[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8774-8779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4318]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 372
[OPPTS-400134; FRL-6030-6]
RIN 2070-AC00
Chromite Ore from the Transvaal Region of South Africa; Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting; Community Right-to-Know
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is granting a petition by proposing to exempt both
chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa and the
unreacted ore component of the chromite ore processing residue (COPR)
from reporting requirements under section 313 of the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) and section 6607 of the
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA). These chemicals are currently
reported as part of the category ``chromium compounds'' on the list of
toxic chemicals in section 313(c) of EPCRA. The proposal is based on
EPA's preliminary conclusion that this particular chromite ore from the
Transvaal Region and the unreacted ore component of the COPR (in the
case of this delisting decision, chromite ore processing residue, or
COPR, includes the solid waste remaining after the aqueous extraction
of oxidized chromite ore that has been combined with soda ash and kiln
roasted at approximately 2,000 deg.F) meet the deletion criterion
under EPCRA section 313(d)(3).
DATES: Written comments, identified by the docket control number OPPTS-
400134, must be received by EPA on or before April 26, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in
person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as
provided in Unit I of the ``SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION'' section of this
proposal.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel R. Bushman, Petitions
Coordinator, 202-260-3882 or e-mail: bushman.daniel@epamail.epa.gov,
for specific information regarding this document or for further
information on EPCRA section 313, the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Information Hotline, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code 7408, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll free: 1-800-
535-0202, in Virginia and Alaska: 703-412-9877, or Toll free TDD: 1-
800-553-7672.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this Proposal Apply to Me?
You may be potentially affected by this proposal if you kiln roast
chromite ore in the production of chromium chemicals or if you process
chromite ore (e.g., metal finishers, leather tanning, etc.).
Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not
limited to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Potentially
Category Affected Entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Manufacturers Chemical manufacturers that
kiln roast chromite ore in the
production of chromium
chemicals (e.g., sodium
dichromate, sodium chromate,
etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Manufacturers Metal manufacturers that kiln
roast chromite ore in the
production of chromium
chemicals (e.g., chromic acid,
chromic oxide, potassium
dichromate, chromic sulfate,
calcium chromate, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smelting Refractories Smelting refractories that kiln
roast chromite ore in the
production of chromium
chemicals (e.g., sodium
dichromate, sodium chromate,
etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this table could also be
affected. To determine whether you or your business is affected by this
action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in
part 372, subpart B of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed in
the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.
B. How Can I Get Additional Information or Copies of this Document or
Other Support Documents?
1. Electronically. You may obtain electronic copies of this
document and various support documents from the EPA Internet Home Page
at http://www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select ``Laws and
Regulations'' and then look up the entry for this document under the
``Federal Register - Environmental Documents.'' You can also go
directly to the ``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/
homepage/fedrgstr/.
2. In person or by phone. If you have any questions or need
additional information about this action, please contact the technical
person identified in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.
In addition, the official rulemaking record for this proposal,
including the public version, has been established under docket control
number OPPTS-400134, (including the references in Unit VII. of
[[Page 8775]]
this preamble as well as comments and data submitted electronically as
described below). This record includes not only the documents
physically contained in the docket, but all of the documents included
as references in those documents. A public version of this record,
including printed, paper versions of any electronic comments, which
does not include any information claimed as Confidential Business
Information (CBI), is available for inspection from noon to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public record is
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.
C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or
electronically. Be sure to identify the appropriate docket control
number (i.e., ``OPPTS-400134'') in your correspondence.
1. By mail. Submit written comments to: Document Control Office
(7407), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
2. In person or by courier. Deliver written comments to: Document
Control Office in Rm. G-099, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC, telephone: 202-260-7093.
3. Electronically. Submit your comments and/or data electronically
by e-mail to: oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov''. Please note that you
should not submit any information electronically that you consider to
be CBI. Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding
the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and
data will also be accepted on standard computer disks in WordPerfect
5.1/6.1 or ASCII file format. All comments and data in electronic form
must be identified by the docket control number OPPTS-400134.
Electronic comments on this proposal may also be filed online at many
Federal Depository Libraries.
D. How Should I Handle CBI Information That I Want to Submit to the
Agency?
You may claim information that you submit in response to this
document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does
not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record.
Information not marked confidential will be included in the public
docket by EPA without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI
or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult with the technical
person identified in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section.
II. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
This action is being taken under sections 313(d) and (e)(1) of the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), 42
U.S.C. 11023. EPCRA is also referred to as Title III of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (Pub. L. 99-499).
B. Background
Section 313 of EPCRA requires certain facilities manufacturing,
processing, or otherwise using listed toxic chemicals in amounts above
reporting threshold levels, to report their environmental releases of
such chemicals annually. These facilities also must report pollution
prevention and recycling data for such chemicals, pursuant to section
6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13106.
Section 313 of EPCRA established an initial list of toxic chemicals
that was comprised of more than 300 chemicals and 20 chemical
categories. Chromium compounds (which include chromite ore) were
included on the initial list. Section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add or
delete chemicals from the list, and sets forth criteria for these
actions. EPA has added and deleted chemicals from the original
statutory list. Under section 313(e)(1), any person may petition EPA to
add chemicals to or delete chemicals from the list. Pursuant to EPCRA
section 313(e)(1), EPA must respond to petitions within 180 days,
either by initiating a rulemaking or by publishing an explanation of
why the petition is denied.
EPCRA section 313(d)(2) states that a chemical may be listed if any
of the listing criteria are met. Therefore, in order to add a chemical,
EPA must demonstrate that at least one criterion is met, but does not
need to examine whether all other criteria are also met. Conversely, in
order to remove a chemical from the list, EPA must demonstrate that
none of the criteria are met.
EPA issued a statement of petition policy and guidance in the
Federal Register of February 4, 1987 (52 FR 3479), to provide guidance
regarding the recommended content and format for submitting petitions.
On May 23, 1991 (56 FR 23703), EPA issued guidance regarding the
recommended content of petitions to delete individual members of the
section 313 metal compounds categories. EPA has also published a
statement clarifying its interpretation of the section 313(d)(2) and
(3) criteria for modifying the section 313 list of toxic chemicals (59
FR 61432, November 30, 1994) (FRL-4922-2).
III. Description of Chromium Compounds Petition
A. Chromite Ore--Current Petition
On January 26, 1998, EPA received a petition from Elementis
Chromium LP (ECLP) (formerly American Chrome Chemicals, Inc.)
requesting the delisting of both chromite ore mined in the Transvaal
Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore component of the chromite
ore processing residue (COPR). COPR is the solid waste remaining after
aqueous extraction of oxidized chromite ore that has been combined with
soda ash and kiln roasted at approximately 2,000 deg.F. ECLP believes
that the chemical and toxicological properties of chromite ore mined in
the Transvaal Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore component of
the COPR do not meet the statutory listing criteria of EPCRA 313(d)(2)
and therefore should be removed from the reporting requirements of
EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607. The EPCRA section 313 list of
toxic chemicals includes a category listing for chromium compounds,
thus, all chromium compounds are subject to the annual reporting
requirements of EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607. This petition
decision is specific to chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of
South Africa and the unreacted ore component of the COPR from this
particular process.
B. Past Petitions for Chromium Compounds
EPA has received two other petitions requesting the deletion of
certain chromium compounds. On January 8, 1990, a petition to delist
chromium antimony titanium buff rutile (CATBR) from the EPCRA section
313 list of toxic chemicals was denied based on EPA's determination
that CATBR is a potential carcinogen via inhalation (55 FR 650). Based
on test data on chromium (III) oxide, EPA determined that CATBR, an
insoluble crystalline chromium (III) compound, could be retained in the
lung and taken up by cells. EPA denied this petition due to the
determination that CATBR was a potential carcinogen,
[[Page 8776]]
and that it could reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans.
Since then, EPA published its petition policy and guidance
concerning petitions to delist individual members of the metal compound
categories (56 FR 27303, May 23, 1991). In response to concerns with
respect to individual members of categories that do not meet the
toxicity criteria of section 313, EPA has stated that it will ``grant
petitions on individual members providing that the petitioner
establishes and EPA concludes that the intact species does not meet the
criteria of section 313(d)(2), and that the metal ion will not become
available at a level that can be expected to induce toxicity.''
On November 22, 1991, a petition to delist chromium (III) oxide
from the EPCRA section 313 list of chemicals was denied based on the
evidence that chromium (III) oxide may be oxidized to carcinogenic
chromium (VI) compounds in soil (56 FR 58859). The petition response
also discussed the possibility that chromium (III) oxide is a potential
carcinogen via inhalation.
IV. Technical Review of the Petition
EPCRA section 313 requires reporting for all chromium compounds.
This petition requests the delisting of both chromite ore mined in the
Transvaal Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore component of the
COPR (Refs. 1, 2, and 3). The technical review of chromite ore and COPR
concentrated on the available chemistry data (Ref. 4), toxicology data
(Refs. 5 and 6), and the environmental fate of the chromium portion of
the chromite ore and the COPR (Ref. 7). A summary of the review of the
available data is provided below. A more detailed discussion can be
found in EPA technical reports (Refs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) and other
references contained or cited in the docket.
A. Chemistry and Use
Chromite ore deposits are found throughout the world. While the
United States has chromite ore deposits, no domestic mining or ore
processing has occurred since the 1960s (Ref. 8). The largest deposits
of chromite ore are found in the Transvaal Region of South Africa. This
source for the raw material provides more than 96% of the chromite ore
used domestically, nearly 242,000 metric tons (mt.) containing 76,900
mt. of chromium, worth an estimated $22.5 million (Ref. 2).
In general, chromite ore, Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry
Number 1308-31-2, is represented by the simplified molecular formula
FeOCr2O3. The chromium:iron ratio is
approximately 2:1, and the chromium oxide (Cr2O3)
content is approximately 46% for the particular chromite ore from the
Transvaal Region (Ref. 9). Other elements present may include magnesium
and aluminum with minor components including vanadium, titanium,
nickel, manganese and/or calcium. These elemental differences are
consistent with the variation found in other mineral sources and are
geographically dependant (Ref. 4).
Chromite ore is used for chemical manufacturing with a minor amount
used for smelting refractories or metal manufacturing. The process used
by ECLP follows the standard process described in a variety of
references (Refs. 4 and 9). The ore is roasted with sodium carbonate
where the chromium oxide is oxidized, and trivalent chromium, Cr(III),
is converted to hexavalent chromium, Cr(VI). The desired Cr(VI) is
leached out of the chemically reacted mixture and the processing
residue, containing 15 to 20% Cr(III) as Cr2O3 in
the unreacted ore and a small amount of Cr(VI), is treated with a
sulfide reducing agent. The treated COPR is the material being released
from this process. The chromium compounds contained in the COPR, of
which the unreacted ore is the principal component (approximately 97%),
are currently reportable under EPCRA section 313. Based on the 1995
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting data, ECLP reported 11.3
million pounds of on-site releases and 6,900 pounds of off-site
releases. ECLP's total on-and off-site releases of 11.3 million pounds
represents 30.4% of the total 37.3 million pounds of on-and off-site
releases of chromium compounds reported to TRI in 1995 (Refs. 1, 2, and
3).
B. Toxicological Evaluation
With one exception relating to possible concerns for
carcinogenicity, there are no direct toxicological concerns relating to
chromite ore. However, concerns for the toxicity of chromium itself do
exist based on the assumption that the chromium in the ore will be
available as either Cr(III) ions or Cr(VI) ions derived from the
available solubilized Cr(III). Most of the data presented reflects the
concerns associated with soluble chromium if it were available from the
ore or the unreacted ore component of the COPR.
1. Carcinogenicity. Most of the studies involving Cr(III) used
mixtures of Cr(III) and Cr(VI), with the Cr(VI) being cited as the
cause of the cancer hazard. Limited studies of ferrochrome workers
exposed to chromium metal and Cr(III) were inconclusive. As late as
1997, EPA had no position on the direct carcinogenicity of Cr(III). It
has been hypothesized that the lack of effects is due to the poor
permeability of Cr(III) across the cell membranes. Phagocytosis, the
uptake of particulate material by a cell (endocytosis), was an issue
considered by EPA. Although there has been some concern over the
possible cellular uptake of insoluble crystalline Cr(III) compounds by
phagocytosis with resulting genotoxic effects, experimental evidence
has thus far been limited to several in vitro studies which used
special treatment conditions which may impact their physiological
significance. In 1989, the Mining Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) listed chromite ore as a Class D carcinogen (mechanism of
carcinogenicity was unknown) (Ref. 10). The inclusion of chromite ore
as a carcinogen by MSHA was based on the assumed conversion of Cr(III)
in the ore to Cr(VI), a known carcinogen (Ref. 8). In 1990, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health
Organization (WHO) classified Cr(III) compounds as ``not classifiable
as to their carcinogenicity to humans.'' The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) set a Reference Daily Intake for Cr(III) in 1995.
While consensus does not exist in the scientific community, the Agency
recognizes that there is a trend to downgrade the carcinogenic hazard
concerns and no clear-cut, position on the carcinogenicity of Cr(III)
exists (Ref. 5).
EPA recently updated its file for chromium (III), insoluble salts
in the Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (Ref. 11).
The updated IRIS file includes the Agency's position on the potential
for insoluble chromium (III) salts to cause cancer. The updated file
states that, under EPA's 1986 Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment
(51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986), Cr(III) is most appropriately
designated as Group D--Not classified as to its human carcinogenicity.
The IRIS file also states that, under EPA's 1996 Proposed Guidelines
for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (61 FR 17960, April 23, 1996), there are
inadequate data to determine the potential carcinogenicity of Cr(III).
The IRIS file does however state that the classification of Cr(VI) as a
known human carcinogen raises a concern for the carcinogenic potential
of Cr(III).
2. Non-cancer health effects. A variety of studies have been
performed to determine the health effects (hematological, hepatic,
immunological, renal, and reproductive) from exposure to Cr(III).
However, few studies have reported any adverse effect. There were no
compound-related effects found in
[[Page 8777]]
rats fed high doses of chromic oxide (i.e., no compound-related effects
found in rats fed Cr2O3 at a dose of 1,400
milligrams per kilogram per day (mg/kg/day)). Rabbits exposed to an
aerosol containing chromic nitrate (0.6 to 0.9 milligrams per cubic
meter (mg/m3) for 30 hours per week (hr/wk) during a 4 to 6
week test) had morphological changes to lung macrophages. Lung
macrophages are large ameboid mononuclear phagocytic cells whose main
function is to remove unwanted particulate materials from the alveolar
spaces of the lung. It was not clear whether the morphological changes
observed had any significant effects on the normal function of the lung
macrophages. No data on acute or other chronic health effects were
identified.
3. Ecotoxicity. As was the case for human toxicity, no
environmental toxicity studies directly involving chromite ore were
available for review. The ecological hazards of soluble Cr(III) and
Cr(VI) were assessed. Data provided by the petitioner were examined
during the consideration of the petition to delist this particular
chromite ore. However, EPA found and used other data from a variety of
sensitive test species in this review. In contrast to EPA's review, the
petitioner only submitted data on selected acute toxicity studies
(e.g., the highest value in a range) in the petition. Also, additional
chronic toxicity test data were used by the Agency in this review.
Soluble chromium ions, Cr(III) and Cr(VI) oxidation state, are
toxic to a variety of aquatic and terrestrial organisms. The Cr(VI)
ions are significantly more toxic than the trivalent ions; it is
relatively easy to convert (oxidize) from the reduced, less toxic
Cr(III) state to the more toxic Cr(VI) ion. Four insect species and
daphnids had calculated acute toxicities for Cr(III) ion of 2,000 parts
per billion (ppb) (96 hour EC50 (i.e., the concentration
that is effective in producing a sublethal response in 50% of test
organisms), at 48 parts per million (ppm) hardness as calcium
carbonate) with acute values of 445 ppb for Cr(VI). The maximum
acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) determined for Cr(III) in
chronic tests was 30 ppb for freshwater aquatic organisms (rainbow
trout). The MATC values determined for the Cr(VI) ion were 10 and 17
ppb. Thus, based on the available data, if the chromium in the chromite
ore was shown to be available, the chromite ore would be considered
highly toxic to aquatic organisms (Ref. 6).
C. Environmental Fate
1. Soil reactions. Naturally occurring chromium exists in the soil
as insoluble hydrated metal oxides of Cr(III). Minor amounts of soluble
Cr(III) and both insoluble and soluble Cr(VI) make up the rest of the
total amount of chromium present. Reactions of soil with chromium vary
for a number of reasons including: chemical composition, pH, organic
content, temperature, moisture, aeration, and drying. The environmental
effects of rain cycles, vegetation growth and bacterial decomposition
of organic matter, and manganese oxide content are critical to the
understanding of fate of chromium present in soil.
Chromium salts readily bind with a number of complexing agents
including, but not limited to, water, ammonia, organic decomposition
products, soil particles, humic substances, and
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). In many instances, these
complexed ions are isolable and remain intact under conditions that
thermodynamically favor dissolution via decomplexation (Ref. 12).
Soluble Cr(III) added to mixtures of complexed ions (lead, cadmium,
mercury, other heavy metal ions) in soils can displace these ions due
to preferential, irreversible complexation formation with the organic
ligands, like fulvic acid. The displaced ions (Pb+2,
Cd+2, Hg+2, etc.) are often left in solution
where they would be available for consumption or absorption by
different organisms (Ref. 13).
High concentrations of chromium from release of chromium containing
material into the environment have been remediated by using EDTA
flushing (Ref. 14), by adding organic matter or chemical reducing
agents (Ref. 15), and via microbial reduction (Ref. 16).
2. Leaching experiment design and results. Testing interactions of
strongly oxidizing soil (high manganese oxide content) in mixtures with
chromite ore or two different samples of COPR were performed by the
petitioner in support of the delisting petition. These data provided
the Agency with an understanding of the fate of the chromium present in
the original ore and in the COPR released to land. These leaching tests
were performed according to acceptable scientific guidelines and were
carried out by a published authority in this field (Refs. 1, 2, and 7).
Acidity (pH), reduction potential, Cr(VI) content, and total chromium
endpoints were measured. Additionally, citrate solutions were used to
enhance the potential complexation of chromium ions, mimicking what
could occur in nature by the complexation and solubilization of
chromium ions by degradation products. The goal of the tests was to
evaluate the potential availability of Cr(III) from the chromite ore
and the unreacted chromite ore component of the COPR. The presence of
either Cr(III) or Cr(VI) ions in the leachate from a controlled
experiment would indicate that chromium might be available.
No Cr(VI) was found to be present in, or released from, the
chromite ore alone or when mixed with the soil. The leaching experiment
test results did not change when citrate was added to the leaching
solutions. Total chromium measurements were at the baseline for the
soil:chromite ore mixture, indicating that the Cr(III) was not soluble
or available from the chromite ore. The amount of Cr(VI) leached from
the COPR samples did not change when combined with the oxidizing soil
or the citrate solutions. Therefore, no conversion of the Cr(III)
content of the COPR into either soluble Cr(III) ions or Cr(VI) occurred
and the amount of Cr(VI) that did leach is residual chromium from the
processing that would remain reportable under this proposal (Refs. 1
and 7).
The results of these leaching studies, as well as the additional
information provided by the petitioner on the stability of this
chromite ore to both biotic and abiotic processes, indicates that
chromium is not expected to be available in the environment (Ref. 1).
V. Summary of Technical Review
Many concerns for the hazards associated with soluble Cr(III) and
all forms of Cr(VI) exist. These concerns are not pertinent to the
chromite ore from the Transvaal Region of South Africa or the insoluble
Cr(III) unreacted ore component of the COPR, since this particular
chromite ore does not leach ionic chromium of any oxidation state nor
does it oxidize to produce Cr(VI) in any form. The test results
indicate that the unreacted ore in COPR acts in a similar fashion. At
the present time, no human health or environmental hazard effects have
been identified for this particular chromite ore and the unreacted ore
component of the COPR that would support their continued inclusion on
the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals.
VI. Petition Response and Rationale
A. Response to Petition
EPA is granting the ECLP petition by proposing to delist both
chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa and the
unreacted ore component of the COPR from the reporting
[[Page 8778]]
requirements under the EPCRA section 313 chromium compounds category.
B. Rationale for Proposed Response
Many concerns for the hazards associated with soluble Cr(III) and
all forms of Cr(VI) exist. However, these concerns do not appear to be
pertinent to the chromite ore from the Transvaal Region of South Africa
or the insoluble Cr(III) unreacted ore component of the COPR. The
available data indicate that this particular chromite ore does not
leach ionic chromium of any oxidation state nor does it oxidize to
produce Cr(VI) in any form. At this time, EPA has preliminarily
determined that there are no human health or environmental hazard
concerns for this particular chromite ore that meet the toxicity
criterion of EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A), (B), or (C). EPA is therefore
proposing to modify the current chromium compounds listing to exclude
both chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa and the
unreacted ore component of the COPR. However, EPA is not proposing to
remove soluble Cr(III) or any forms of Cr(VI) from the chromium
compounds category. As EPA has previously determined, if Cr(III) is
available, it can be converted to Cr(VI) in the environment (56 FR
58859, November 22, 1991). While EPA is proposing to exclude this
chromite ore and the unreacted ore component of COPR from reporting
under EPCRA section 313, all soluble chromium processing residue that
remains in the COPR will continue to be reportable. EPA believes that
the proposed deletion of this particular chromite ore and the unreacted
ore component of the COPR is consistent with the Agency's published
guidance on how it will review petitions to delete members of EPCRA
section 313 metal compound categories (56 FR 23703, May 23, 1991).
C. Request for Public Comment
EPA requests both general and specific comments on this proposal to
delist both chromite ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa
and the unreacted ore component of the COPR from the list of toxic
chemicals subject to the reporting requirements under EPCRA section 313
and PPA section 6607. EPA requests specific comments on three issues
relating to chromium compounds, including: (1) Possible carcinogenicity
of insoluble crystalline chromium (III) compounds via inhalation and
uptake in the lung cell by phagocytosis; (2) possible indirect effects
of chromium (III) competing with other cations in ligant sites in
siderophore complexes; and (3) the availability of toxicity and fate
information that would support excluding all chromite ores from
reporting under EPCRA section 313. Comments should be submitted
following the detailed instructions provided in Unit I.C. of this
preamble. All comments must be received by EPA on or before April 26,
1999.
VII. References
1. Elementis Chromium LP. Petition to Delist Chromite Ore from SARA
313. Elementis Chromium LP. (January 5, 1998).
2. USEPA. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Deletion of Chromite
Ore from the EPCRA Section 313 List of Toxic Chemicals. OPPT/EETD/EPAB.
(February 1998).
3. USEPA. Preliminary Release Report Proposed Deletion of Chromite
Ore from the EPCRA Section 313 Toxic Release Inventory. OPPT/EETD/CEB.
(March 1998).
4. USEPA. Chemistry Analysis of the Proposed Deletion of Chromite
Ore from the EPCRA Section 313 Toxic Release Inventory. OPPT/EETD/ICB.
(February 1998).
5. USEPA. Chromite Ore Delisting Assessment of Health Hazard
Concern. OPPT/RAD/SSB. (May 1998).
6. USEPA. Petition to Delist Chromite Ore (Chromium Compounds
Category): Ecological Hazard Assessment. OPPT/RAD/ECAB. (April 1998).
7. USEPA. Environmental Fate Summary of Chromium (Cr) in Soils.
OPPT/EETD/EAB. (March 1998).
8. Zalesek. Telephone conversation with Ms. M. Zalesek, Mining
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), U.S. Department of Labor.
(March 1998).
9. Elementis Chromium LP. Chromium Accounting in the Sodium
Dichromate Production Process. (May 1998).
10. USDOL. Air Quality, Chemical Substances, and Respiratory
Protection Standards; Proposed Rule (MSHA, 54 FR 35760, August 29,
1989).
11. IRIS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk
Information System file pertaining to chromium (III), insoluble salts.
12. Cotton and Wilkinson. Advanced Inorganic Chemistry, Section 29-
C-4 Complexes of Chromium (III), pp. 825 - 828. (1996).
13. Jin, X., Bailey, G.W., Yu, Y.S., and Lynch, A.T. ``Kinetics of
Single and Multiple Metal Ion Sorption Processes on Humic Substances.''
Soil Science v. 161, pp. 509-519. (1996).
14. O'Shaughnessy et al. ``Evaluation for In Situ Soil Flushing
Techniques for Heavy Metal Removal from Contaminated Soils.'' 48th
Perdue Industrial Waste Conference Proceedings: Section 3B #15, pp.
123-139. (1993).
15. James, B. ``Hexavalent Chromium Solubility and Reduction in
Alkaline Soils Enriched with Chromite Ore Processing Residue.'' Journal
of Environmental Quality v. 23, pp. 227-233. (1994).
16. Ohtake et al. ``Bacterial Reduction of Toxic Hexavalent
Chromium.'' Biological Degradation and Bioremediation of Toxic
Chemicals, pp. 403-415, (1994).
VIII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
A. Certain Acts and Executive Orders
This action proposes to delete a chemical from the list of
chemicals subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section
6607, and it does not contain any new or modified requirements. As
such, this action does not require review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., or Executive Order 13045,
entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). For the same reason, it
does not require any action under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4), or Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. As indicated, this proposal
involves the elimination of an existing requirement under EPCRA section
313, and does not impose any new mandates. This proposed action will,
therefore, not have an adverse impact on reporting facilities,
regardless of size.
The deletion of this chemical from the TRI list would reduce the
overall reporting and recordkeeping burden estimate provided for TRI,
but this action does not require any review or approval by OMB under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. until EPA
decides to subtract the total burden eliminated by today's proposed
action from the TRI overall burden approved by OMB. At some point in
the future, EPA will determine
[[Page 8779]]
the total TRI burden associated with the chemical being proposed for
deletion, and will complete the required Information Collection
Worksheet to adjust the total TRI estimate. The reporting and
recordkeeping burdens associated with TRI are approved by OMB under OMB
No. 2070-0093 (Form R, EPA ICR No. 1363) and under OMB No. 2070-0145
(Form A, EPA ICR No. 1704). The current public reporting burden for TRI
is estimated to average 52.1 hours for a Form R submitter and 34.6
hours for a Form A submitter. These estimates include the time needed
for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering
and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless its displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this
information collection appears above. In addition, the OMB control
number for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the final rule,
are displayed on the collection instruments and are also listed in 40
CFR part 9.
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 Director, OPPE Regulatory
Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
2137, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Include the OMB control
number in any correspondence.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, entitled Enhancing Intergovernmental
Partnerships (58 FR 58093, October 28, 1993), EPA may not issue a
regulation that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate
upon a State, local or Tribal government, unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs
incurred by those governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must
provide to OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation
with representatives of affected State, local and Tribal governments,
the nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from
the governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local and Tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's proposed rule does not create an unfunded Federal mandate
on State, local or Tribal governments. The proposed rule does not
impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to
this proposed rule.
C. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 1998), EPA may not
issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly
or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and
that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities,
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the
direct compliance costs incurred by the Tribal governments. If the
mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide OMB, in a separately identified
section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of
EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected Tribal
governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement
supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive
Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting
elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372
Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Toxic chemicals.
Dated: February 5, 1999.
Susan H. Wayland,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR part 372 be amended as
follows:
PART 372--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 372 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11013 and 11028.
Sec. 372.65 [Amended]
2. Section 372.65(c) is amended by adding the following
parenthetical to the chromium compounds listing ``(except for chromite
ore mined in the Transvaal Region of South Africa and the unreacted ore
component of the chromite ore processing residue (COPR). COPR is the
solid waste remaining after aqueous extraction of oxidized chromite ore
that has been combined with soda ash and kiln roasted at approximately
2,000 deg.F.).''
[FR Doc. 99-4318 Filed 2-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
