption Conditions In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the applicant(s) shall: (1) Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government of each country served; (2) Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized); (3) Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR 241; (4) Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205; (5) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses; (6) Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations, including all FAA requirements concerning security; and (7) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States. The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.318450

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-3483-0010

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Aerotransportes Privados, S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 23, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1998-3483 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: AEROTRANSPORTES PRIVADOS, S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: September 3, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment. If renewal, date and citation of last action: September 26, 2001 Applicant representative(s): Julio Gonzalez Santos, 011-52-81-8319-7784 Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved. Action date: September 23, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: September 23, 2002, through September 26, 2003. Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended (Agreement). Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks: In the conduct of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement. In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment). The above grant includes authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations. While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft. (Other charter operations to/from the United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.) Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.322970

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-3652-0019

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Polar Air Cargo, Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 15, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-98-3652 ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Application of Polar Air Cargo, Inc. filed 7/8/2002 for: XX Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service: Scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between points in the United States, and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, via Ostend, Belgium, and Shannon, Ireland, and beyond Saudi Arabia to Johannesburg, South Africa; Harare, Zimbabwe; and Nairobi, Kenya, and to integrate its Saudi Arabia authority with its existing exemption and certificate authority. Polar intends to serve Johannesburg and Nairobi on a blind-sector basis only until such time as service with full traffic rights is permitted under the U.S.-Saudi Arabia aviation agreement. Applicant rep: Russell E. Pommer 202-354-3843 DOT Analyst: Gerald Caolo 202-366-2406 D I S P O S I T I O N XX Granted (subject to conditions, see below) The above action was effective when taken: August 15, 2002, through August 15, 2004 Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation XX The authority granted is consistent with the aviation relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and with the aviation agreements between the United States and Belgium, the United States and Ireland, the United States and South Africa, and with the overall state of aviation relations between the United States and Zimbabwe and the United States and Kenya. Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity XX Standard exemption conditions (attached) ________________________ Conditions: The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign countries involved. Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route integration authority requested should be construed as conferring upon Polar rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless Polar notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such rights; and See reverse side (b) should there be a request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in Polar’s authority by virtue of the route integration exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by Polar, the holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as providing any preference for Polar in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue. ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide the services authorized. Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp  APPENDIX U.S. Carrier Standard Exemption Conditions In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the applicant(s) shall: (1) Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government of each country served; (2) Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized); (3) Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR 241; (4) Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205; (5) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses; (6) Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations and with all U.S. Government requirements concerning security; and (7) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States. The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above. PAGE PAGE 2

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.333643

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-3652-0022

Notice

Notice Action Taken re: Polar Air Cargo, Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Issued by the Department of Transportation on October 23, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-98-3652 _____________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Application of Polar Air Cargo, Inc. filed 10/11/02 for: XX Waiver of dormancy condition: By Notice of Action Taken dated September 8, 1998, the Department granted Polar Air Cargo exemption authority to provide scheduled all-cargo service between points in the United States and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, via Ostend, Belgium, and Shannon, Ireland, and beyond Saudi Arabia to Johannesburg, South Africa; Harare, Zimbabwe; and Nairobi, Kenya, and allocated it two weekly U.S.-Saudi Arabia frequencies for this service. That award was subject to the condition that the frequency allocation would expire automatically and the frequencies would revert to the Department for reallocation if they are not used for a period of 90 days. Polar temporarily suspended Saudi Arabia service on June 18, 1999. The Department has previously granted Polar waivers of the 90-day dormancy condition. Polar seeks a further waiver of the 90-day the dormancy condition until December 26, 2002, stating that it has firm plans to use the frequencies involved. Polar states that the Department should grant the modest two-month relief sought here so that it can complete certain arrangements to resume its Saudi Arabia service. Polar states that its needs to finalize an agreement with a shipper that will make its Saudi Arabia service viable, and it will then require time to make necessary logistical and regulatory arrangements. Polar states that it has already submitted its application for resumption of service to the authorities of Saudi Arabia. Applicant rep.: Russell E. Pommer, 202-354-3843 DOT analyst: Gerald Caolo, 202-366-2406 DISPOSITION XX Granted. (See Remarks below) The above action was effective when taken: October 23, 2002, through December 26, 2002 XX Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation (See Reverse Side) 2 ________________________________________________________________________ ___________ Remarks: We have granted Polar’s request here, as in the public interest, since the carrier has demonstrated its firm plans to resume its Saudi Arabia service within a short period. However, there should be no expectation that an additional request will similarly be granted. Any future requests to extend the dormancy waiver for the frequencies at issue here will have to be considered in light of the specific arguments offered in support of the request and any comments that might be filed in response, and in the context of the circumstances present at that time. Furthermore, should another carrier seek to use the frequencies at issue here, we reserve the right to reexamine whether the waiver granted here continues to be in the public interest. We acted on this application without awaiting expiration of the 7-day answer period with the consent of all parties served. ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; and (2) grant of the waiver was consistent with the public interest. To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp See the most recent Notice of Action Taken, dated August 15, 2002, in Docket 98-3652, extending the exemption authority through August 15, 2004. The frequency allocation was awarded in 1998 for an indefinite period provided that Polar continued to hold the necessary underlying authority. See the most recent Notice of Action Taken, dated March 22, 2002, in Docket 98-3652, extending the waiver through October 26, 2002. Polar’s waiver from the dormancy condition is effective through December 26, 2002, or until the date on which Polar begins service with each of the frequencies, whichever occurs earlier. As to any frequency with which Polar does not begin service by December 26, 2002, its frequency allocation with respect to that frequency expires automatically.

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.338077

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-3726-0013

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 8, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-98-4345 & OST-98-3726 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise Date Filed: November 30, 2001 Relief requested: Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. 41301 to conduct foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and the coterminal points Washington, DC, and Newark, NJ, via a non-traffic stop in Rome, for a period of two years. If renewal, date and citation of last action: Notice of Action Taken dated December 5, 2000, in this docket Applicant representative: Michael Goldman 202-944-3305 Responsive pleadings: None DISPOSITION Action: Approved in part; Remainder dismissed Action date: January 7, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: January 8, 2002 - January 8, 2003 Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): Reciprocity Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: X Standard exemption conditions (attached) __ Foreign air carrier permit conditions (Order - - ) Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ We found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations. Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within ten (10) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp  Appendix A FOREIGN AIR CARRIER CONDITIONS OF AUTHORITY In the conduct of the operations authorized, the holder shall: (1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a copy of such authorization with the Department; (2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and 36; (3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that office); (4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the Chicago Convention; (5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of its Government for international air services; (6) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203, concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses; (7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a) based on its operations in international air transportation that, according to the contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b) based on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any court or other tribunal of the United States. In this condition, the term "international air transportation" means "international transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the purpose of this definition; (8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland; (9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data; (10) If charter operations are authorized, comply (except as otherwise provided in the applicable bilateral agreement) with the Department's rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and (11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States. This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above. Moreover, this authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code (formerly the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended). (41301/40109) 9/98 The applicant requested that the authority be effective for a period of two years. We dismissed that portion of the carrier’s application to conduct the operations beyond January 8, 2003, without prejudice to refiling at a later date. The duration of this authority is consistent with our usual policy of granting exemption authority in cases such as that presented here. PAGE

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.341836

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-3739-0011

Notice

Notice of Action Taken Dismissing Applications of Various Dockets

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 25, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN DISMISSING APPLICATIONS—VARIOUS DOCKETS ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the actions described below, taken on the date shown above by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in these matters). The carriers listed below have applied for various forms of authority or relief under Title 49 of the United States Code in order to perform the air transportation activities described. Each application has either been withdrawn by the applicant or otherwise become moot. Therefore, under authority assigned by the Department in its Regulations, 14 CFR § 385.3 and 385.13, we find that these applications should be dismissed. Docket Description of Application OST-2002-11374 Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., filed January 23, 2002. Exemption to conduct scheduled combination service between Mexico City, Mexico, and El Paso, Texas. By letter dated February 19, 2002, Aeromexico stated that it does not intend to pursue this application and that the application may be dismissed. OST-98-4401 Itapemirim Transportes Aereos, S.A., filed August 31, 1998. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail between a point or points in Brazil, on the one hand, and the coterminal points Los Angeles/New York/Miami and Atlanta, via intermediate points; and authority to conduct all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Itapemirim has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-98-3739 Société Air France, filed February 8, 2002. Renew exemption, last granted by Notice of Action Taken, dated May 24, 2000, to allow Air France to continue to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points in France and any point or points in the United States, either directly or via intermediate points. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-96-1862 Air Atlantic Dominicana, C. por A., filed October 11, 1996. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and the coterminal points Miami, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Atlantic Dominicana has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-96-1516 Aerocomercial de Transporte Y Rutas, S.A., filed July 8, 1996, as supplemented. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Ecuador and the United States, and other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerocomercial has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-758 Haiti National Airlines, filed October 7, 1999. Renew exemption, last granted October 28, 1998, in Order 98-10-30, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami, Fort Lauderdale, New York and San Juan; and authority to conduct charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Haiti National has no plans to prosecute this application.  OST-95-428 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Exemption to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-427 Skyjet, Inc. d/b/a Skyjet Antigua & Barbuda, filed August 21, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Antigua and Barbuda and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Skyjet has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-165 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-97-2194 Atlant-Soyuz Airlines, filed May 15, 1995. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between the Russian Federation and the United States; and to conduct other all-cargo charters in accordance with Part 212. Information available to the Department indicates that Atlant-Soyuz has no plans to prosecute this application. 50127 Aerovias Honduras, S.A. de C.V., filed February 13, 1995. Exemption to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Honduras and points in the United States, via Belize and beyond. Information available to the Department indicates that Aerovias Honduras has no plans to prosecute this application. 49965 Haytian Aviation Lines, S.A. d/b/a Halisa Air, filed December 13, 1994. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and Miami and Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Information available to the Department indicates that Halisa Air has no plans to prosecute this application. OST-95-595 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Exemption to allow Air France to continue operating under all existing exemption authorities and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. OST-95-594 Société Air France, filed April 27, 1993. Renew and amend foreign air carrier permit to permit Air France to continue operating under all existing permits and to include all other authorities outstanding, pending renewal or in effect prior to expiration of the 1946 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit under the 1998 Air Transport Agreement between the United States and France which encompasses the authority at issue here. 48630 Japan Universal System Transport Co., Ltd., filed January 29, 1993. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Japan Universal System has no plans to prosecute this application. 47556 World Air Network Co., Ltd., filed May 28, 1991. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Japan and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that World Air Network has no plans to prosecute this application. 46016 Société Air France, filed October 10, 1991. Renew exemption, last granted October 31, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to commingle all-cargo traffic in foreign air transportation between specified points in the United States and France, with all-cargo traffic not in foreign air transportation between specified points in Canada and France. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 45652 Société Air France, filed August 4, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted August 7, 1990, and confirmed by Order 90-12-5, to engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and San Juan, via intermediate or beyond points Martinique and Guadeloupe. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 44313 Société Air France, filed August 25, 1992. Renew exemption, last granted October 9, 1991, and confirmed by Order 93-3-3, to among other things, (a) serve Los Angeles on all-cargo operations as a coterminal point on the route specified in paragraph 2 of its effective foreign air carrier permit (Order 76-2-25); (2) serve Montreal as an intermediate point and San Francisco as a coterminal point on its authorized France-Los Angeles route; and (3) provide scheduled service between Tahiti and Los Angeles. By Order 2002-5-8, we issued Air France an amended foreign air carrier permit which encompasses the authority at issue here. 46845 Air Liberté S.A., filed March 15, 1990. Initial foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between France and the United States. Information available to the Department indicates that Air Liberté has no plans to prosecute this application. DISPOSITION Action: We dismiss the applications described above. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR § 385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. The actions set forth in this Notice shall be effective and become the actions of the Department of Transportation upon expiration of the above period unless within such period a petition for Department review is filed or the Department gives notice that it will review one or more actions on its own motion. The filing of a petition for review with respect to one of the dismissed items will not alter the effectiveness of this Notice with respect to the others. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp" http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.345749

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-3846-0007

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Delta Air Lines, Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 16, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-98-3846 & OST-98-4296 ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc. filed 6/27/02 to: XX Renew for two years exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service: (1) Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between a point or points in the United States and Cotonou, Benin, and to integrate this authority with its existing certificate and exemption authority. Delta plans to operate this service pursuant to a third-country code-share arrangement with Air France (Docket OST-98-4296). (2) Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons property, and mail between a point or points in the United States, on the one hand, and Luanda, Angola; Yaounde, Cameroon; Ndjamena, Chad; Libreville, Gabon; Nouakchott, Mauritania; Agadir, Marrakech, and Rabat, Morocco; Niamey, Niger; Seychelles; and Sfax, Tunisia, on the other, and to integrate this authority with its existing certificate and exemption authority. Delta plans to operate this service pursuant to a third-country code-share arrangement with Air France (Docket OST-98-3846). Applicant rep: Robert E. Cohn (202) 663-8060 DOT Analyst: Sylvia Moore (202) 366-6519 D I S P O S I T I O N XX Granted (subject to conditions, see below) The above action was effective when taken: August 16, 2002, through August 16, 2004, or until 90 days after final action on Delta’s corresponding certificate application in Docket OST-99-6246, whichever occurs earlier. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation XX The authority granted to serve Morocco and Cotonou, Benin is consistent with the aviation agreements between the United States and Morocco and Benin, respectively. The authority granted to serve the remaining points is consistent with the overall state of aviation relations between the United States and the foreign countries involved. Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity XX Standard exemption conditions (attached) XX Statement of authorization approving Delta/Air France code-share operations dated August 6, 1998, and conditions therein (See Reverse Side) 2 Conditions: The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign countries involved. Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route integration authority requested should be construed as conferring upon Delta rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless Delta notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in Delta’s authority by virtue of the route integration exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by Delta, the holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as providing any preference for Delta in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue. ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide the services authorized. Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp  APPENDIX U.S. CARRIER Standard Exemption Conditions In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the applicant(s) shall: (1) Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government of each country served; (2) Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized); (3) Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR 241; (4) Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205; (5) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses; (6) Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations and with all U.S. Government requirements concerning security; and (7) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States. The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above. Originally Delta operated this service pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Sabena Belgian World Airlines, but that arrangement has been discontinued.

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.351329

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-4070-0010

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Transporte Ejecutivo Aereo S.A. de C.V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, D.C. Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 9, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1998-4070 ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Applicant: TRANSPORTE EJECUTIVO AEREO S.A. de C.V. Date Filed: July 9, 2002 Relief requested: Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charter operations in accordance with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment. If renewal, date and citation of last action: July 26, 2001, in this Docket. Applicant representative(s): Juan Isaias Moctezuma Ayala, (5) 709-13-13 ext. 5551 Responsive pleadings: None. DISPOSITION Action: Approved Action date: August 9, 2002 Effective dates of authority granted: August 9, 2002, through August 9, 2003 Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as amended and extended (Agreement). Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: X Standard exemption conditions. Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks: In the conduct of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement. In the conduct of these operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more than 18,000 pounds (small equipment). The above grant includes authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations. While we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement, Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft. (Other charter operations to/from the United States under this authority, however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.) Further, we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in the conduct of such operations. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.356824

regulations

DOT-OST-1998-4296-0007

Notice

Notice of Action Taken re: Delta Air Lines, Inc.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, DC Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 16, 2002 NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-98-3846 & OST-98-4296 ________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________ This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order will be issued in this matter). Application of Delta Air Lines, Inc. filed 6/27/02 to: XX Renew for two years exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the following service: (1) Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail between a point or points in the United States and Cotonou, Benin, and to integrate this authority with its existing certificate and exemption authority. Delta plans to operate this service pursuant to a third-country code-share arrangement with Air France (Docket OST-98-4296). (2) Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons property, and mail between a point or points in the United States, on the one hand, and Luanda, Angola; Yaounde, Cameroon; Ndjamena, Chad; Libreville, Gabon; Nouakchott, Mauritania; Agadir, Marrakech, and Rabat, Morocco; Niamey, Niger; Seychelles; and Sfax, Tunisia, on the other, and to integrate this authority with its existing certificate and exemption authority. Delta plans to operate this service pursuant to a third-country code-share arrangement with Air France (Docket OST-98-3846). Applicant rep: Robert E. Cohn (202) 663-8060 DOT Analyst: Sylvia Moore (202) 366-6519 D I S P O S I T I O N XX Granted (subject to conditions, see below) The above action was effective when taken: August 16, 2002, through August 16, 2004, or until 90 days after final action on Delta’s corresponding certificate application in Docket OST-99-6246, whichever occurs earlier. Action taken by: Paul L. Gretch, Director Office of International Aviation XX The authority granted to serve Morocco and Cotonou, Benin is consistent with the aviation agreements between the United States and Morocco and Benin, respectively. The authority granted to serve the remaining points is consistent with the overall state of aviation relations between the United States and the foreign countries involved. Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated: XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity XX Standard exemption conditions (attached) XX Statement of authorization approving Delta/Air France code-share operations dated August 6, 1998, and conditions therein (See Reverse Side) 2 Conditions: The route integration authority granted is subject to the condition that any service provided under this exemption shall be consistent with all applicable agreements between the United States and the foreign countries involved. Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of the route integration authority requested should be construed as conferring upon Delta rights (including fifth-freedom intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier entry is limited unless Delta notifies the Department of its intent to serve such a market and unless and until the Department has completed any necessary carrier selection procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by any carrier to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in Delta’s authority by virtue of the route integration exemption granted here, but that are not then being used by Delta, the holding of such authority by route integration will not be considered as providing any preference for Delta in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue. ________________________________________________________________________ ______________ On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide the services authorized. Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department policy; (2) grant of the exemption authority was consistent with the public interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the referenced Docket. We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion. Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of issuance of this Notice. This action was effective when taken, and the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness. An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp  APPENDIX U.S. CARRIER Standard Exemption Conditions In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the applicant(s) shall: (1) Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government of each country served; (2) Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized); (3) Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR 241; (4) Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205; (5) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses; (6) Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations and with all U.S. Government requirements concerning security; and (7) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States. The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above. Originally Delta operated this service pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Sabena Belgian World Airlines, but that arrangement has been discontinued.

dot

2024-06-07T20:31:38.368109

regulations