Federal  Register/Vol. 63, No.  216/Monday, November 9, 1998/Notices
during the environmental analysis, will
be considered during the preparation of
the environmental impact statement
once it's been filed with the
Commission. The application and
additional information is substantially
complete, and the environmental
analysis will proceed on the issues as  .
set forth in Scoping Document 2 and in
the application materials.
  1. Description of Project: The proposed
run-of-river project would consist of the
following features: (1) an approximately
1,000-foot-long masonry dam to
elevation 97.47 feet National Geodetic
Vertical datum, topped with a 3.1-foot-
high rubber dam; (2) upstream and
downstream fish passage facilities; (3)  '
the Fish Lift Park adjoining the dam; (4)
a 2,290-acre reservoir that extends
approximately 25 miles upstream; (5) a
three-level canal system adjacent to the
river with headgates at the dam; (6) six
separate hydroelectric facilities, named
Hadley Falls Station, Riverside Station,
Boatlock Station, Beebe-Holbrook Units,
Skinner Unit and Chemical Units, and
except for the Hadley Falls Station
which has its intake structure adjacent
to the canal headgate structure, the
facilities withdraw water from the canal
system; (7) a total nameplate capacity of
58,756 kilowatts (kW), consisting of the
existing 43,756 kW project plus a 15,000
kW expansion at the Hadley Falls
Station; (8) transmission line
connections; and (9) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated average annual
generation is about 212,000 megawatt-
hours (MWh), which would increase to
about 262,750 MWh after completing
the expansion in 2006.
  m. Purpose of Project: The power
generated by the project would be used
within the Holyoke Gas & Electric
Department's distribution system, with
a portion sold to the Massachusetts
Municipal Wholesale Electric Company.
  n. This notice also consists of the
following standard paragraphs: D10.
  o. Available Locations of Application:
A copy of the application, as amended
and supplemented, is available for
inspection and reproduction at the
Commission's Public Reference and
Files and Maintenance Branch, located
at 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A-1,
Washington, D.C. 20426, or by calling
(202) 208-2326. Copies are also
available for inspection and
reproduction at the Holyoke Gas &
Electric Department, 99 Suffolk Street,
Holyoke, Massachusetts, 01040.
  D10. Filing and Service of Responsive
Documents—The application is ready
for environmental analysis at this time,
and the Commission is requesting
comments, reply comments,
                   recommendations, terms and
                   conditions, and prescriptions.
                     The Commission directs, pursuant to
                   Section 4.34 (b) of the Regulations (see
                   Order No. 533 issued May 8, 1991, 56
                   FR 23108, May 20, 1991) that all
                   comments, recommendations, terms and
                   conditions and prescriptions concerning
                   the application be filed with the
                   Commission within 60 days from the
                   issuance date of this notice. All reply
                   comments must be filed with the
                   Commission within 105 days from the
                   date of this notice.
                     Anyone may obtain an extension of
                   time for these deadlines from the
                   Commission only upon a showing of
                   good cause or extraordinary '
                   circumstances in accordance with 18
                   CFR 385.2008.
                     All filings must (1) bear in all capital
                   letters the title "COMMENTS", "REPLY
                   "RECOMMENDATIONS,"  "TERMS
                   AND CONDITIONS," or
                   "PRESCRIPTIONS;" (2) set forth in the
                   heading the name of the applicant and
                   the project number of the application to
                   which the filing responds;  (3) furnish
                   the name, address, and telephone
                   number of the person submitting the
                   filing; and (4) otherwise comply with
                   the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
                   through 385.2005. All comments,
                   recommendations, terms and conditions
                   or prescriptions must set forth their
                   evidentiary basis and otherwise comply
                   with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b).
                   Agencies may obtain copies of the
                   application directly from the applicant.
                   Any of these documents must be filed
                   by providing the original and the
                   number of copies required  by the
                   Commission's regulations to: The
                   Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
                   Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,
                   Washington, D.C. 20426. An additional
                   copy must be sent to Director, Division
                   of Project Review, Office of Hydropower
                   Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory
                   Commission, at the above address. Each
                   filing must be accompanied by proof of
                   service on all persons listed on the
                   service list prepared by the Commission
                   in this proceeding, in accordance with
                   18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
                   David P. Boergers,
                   [FR Doc. 98-29885 Filed 11-6-98; 8:45 am]
                   BILLING CODE 6717-01-M

 Notice of Availability of Draft RCRA
 Waste Minimization PBT Chemical List

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
 ACTION: Notice of data availability.

 SUMMARY: Today's notice makes
 available for public comment a list of 53
 persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
 (PBT) chemicals and chemical
 categories which may be found in
 hazardous wastes regulated under the
 Resource Conservation and Recovery
 Act (RCRA). This notice responds to
 States, industry organizations,
 environmental groups, and individuals
 who commented on the EPA's national
 RCRA waste minimization policy, and it
 will be used to promote voluntary waste
 minimization efforts which reduce the
 generation of PBT chemicals found in
 RCRA hazardous waste by at least half
 by the year 2005.
  EPA requests comment on today's
 RCRA Waste Minimization PBT
 Chemical List (also referred to as the
 RCRA PBT List) and the methodology
 used to develop today's List. EPA is not
 seeking comment on the Waste
 Minimization Prioritization Tool
 (WMPT), which is discussed in today's
 notice, because the Agency has sought
 extensive public review and comment
 on the WMPT in a previous notice.
 Particular issues for comment are
 identified in the discussion that follows.
  EPA will publish a final RCRA PBT
 List in 1999. This notice and the final
 RCRA PBT List are a significant
 component of an overall PBT strategy
 being developed by Agency. The overall
 strategy will encompass the PBT
 priorities and programs identified by
 other EPA offices, particularly those that
 cannot be addressed by single media
 controls and approaches.
 DATES: Please submit written comments
by January 8, 1999 to the address below.
TO OBTAIN COPIES: Copies of the draft list
 and all documents cited in this notice
 can be obtained by calling the RCRA/
 Superfund/CERCLA Hotline at (800)
 424-9346, TDD (800) 553-7672 (hearing
 impaired), or (703) 412-9810 in the
Washington, DC metropolitan area, from
 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Eastern time.
  The draft list and supporting
documents are also available in
electronic format on the Internet, and
can be obtained by accessing:
WWW: http://www.epa.gov/wastemin
FTP: ftp.epa/gov
Login: anonymous

                    Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 216/Monday, November 9, 1998/Notices
Password: your Internet address
TO SUBMIT COMMENTS: Please send an
original and two copies of comments,
referencing docket number F-98-
Information Center, Office of Solid
Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA,
HQ). 401 M Street. SW, Washington. DC
20460. Hand deliveries of comments
should be made to the Arlington, VA,
address provided below. Comments may
also be submitted  electronically by
sending electronic mail through the
Internet to: rcra-
docket®epamail.epa.gov. Comments in
electronic format should also be
identified by the docket number F-98-
MMLP-FFFFF. All electronic comments
must be submitted as an ASCII file that
contains no special characters or any
form of encryption.
  Commenters should not submit
electronically any confidential business
information (CBI). CBI submissions
must be sent under separate cover, and
must include an original and two
copies. CBI must be addressed to: RCRA
CBI Document Control Officer, Office of
Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW. Washington, DC 20460.
  Public comments (not including CBI)
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
further information on waste
minimization, specific aspects of this
notice, or public meetings regarding this
notice, contact the RCRA/Superfund/
EPCRA Hotline at  the address and
telephone numbers cited above, or
Newman Smith at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste, Waste
Minimization Branch, 401 M Street, SW
(5302W), Washington, DC 20460;
telephone: (703) 308-8757, fax: (703)
I. Background
A. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
  EPA regulates thousands of chemicals
and wastes under  its multiple
environmental authorities, and  has
worked with States, the regulated
community, environmental groups, and
individuals to make significant progress
in controlling harmful chemical releases
to the environment. Notwithstanding
this important progress, recent national
and international attention has focused
on persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic
(PBT) chemicals which can pose long-
term problems when released to the
environment. Today's notice focuses
national attention on  identifying ways
to reduce the generation of PBT
chemicals which may be found in
hazardous wastes regulated under
  Today's notice provides a mechanism
for implementing the national waste
minimization policy of RCRA—to
reduce or eliminate the generation of
hazardous waste, wherever feasible, and
as expeditiously as possible. This
national policy sets a clear preference
for source reduction and recycling
methods over end-of-pipe waste
treatment and disposal methods to
reduce releases of harmful chemicals to
the environment. In 1988, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) encouraged
EPA to focus on reducing the toxicity as
well as the volume of hazardous waste,
and recommended that EPA "establish
specific, quantifiable  waste
minimization goals.1"
  Congress expanded this national
policy in the Pollution Prevention Act
of 1990, and in Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990. As Congress
stated in the Pollution Prevention Act,
"there are significant  opportunities for
industry to reduce or  prevent pollution
at the source through cost effective
changes in production, operation, and
raw materials use. Such changes offer
industry substantial savings  in reduced .
raw material,  pollution control, and
liability costs as well  as help protect the
environment and reduce risks to worker
health and safety." The Clean Air Act
promotes pollution prevention as a
national goal, and includes pollution
prevention as an important element in
setting and achieving industrial
emissions control standards.
  EPA recognizes that progress has been
made in reducing volumes of hazardous
wastes. However, today's notice
expands EPA's focus to reducing the
toxicity of hazardous  wastes, in addition
to the volume, by reducing RCRA PBT
chemical generation at the source, rather
than relying on reducing the volume
and/or toxicity of hazardous waste
through waste treatment alone. This
"PBT chemical" approach, which is
  1 New Approach Needed to Manage the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act; p. 57; United States
General Accounting Office Report to Congress; July
now being addressed at the
international level, recognizes that small
releases of PBT chemicals, even releases
that are in compliance with existing
regulations, may nevertheless cause a
build up of human health or ecological
problems over the long term.
  Today's notice also responds to
extensive comments EPA received from
industry organizations, environmental
groups, government agencies, and
individuals during stakeholder meetings
held during 1993 and 1994 to develop
RCRA's Waste Minimization National
Plan. Six principles for reducing
hazardous waste generation on a
national level emerged from those
  • Focus on source reduction as the
preferred means of environmental
management, and recycling as the
second preference, over treatment and
disposal of hazardous wastes;
  • Set environmental priorities based
on risk;
  • Focus on reducing the chemical
composition of hazardous waste, not the
volume of hazardous wastes, and
carefully consider the interrelationships
between hazardous waste reduction and
the reduction of toxic releases to air and
  •• Set environmental goals for source
reduction and recycling of priority
chemicals, and track progress toward
these goals. Promote accountability and
recognition for regulated companies,
government agencies, and other
stakeholders involved  in the process;
  • Provide flexibility to industry and
States in the selection of chemical
priorities, goals for source reduction and
recycling of priority chemicals, and in
selecting approaches for achieving
source reduction and recycling goals;
  • Involve the public.
  As a result of these discussions, EPA
published the Waste Minimization
National Plan2 (WMNP), which
commits the Agency to implementing a
national waste minimization program
centered around these  principles. Most
importantly, the WMNP sets national
goals to:
  • Reduce, as a nation, the presence of
the most persistent, bioaccumulative,
and toxic (PBT) chemicals in RCRA
hazardous wastes 10% by the year 2000,
and at least 50 percent by the year 2005
(from a 1991 baseline);
  • Promote source reduction (and
recycling where RCRA PBT chemicals
can not be reduced at the source) over
treatment and disposal technologies;
 2Waste Minimization National Plan, US EPA,
1994. EPA530-R-94-045.

Federal  Register/Vol. 63, No.  216/Monday, November 9, 1998/Notices
  • Avoid the transfer of RCRA PBT
chemicals across environmental media.
  EPA believes today's notice provides
a strong foundation for achieving these
goals. The next section describes more
specifically how EPA, State
governments, industry organizations,
environmental groups and citizens may
participate in achieving these goals.

B. What Are Persistent,
Bioaccumulative, and  Toxic (PBT)
Chemicals, and Why Are They an
Environmental Concern?
  PBT chemicals exhibit varying
degrees of three properties: Persistent
(P) chemicals do not readily break down
in the environment; bioaccumulative (B)
chemicals are not easily metabolized
and can accumulate in human or
ecological foodchains through
consumption or uptake; toxic (T)
chemicals may be hazardous to human
health or the environment in a variety
of ways, depending on the chemical and
the organism that is exposed. Examples
of toxic effects include cancer and birth
defects in humans and reduced
populations and altered community
structures within ecosystems.
Individual chemicals may exhibit  none,
some, or all of these characteristics.
Chemicals which exhibit PBT
characteristics, once released to the
environment, may present increasing
long-term toxic effects  to human health
and the environment, even when these
chemicals are released in small
  RCRA PBT chemicals could be
released to the environment from
several types of sources, including:
Leaks from hazardous waste treatment,
storage or disposal units, authorized
releases of PBTs in treated hazardous
wastes (e.g., combustion emissions or
residues which must be treated to  levels
which minimize threats to human
health and the environment prior to
land disposal), or the combined effect of
de minimis releases of  PBT chemicals
permitted under multiple permitting
authorities. Because of the potential
risks posed by these chemicals, the
international community recognizes the
chemicals as a global environmental
concern. EPA is creating a priority in its
hazardous waste minimization program
for these chemicals.
C. How Will EPA and Other
Stakeholders Use the RCRA PBT List?
  EPA will use the RCRA PBT List to:
  • Measure progress toward the
national goal of reducing the generation
of RCRA PBT chemicals by at least half
by the year 2005. EPA will measure
progress using data reported to the
                   national Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
                   and other nationally available data;
                     •  Report national progress on a
                   periodic basis;
                     •  Identify and acknowledge industrial
                   sectors which contribute to national
                   progress; and
                     •  Promote coordinated waste
                   minimization programs at the Federal,
                   State, and local level.
                     EPA's 1986 Waste Minimization
                   Report to Congress3 concluded that
                   promoting voluntary (rather than
                   mandatory) waste minimization
                   mechanisms would be the most effective
                   means of reducing the volume and/or
                   toxicity of RCRA regulated hazardous
                   waste stream generation. Therefore, EPA
                   will rely on voluntary activities to
                   promote the reductions of RCRA PBT
                   chemicals in hazardpus waste,
                   recognizing that some voluntary
                   activities may ultimately take place in
                   conjunction with a regulatory activity
                   (e.g., voluntarily implementing
                   pollution prevention measures to meet
                   permit compliance requirements)!
                     EPA will use the TRI as its primary
                   source of data to measure and evaluate
                   progress toward the national goal of
                   reducing the presence of PBT chemicals
                   in RCRA hazardous wastes by at least
                   half by 2005. The BRS will be used to
                   provide supplemental information and
                   analysis. As discussed further below,
                   the method for reporting progress is
                   under development, and will build on
                   the method described  in today's notice
                   for estimating the presence of PBT
                   chemicals in RCRA hazardous wastes.
                     EPA is committing to its national
                   RCRA PBT reduction goal to meet the
                   requirements of the Government
                   Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
                   The GPRA sets government-wide
                   requirements to improve performance of
                   government programs  by "managing for
                   results" and linking programmatic
                   budgets to performance. EPA believes
                   its effort to reduce  long term human
                   health and ecological problems by
                   reducing the generation of RCRA related
                   PBT chemicals at the source is a crucial
                   GPRA goal.
                     EPA will work with interested States,
                   industry organizations, environmental
                   groups, and citizens to promote a
                   variety of source reduction
                   opportunities and programs which
                   reduce the generation  of RCRA PBT
                   chemicals at the source. For example,
                   during informal discussions, some
                   States, companies, citizens, and other
                   interested parties indicated they could
                   use the RCRA PBT List as a guide for
                   setting waste minimization priorities for '
                    3 Minimization of Hazardous Waste Report to
                   Congress. October 1986. EPA-530-SW-86-033.
wastes which are currently treated or
disposed. Government agencies could
use the List as a starting point to
identify industrial sectors or particular
chemicals for focusing voluntary
pollution prevention technical
assistance resources. Industry trade
associations or individual companies
could use the list for setting waste
minimization priorities and reducing
waste management costs. Individual
organizations or a consortium of
organizations could use the RCRA PBT
list to develop Project XL proposals in
cases where significant reductions in
the generation of RCRA PBT chemicals
are possible, but regulatory flexibility is
needed to achieve the reductions
(information on Project XL is available
on the Internet at www.epa.gov/
projectxl). Citizen groups might use the
RCRA PBT list to promote pollution
prevention as a preferred environmental
solution over waste treatment or
disposal at siting hearings or other
public comment or waste management
  EPA will also report national progress
toward meeting national goals publicly,
on a periodic basis, to encourage
D. How Will EPA Measure Progress
Toward the National RCRA Hazardous
Waste PBT Reduction Goal?
  EPA is considering several
alternatives for developing a national
RCRA hazardous waste PBT chemical
reduction measurement method. One of
the key factors in developing a
measurement method is the selection of
an appropriate national database for
reporting, storing and retrieving data on
PBT chemicals found in RCRA
hazardous waste. EPA considered,
among others, two widely used national
databases, the RCRA hazardous waste
Biennial Reporting System (BRS) and
the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), and
selected the TRI as the primary database
for measuring national PBT chemical
reductions in hazardous waste. The TRI
is a publicly accepted and widely used
source of data on toxic chemicals being
used, manufactured, treated,
transported, and/or released to the
environment. TRI reports information
on specific chemicals which may be
contained in waste. Using chemical-
specific TRI information enables EPA to
measure reductions of chemical
quantities found in wastes over time. In
contrast, the Biennial Reporting System
provides information on waste stream
volumes, rather than chemical specific
data, and will be used for supplemental
analysis in cases for chemicals which
are on the RCRA PBT List, but which
are not reported in the TRI.

                    Federal Register/Vol.  63, No. 216/Monday, November 9, 1998/Notices
  The measurement method will
include only those facilities which
report data to the TRI data, and who are
also RCRA hazardous waste generators.
EPA will publish and seek public
comment on its draft measurement
method in 1999.
  EPA will submit national interim
progress reports as part of its
environmental performance reporting
under the Government Performance and
Results Act. A final national progress
report will be submitted for the year
E. How Will EPA Encourage Progress
Toward the National RCRA PBT
Reduction Coals?
  EPA will work with States, industry,
environmental groups and other
Stakeholders to identify and implement
a variety of implementation approaches,
including workshops, technical
assistance, progress reporting,
partnership agreements, and regulatory
reinvention and pilot projects, to
promote progress toward the national
RCRA PBT reduction goal. To encourage
stakeholder input, EPA will conduct
public meetings to listen to stakeholder
comments on the List and on technical
and programmatic measures which
could be used to reduce the generation
of PBT chemicals. Information regarding
public meetings can be obtained by
contacting Newman Smith by phone at
(703) 308-8757, or on the Internet at
smith.newman@epa.gov. EPA will
combine the efforts of these interested
parties into a draft national RCRA PBT
reduction implementation strategy in
mid-1999. EPA will solicit public
comment on the draft strategy and will
publish  a final implementation strategy
later in 1999.
  After publication of the final
implementation strategy, EPA will
continue to work with interested parties
to promote and document source
reduction and recycling successes,  and
measure and report progress, as stated
F. How is Today's RCRA PBT List
Different From Other Chemical Lists?
  Today's draft RCRA PBT list differs
from other lists, including those used in
the RCRA program, because of its
purpose and design. Today's draft RCRA
PBT list:
  • Focuses on reducing RCRA PBT
chemicals at the point of generation,
before they are stored, transported,
treated, recycled, or disposed on the
land. Other regulatory lists are often
used to set treatment technology
standards, or concentration based limits
on chemicals after treatment;
  • Focuses on long-term human health
and ecological problems, rather than
more short term or acute human health
or ecological effects.
  • Will be used as a voluntary guide
for identifying national waste
minimization priorities and measuring
national reduction progress, and may be
used flexibly by other government
agencies and companies. It is not a
regulatory list that must be adhered to
by all stakeholders.
  The basis for developing the RCRA
PBT list is explained in the following
sections of this notice.
G. Why Focus on the Reduction of RCRA
PBT Wastes at the Point of Hazardous
Waste Generation Rather Than After
  Nearly all of the regulations
promulgated under the RCRA program
set standards for safe management or
cleanup of hazardous wastes after they
are generated or managed. To meet these
standards, the regulated community has
frequently used "end-of-pipe"  treatment
and control technologies. Significant
progress has been made using "end-of-
pipe" technologies, even though the
costs are significant, and they do not
completely eliminate releases of toxic
chemicals to the environment.
  To address these issues, government
agencies and the regulated community
have increased their focus on the use of
source reduction and recycling
measures in place of, or as a supplement
to, end-of-pipe technologies to meet or
exceed regulatory requirements and to
reduce the costs of waste management.
  The organizations and individuals
involved in the development of the
Waste Minimization National Plan
strongly urged EPA to promote source
reduction and recycling over waste
treatment and disposal to reduce or
eliminate the potential long term effects
of RCRA PBT chemicals which may
build up in the environment. They
recognized that, even with stringent
waste management standards, waste
management units may fail, accidents
may occur during transport and
handling, and de minimis authorized
releases may, nevertheless, occur. As a
result, although many sources of these
chemicals may individually be in
compliance with hazardous waste and
other regulations, RCRA PBT chemicals
may continue to be released and build
up in the environment. Reducing RCRA
PBT chemical generation at the source
is a more certain way of reducing or
eliminating potential RCRA PBT risks to
the environment, while reducing or
eliminating the costs of managing
H. How Will EPA Work With States,
Industries, and Other Interested Parties
Who Have Different Priorities?
  EPA encourages Federal government
agencies. States, the regulated
community and other organizations to
incorporate the priorities contained in
today's proposed RCRA PBT list in their
current environmental priorities and
programs. EPA is aware that some
organizations have chemical reduction
priorities which differ in varying
degrees from today's List. Examples of
chemical priority lists from 15 State,
tribal and international organizations
are in the docket for today's notice.
Based on a comparison of these lists
with today's draft RCRA PBT List, EPA
believes many organizations will find
chemicals that are common to their own
and today's List.
  EPA believes establishing common
priorities provides an opportunity for
progress toward the national RCRA PBT
reduction goal. Therefore, EPA will
actively work with States, industry,
environmental groups and other
interested parties to identify and
integrate, to the extent possible,
common RCRA PBT reduction priorities
and multimedia implementation
approaches to promote progress toward
the national RCRA PBT chemical
reduction goals.
  EPA believes States should use
flexibility available through the
National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS) to address
priorities for multi-media, multi-
programmatic environmental protection,
including the priorities contained in
today's List. EPA has included a goal,
similar to the WMNP goal, as a Core
Performance Measure in the NEPPS
program. This goal seeks to "decrease
the quantity of waste generated,
decrease the toxicity of waste generated,
and increase recycling of wastes.

EL Waste Minimization Prioritization
Tool Revisions and Information

A. What is the Waste Minimization
Prioritization Tool? When and How Was
it Revised?
  The Waste Minimization
Prioritization Tool (WMPT), a
Windows-based chemical hazard
screening tool developed by EPA,
generates relative rankings of chemicals
based on their potential to cause chronic
human health and ecological problems.
The WMPT generates rankings based on
four sets of chemical properties,
including: Chemical persistence,
bioaccumulation potential, chronic
human and ecological toxicity, and
chemical mass. The last property.

                   Federal Register/Vol.  63, No. 216/Monday, November 9, 1998/Notices
chemical mass, is an optional variable
that can be used at the user's discretion
to generate rankings.
  This section outlines the process EPA
used to seek public review of the
WMPT, an outline of comments
received, and a summary of the changes
made to the WMPT in response to the
comments. EPA used WMPT rankings
based on the first three of the four
properties noted above as input to the
development of the RCRA PBT List. The
reasons for this are described in the
following sections.
  EPA released Beta Version 1.0 of the
WMPT software 4 and the accompanying
User's Guide5 for public comment on
June 23, 1997.6 In addition to the public
comments received in the docket, EPA
received comments from several other
sources during the public comment
period, including: peer review
comments obtained from technical
experts in industry, environmental
groups, and states during a focus group
meeting in September 1997; comments
from an intra-Agency technical
workgroup that reviewed the WMPT as
a means of identifying "PBT"
chemicals; and comments from a WMPT
pilot project conducted by EPA Region
9 in the Santa Clara Valley, California.
Comments were received on many
facets of the WMPT. EPA received a
variety of comments, including
recommendations to:.
  • Modify the weighting and
aggregation of persistence,
bioaccumulation, human toxicity, and
ecological toxicity scores in the WMPT.
  • Modify the WMPT to better
represent actual risk, as opposed to
  • Revise the data quality hierarchies
for persistence and bioaccumulation
data to place preference on measured
data (e.g., data gathered in  laboratory
tests and field studies) rather than
predicted data (i.e., data  derived from
predictive models).
  • Improve the quality of data that are
used as the basis for scoring by updating
existing Agency data sources (e.g., the
Integrated Risk Information System) and
by incorporating new sources of data
currently available to EPA or obtainable
from non-EPA sources.
  • Provide the rationale behind the
"fenceline values" (i.e., thresholds) that
separate low, medium, and high scores.
  • Score metals based on
bioavailability rather than
environmental persistence.
  s Waste Minimization Prioritization Tool (Beta
Test Version 1.0): User's Guide and System
Documentation (EPA530-R-97-019). "
  6 62 FR 33868.
  • Modify the persistence scoring
approach to consider partitioning to
media other than water (e.g., to air).
  • Modify the current low/medium/
high "binning" approach to include
more than three bins and better
discriminate among chemicals in
  • Provide a better indication of the
uncertainty associated with chemical
values and scores by providing
additional information on the sources of
data used in the WMPT and on the
quality of the data.
  • Complete a peer review of the
  • Provide a process for modifying
data values and scores in the WMPT as
new data become available.
  An intra-Agency WMPT Workgroup
was established to review the comments
and provide recommendations on
changes to the WMPT. With the purpose
in mind of preparing chemical rankings
for development of the RCRA PBT List,
the Workgroup focused on addressing
technical and scientific comments that
would potentially affect RCRA PBT
chemical scores. Comments that would
not affect RCRA PBT chemical scores
(e.g., comments recommending
improving the user-friendliness of the
Tool and User's Guide) were deferred
until a later time.
  EPA considered the comments and
recommendations. As a result, the
following changes were made to the
  • For each chemical, the higher of the
human health and ecological concern
scores (previously referred to as human
health and ecological risk potential
scores) was used to indicate overall
concern for the purpose of developing
the RCRA PBT List, rather than adding
the two scores together.
  • Measured data were given
preference over predicted data in
deriving persistence and
bioaccumulation scores. Adjustments in
data preferences were made in scoring
bioaccumulation potential, (i.e.,
bioaccumulation factors were given
preference over bioconcentration
factors, and the log of the octanol-water
partition coefficient was no longer
  • New persistence, bioaccumulation,
human toxicity, and ecological toxicity
data (which meet our data quality
standards) from a number of sources
were included in the WMPT.
  • The fenceline values separating
low, medium, and high scores for
persistence, bioaccumulation, and
toxicity were better documented; in
some cases, the fenceline values were
  • A multimedia partitioning model
was used to estimate the partitioning of
chemicals to air, water, soils, and
sediments and to calculate overall
environmental persistence, rather than
estimating persistence in surface water
  • Data transparency was improved by
better documenting data sources and
indicating the preference levels for the
underlying data used for scoring; some
data that could not be sufficiently
documented for the purpose of the
WMPT were removed.
  The comments received and EPA's
responses are discussed in detail in the
Waste Minimization Prioritization Tool
Comment Response Document for the
RCRA Waste Minimization PBT
Chemical List Docket (referred to as the
WMPT Comment Response Document
below). This document is available in
RCRA docket #F-98-MMLP-FFFFF and
at EPA's Internet home page at
www. epa.gov/wastemin.
  After making the changes to the
WMPT outlined above, EPA prepared
spreadsheets containing revised data
and scoring information. This
information was used as input for
developing the RCRA PBT List. As a
result of the expanded and improved
data used in the WMPT,  approximately
2,900 chemicals receive human health
or ecological concern scores, compared
with approximately  1,800 chemicals in
the beta version of the WMPT. Of the
2,900 chemicals, 122 chemicals score
from 7 to 9 (i.e., relatively high) for
human health concern and 666 score
from 7 to 9 for ecological concern. Some
score from 7 to 9 for both criteria.
Altogether, 681 chemicals score from 7
to 9 for one or both of the two scores.
  EPA has placed in the  docket ?F-98-
MMLP-FFFFF) a document titled Waste
Minimization Prioritization Tool
Spreadsheet Document for the RCRA
Waste Minimization PBT Chemical List
Docket (referred to below as the WMPT
Spreadsheet Document) that: (1)
explains changes made to the WMPT as
a result of the public and peer review
processes, and (2) displays spreadsheets
and scoring information for 1,300
chemicals which received a score of 6
or above for human health or ecological
concern. This document is also
available at EPA's Internet home page at
  Information on the approximately
3,900 chemicals that scored from 3 to 5
or that are unscored  is not included in
the docket, since these chemicals did
not appear to be appropriate candidates
for the RCRA PBT List. Information on
these  chemicals will be provided in a
future version of the WMPT.

                    Federal Register/Vol.  63,  No. 216/Monday, November 9, 1998/Notices
   The WMPT Comment Response
 Document and WMPT Spreadsheet
 Document are included in today's
 docket to provide the reader with
 background information on changes
 made to the WMPT and its use as a
 foundation for the development of
 today's draft RCRA PBT List. The
 WMPT spreadsheets contained in the
 docket are not intended to support other
 applications at this time. EPA is not
 requesting public comment on this
 information, since the WMPT has
 already received widespread and
 comprehensive public review.
 Additional applications beyond
 supporting the development of today's
 draft RCRA PBT List will be discussed
 when the WMPT is re-released in 1999.
 That release of the WMPT revisions will
 include the scoring changes used in
 today's notice and improvements to the
 tool's software features.
 B. How Will Ensure Stewardship of the
 Waste Minimization Prioritization Tool
 and Underlying Scientific Information?
  EPA is committed to coordinating the
 collection of environmental data and to
 making it available to the public
 through the Agency's "Reinventing
 Environmental Information Initiative."
 In 1997,7 EPA announced three
 important information management
 reforms, which:
  • Establish key data standards to
 improve the value of environmental
 information, data sharing and
  • Provide universal voluntary access
 to electronic reporting to reduce
 burdens and improve data quality and
 timeliness; and
  • Implement these data standards and
 electronic reporting reforms in the
 Agency's national systems in
 partnership with the states through the
 One Stop Program.
  Consistent with these principles, EPA
 commits to maintaining sound scientific
 information as a foundation for reducing
 RCRA PBT generation. The EPA has
 taken measures to practice principles of
 information stewardship in the
 development of today's draft RCRA PBT
 List by:
  • Identifying the most up to date and
 documented information that is readily
  • Excluding undocumented scientific
  • Seeking expert advice to make
 assumptions, assess data quality and
 weigh contradictory information;
  7 Administrator Carol Browner and Deputy
Administrator Fred Hansen. EPA Common Sense
Initiative Meeting. July 21.1997.
   •  Making information about data
 sources, data quality, assumptions
 publicly known;
   •  Inviting public review and
 comment on the data used; and
   •  Making appropriate adjustments to
   The Office of Solid Waste intends to
 follow these principles of information
 stewardship to ensure the integrity of
 data used in the Waste Minimization
 Prioritization Tool. As noted above, EPA
 will release an updated, user-friendly
 version of the WMPT in 1999, and will
 discuss how best to maintain
 stewardship of this tool and the
 underlying data with interested
 organizations and individuals at that

 m. Development of Today's Draft
   The Agency followed several steps to
 develop today's draft RCRA Waste
 Minimization PBT Chemical List
 (referred to as the RCRA PBT List
 below). Each of these steps is discussed
 in more detail below.

 A. How Were Initial Candidates for the
 RCRA PBT List Identified?
  The first step in developing today's
 draft RCRA PBT List was to assemble an
 initial list of candidate chemicals for
 further examination. EPA drew from
 two sources to establish this initial
 candidate chemical list: (1) The Waste
 Minimization Prioritization Tool
 discussed above, and (2) a composite
 list of PBT chemicals identified as
 priorities by other EPA program offices.
 This step is discussed below, and is
 described in the Chemical Screening
 Report for the RCRA PBT List Docket
 (referred to below as the Screening
 Report), which is located in RCRA
 docket number F-98-MMLP-FFFFF.

 1. Candidates From the Waste
 Minimization Prioritization Tool
  EPA selected as candidates from the
 WMPT those chemicals which scored 7
 or higher (on a scale of 3-9) for either
 human health concern or ecological
 concern. A total of 681 chemicals scored
 in the WMPT met this criterion. EPA
 then grouped certain polycyclic
 aromatic hydrocarbons into a single
 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
 category, and grouped individually
 listed polychlorinated biphenyls with
the existing polychlorinated biphenyls
 category, resulting in a total of 660
candidate chemicals and chemical
  EPA selected the cut-off score of 7 for
human health or ecological concern in
order to ensure that chemical candidates
represent at least moderately high
 concern for PBT. In order to attain a
 score of 7, a chemical must receive the
 highest WMPT score for at least two of
 the three factors (P, B and T) or the
 highest score for one factor and
 moderate scores for the other two
 factors. EPA believes that a higher cut-
 off score would be overly restrictive,
 eliminating from further consideration
 many chemicals of significant RCRA
 PBT concern, while a lower cut-off score
 would be unnecessarily expansive,
 drawing in many chemicals which
 would not represent a sufficiently high
 level of RCRA PBT concern for this
 national PBT waste minimization effort.
 2. PBT Priorities Identified by Other
 EPA Programs
  In addition to drawing candidate
 chemicals from the WMPT, EPA
 considered PBT chemical priorities
 identified by other EPA programs
 through internal PBT coordination
 efforts. This list of 34 chemicals
 included 18 chemicals which scored
 below 7 for human health or ecological
 concern in the WMPT, and 16 chemicals
 that were either not included in the
 WMPT, or were included, but were not
 scored because there were insufficient
 data. These chemicals were included in
 the candidate pool for development of
 the RCRA PBT List to determine the
 extent to which they may also be a
 RCRA PBT waste minimization
 candidate. Including these 34 chemicals
 in the candidate pool brought the total
 number of candidate chemicals and
 chemical groups to 694.

 B. What Inclusion/Elimination Criteria
 Were First Applied to the Candidate
  After assembling the initial candidate
 chemical list, EPA eliminated chemicals
 that would not be  good candidates for
 RCRA waste minimization efforts
 because they are unlikely to be present
 in RCRA hazardous waste in significant
 quantities, or are present, but are not
 highly toxic. Three criteria were used to
 screen out these chemicals: pesticides
 which are banned from production and
 use; chemicals with zero reported
 quantities in waste; and chemicals with
 low WMPT toxicity scores. This step is
summarized below, and is described in
 detail in the Screening Report.

 1. Banned Pesticides
  EPA first eliminated those chemicals
that are pesticides banned from use in
the United States and are not known to
have other, non-pesticidal sources or
uses. This screen eliminated 28
chemicals from further consideration,
including a number of well-known PBT
chemical priorities such as DDT. EPA

Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 216/Monday,  November 9,  1998/Notices
did not eliminate from further
consideration pesticides that are
"severely restricted," but not banned in
the U.S.

2. Chemicals Not Present in RCRA
  EPA also eliminated from further
consideration chemicals that are not
likely to be found in RCRA hazardous
waste, based on quantities reported in
the Agency's Toxics Release Inventory
(TRI) database8 and the National
Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey
(NHWCS).9 Chemical quantities
reported in the TRI were adjusted to
estimate quantities present in hazardous
waste streams by: including only TRI
reporters who had RCRA ID numbers; in
the case of underground injected wastes,
including only TRI reporters with RCRA
ID numbers who also had RCRA UIC
(Underground Injection [well] Code) ID
numbers; and excluding air and water
releases from TRI production-related
wastes. This screen eliminated 510
candidate chemicals, leaving 156
chemicals to be considered further in
developing the RCRA waste
minimization list. Some highly PBT
chemicals were eliminated in this step
(e.g., dioxin) because they are generated
in very small quantities, which are not
reported in the TRI. These were flagged
and re-examined in the last step,
described below in Section E.
3. Chemicals With Low Toxicity
  Finally, EPA checked to ensure that
none of the 156 chemicals passing the
above screens became a candidate based
on high P and/or B scores, but had a low
score for human health or ecological
toxicity. The rationale for this screen
was that, even though some chemicals
may persist or bioaccumulate in the
environment, they should not be a
candidate for the national RCRA PBT
List if the chemical is not likely to be
at least moderately toxic in the
environment. None of the 156 candidate
chemicals had low toxicity scores.

C. How Were the Remaining Candidate
Chemicals Ranked?
  To identify the best candidate
chemicals for RCRA source reduction
and recycling efforts, EPA developed
four "primary" criteria for ranking the
remaining chemicals. These criteria
included: (1) Each chemical's PBT score
                   from the WMPT; (2) chemical quantity
                   and prevalence (or frequency of
                   occurrence) in hazardous waste; (3)
                   evidence that the chemical is present in
                   the environment, particularly at levels
                   of concern; and (4) the degree to which
                   the chemical is a concern to the RCRA
                     Ranking the candidate chemicals was
                   completed by: Summing subcriteria
                   scores within each of the-four primary
                   criteria discussed above; converting the
                   scores for each primary criterion to a 25
                   point scale (i.e., the Agency gave equal
                   weight to the four primary criteria);
                   summing scores for each chemical; and
                   arranging the chemicals in rank order  on
                   a scale of 1-100.  The individual
                   subcriteria were scored on a 0, 1, 2, 3
                   scale (except where noted). The values
                   on this scale were assigned to different
                   ranges of data values by examining the
                   underlying data distributions and using
                   natural breaks in the distributions or
                   creating comparably sized groups. The
                   process used to score and rank
                   chemicals in this step is summarized
                   below and is described in detail in the
                   Chemical Ranking Report for the RCRA
                   PBT List Docket (referred to below as
                   the Ranking Report), located in  RCRA
                   docket number F-98-MMLP-FFFFF.

                   1. PBT Scores

                     In this step, each candidate chemical
                   was scored based on the higher  of its
                   WMPT human or ecological concern
                   scores. The scoring approach is
                   provided in Table 1 below. Each
                   chemical with a WMPT score was
                   assigned a subcriterion score from 0-3.
                   Chemicals not scored in the WMPT
                   were ranked by summing and
                   normalizing scores for the remaining
                   three primary criteria, to compensate for
                   the missing WMPT score.

                     TABLE 1.—PBT CHARACTERISTICS
  »U.S. EPA. 1997.1991 and 1995 Toxic Release '
Inventory CTRI) Data.
  9U.S. EPA. 1998. National Hazardous Waste
Constituent Survey. Office of Solid Waste.
Washington, DC. This is a survey of chemical
constituent presence in hazardous waste streams
managed by RCRA treatment, storage and disposal
PBT characteristics subcriterion
Higher of WMPT human health and
ecological concern scores equals
Higher of WMPT human health and
ecological concern scores equals
Higher of WMPT human health and
ecological concern scores equals
WMPT human health and ecological
concern scores are both less than


2. Quantity and Prevalence
  The Agency believes that RCRA PBT
chemicals which occur in greater
quantities, or are more prevalent, in
hazardous waste should be given a
higher national priority for RCRA waste
minimization than other PBT chemicals.
Therefore, EPA assigned higher scores
to chemicals with greater quantity, or
prevalence, in hazardous waste.
  EPA used TRI and NHWCS data to
determine chemical quantities in waste
and used Biennial Reporting System
(BRS) dataI0 to determine waste stream
quantities associated with each
chemical. EPA also used TRI, NHWCS,
and BRS data to determine the number
of facilities generating or managing each
chemical in hazardous waste.
  TRI quantity and prevalence data
were adjusted to identify and estimate
chemical quantities and prevalence in
RCRA hazardous waste by: (1) Including
only TRI reporters who had RCRA ID
numbers; (2) in the case of underground
injected wastes, including only TRI
reporters with RCRA ID numbers who
also had RCRA UIC ID numbers; and (3)
excluding air and water releases from
TRI production-related waste. NHWCS
quantity and prevalence data were used
only where TRI quantity and prevalence
data were unavailable. To estimate the
quantities of BRS waste streams and
number of generators associated with
particular chemicals, EPA used the
RCRA Chemical-Waste Code
Crosswalk,11 which identifies hazardous
waste codes that may be associated with
particular chemicals.
  The TRI reports quantity information
on both metals and metal compounds. ,
The quantity information reported for a;
metal compound only  includes the
metal component of the compound. In
keeping with this approach for metal
reporting, EPA added together the
quantities reported in TRI as metals and
metal compounds.
  The TRI/NHWCS score and the BRS
score were weighted equally (i.e., were '
added together and divided by two) in
deriving both the quantity and
prevalence subcriteria  scores. If the BRS
score was missing for a chemical, the
TRI/NHWCS score was used as the
quantity or prevalence subscriterion
score. The quantity subcriterion score
was added to the prevalence
subcriterion score in deriving the
                                                           10 U.S. EPA. 1997. Biennial Reporting System Flat
                                                         Files. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
                                                         Response, Washington, DC.
                                                           11 The RCRA Chemical-Waste Code Crosswalk
                                                         (EPA530-D-97-005) is from the beta version of the
                                                         WMPT; it is included in RCRA Docket #F-98-
                                                         MMLP-FFFFF. Chemicals not listed in the
                                                         crosswalk were not evaluated on the BRS-based

                     Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 216/Monday, November 9,  1998/Notices
quantity/prevalence criterion score for    and prevalence is presented in Table 2
each chemical. The scoring for quantity   below.

                                    TABLE 2.—QUANTITY AND PREVALENCE SCORING
Quantity/prevalence subcriterion
TRI chemical quantity (pounds/yr)

NHWCS chemical quantity (pounds/yr) 	

BRS waste stream quantity (tons/yr) 	

TR! number of generators 	

NHWCS number of handlers12 	

BRS number of generators 	

Value range
Greater than 1 0 000 000
1 000 000-10 000 000 . .
Less than 1
Greater than 1 000,000 	
Less than 1
Greater than 100,000,000 	
1-10 000 000
Less than 1 	 ,
More than 99 	 	
More than 10 	
More than 9 999 	 ...




3. Environmental Presence12

  The Agency believes that PBT
chemicals which are detected in the
environment more frequently than other
chemicals should be given higher
priority for reduction through source
reduction and recycling. EPA ranked
each chemical's "presence in the
environment" using measurement
indicators contained in the following
three national databases: (1) EPA's Fish
Advisory DatabaseI3 (EPA used the
most current year offish advisory data
in the U.S.—1997); (2) EPA's National
Sediment Inventory14 (EPA used data
on sediment contamination in the U.S.
for all years contained in the database;
and  (3) the Agency for Toxic Substances
and  Disease Registry's Hazdat
Database1S (EPA used data on chemicals
found in the toxic cleanup sites
identified on the EPA's Superfund
National Priority List (NPL) covered
under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act.
  Scores were developed using the
scoring approach in Table 3 below. Each
environmental presence subcriterion
was scored from 0-3. The scores for the
three subcriteria were weighted equally
(in this case being added together) in
deriving an environmental presence
criterion score for each PBT chemical.
                                   TABLE 3.—ENVIRONMENTAL PRESENCE SCORING
Environmental presence subcriterion
Fish Advisory Database (1997 data) 	

National Sediment Inventory (1980-1993)

ATSDR HazDat Database (all NPL sites) 	

Value range
More than 99 advisories 	
10—99 advisories 	
1—9 advisories 	
No advisories 	
More than 999 detections
100—999 detections 	
1—99 detections 	
No detections . . 	
More than 499 sites
100-499 sites 	 ,
1-99 sites 	
No sites 	



  "The number of handlers is the number of RCRA
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities that
managed a chemical, rather than the number of
generators of the chemical.
  "U.S. EPA. 1998.1997 National Listing of Fish
Consumption Advisories. Office of Water,
Washington. DC. www.epa.gov/OST/flshadvice.
  "US. EPA. 1997. The Incidence and Severity of
Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the
United States; Volume 1: The National Sediment
Quality Survey. Office of Science and Technology,
Washington. DC. EPA/823/R-97/006.
  15 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. 1998. Hazardous Substance Release/
Health Effects Database, website:
  EPA used the ATSDR data since no comparable
data were readily available from RCRA corrective
action sites.

Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 216/Monday, November 9, 1998/Notices
4. RCRA Programmatic Concern
  EPA believes PBT chemicals that are
of particular concern to the RCRA
program should be given higher priority
in developing today's draft RCRA PBT
List than PBT chemicals identified in
the WMPT or other programs that are
not a particular concern to the RCRA
program. To identify "RCRA-relevant"
PBT chemicals, EPA selected the
candidate PBT chemicals which are
found on one  or more regulatory lists
used in the RCRA hazardous waste
generation, management, and corrective
action programs. The scoring scheme for
these chemicals is provided in Table 4
  EPA used a wider subcriterion scoring
range (0-4) for this criterion to reflect
the broad range of RCRA programmatic
concerns. This wider scoring range was
then normalized (i.e., was converted to
a 25 point scale) so that the criterion
was weighted equally with the other
primary criteria.
  A score of 4 was assigned to PBT
chemicals that: (1) Are capable of
forming dense nonaqueous phase
liquids  (DNAPLs) that make
groundwater cleanups particularly
difficult;16 (2) are identified as "difficult
to treat" chemicals under the Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program;17
or (3) are targeted for co-regulation
under RCRA and the Clean Air Act
  is See the following three references:
  Cohen, R.M., J.W. Mercer, and J. Matthews. 1993.
DNAPL Site Evaluation. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  U.S. EPA. 1993. Evaluation of the Likelihood of
DNAPL Presence at NPL Sites, National Results.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC. EPA/540/R-93/073.
  U.S. EPA. 1991. Estimating Potential for
Occurrence of DNAPL at Superfund Sites. Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Washington,
DC. EPA publication 9355-4-07FS.
  17Eby, E. 1998. Internal communication. Waste
Treatment Branch, Office of Solid Waste, U.S. EPA.
                    Section 112 in EPA's proposed
                    maximum achievable control
                    technology (MACT) combustion rule for
                    hazardous waste incinerators, cement
                    kilns or light weight aggregate kilns, or
                    are currently regulated under the RCRA
                    boilers and industrial furnaces (BIF)
                    rule (since chemicals regulated under
                    these rules could potentially be
                    transferred to the air or soil media after
                      Chemicals which are not on any of the
                    regulatory lists discussed in the
                    previous paragraph, but are on the
                    Toxicity Characteristic (TC) list (40 CFR
                    261.24) or the Appendix VH list of
                    chemicals, which is used as the basis for
                    hazardous waste listings (40 CFR part
                    261), are assigned a score of 3. The
                    Agency has historically taken regulatory
                    actions in the RCRA program based on
                    risk assessments and damage cases
                    involving these chemicals.
                      If a chemical was not on any of the
                    lists noted above but is regulated under
                    RCRA based on technological standards
                    rather than risk-based standards (i.e,
                    chemicals covered  by the Universal
                    Treatment Standards (UTS) list (40 CFR
                    268.48), it was assigned a score of 2. If
                    a chemical was not on any of the lists
                    noted above, but was on the RCRA P list
                    of acute hazardous waste (40 CFR
                    261.33), the U list of toxic waste (40
                    CFR 261.33), the Appendix VHI
                    hazardous waste constituent list (40
                    CFR part 261), or the Appendix DC
                    ground water monitoring list (40 CFR
                    part 264), the chemical was assigned a
                    score of 1. These chemicals are
                    regulated under RCRA, but are of lesser
                    concern. For instance. Appendix IX
                    chemicals are used to set permit
                     18U.S EPA. 1991. Burning of Hazardous Waste in
                   Boilers and Industrial Furnaces: Final Rule. 56 FR
                   7134. February 21.
                     '»U.S. EPA. 1996. Revised Standards for  .
                   Hazardous Waste Combustors: Proposed Rule. 61
                   FR 173858. April 19.
parameters. However, if they are not on
the lists mentioned above, are of lesser
concern. In addition, although P list
chemicals are of concern due to their
acute hazards, they are generated
infrequently and usually in small
  Chemicals not found on any of the
lists discussed above received a 0 score.
The scoring of subcriteria for RCRA
Programmatic Concern is summarized
in Table 4 below.

RCRA programmatic concern subcri-
Chemicals contained on any of the
  following lists: (1) Chemicals that
  can  form  dense   non-aqueous
  phase liquids; (2) chemicals identi-
  fied as "difficult to, treat," or (3)
  chemicals  regulated  under  the
  MACT  rule  for hazardous waste
  incinerators, cement kilns and light
  weight  aggregate kilns, or  the
  RCRA rule for boilers and indus-
  trial furnaces	
Presence on the toxicity characteris-
  tic list or the Appendix  VII list of
  chemicals serving as the basis for
  hazardous waste listings	
Presence on the land disposal re-
  strictions    universal    treatment
  standards list	
Presence on  the  RCRA  P  list  of
  acute hazardous waste,  the U list
  of toxic waste, the Appendix VIII
  hazardous waste constituent list,
  or the Appendix IX ground water
  monitoring list	
Chemical  not present on any of the
  above RCRA lists	

                    Federal Register/Vol.  63,  No. 216/Monday,  November  9,  1998/Notices
  The Agency conducted limited
sensitivity testing of the ranking
methodology by observing changes in
the rankings in response to modifying
the ranking criteria. Several scenarios
were tested, including eliminating each
of the primary criteria in turn and
eliminating both the RCRA Relevance
and Environmental Presence criteria
  In general, the methodology appeared
to be fairly robust in its identification of
the top ranking chemicals. Scenarios
which alternatively dropped the RCRA
Relevance, Quantity/Prevalence, and the
PBT Score criteria each displaced
roughly 10 chemicals from the top 50.
Elimination of the Environmental
Presence criterion had less of an impact
on the rankings than dropping the other
criteria. This indicates that, when one of
the four criteria is removed from the
ranking method, the remaining criteria
and data support the ranking to a
substantial degree.
  In a more drastic sensitivity scenario,
dropping two of the criteria, RCRA
Relevance and Environmental Presence,
together substantially altered the
rankings—30 chemicals in the top 50
were displaced, and several chemicals
changed by more than 50 rank positions.
These results are not surprising
considering the substantial change to
the scoring method (half of the criteria
are removed). For further information,
see the report Revised Chemical
Ranking Methodology Testing Results in
RCRA docket number F-98-MMLP-
D. What Cutoff Was Applied to the
Ranked Chemicals to Obtain the Draft
  After ranking the 150 candidate
chemicals, EPA selected a cutoff value
to identify the "top tier" of chemicals
for tracking on a national level. EPA
narrowed the candidate list to the 61
chemicals which had a score of 50
points (the halfway point on the scoring
scale) as a basis for inclusion in the
draft RCRA PBT List proposed today.
EPA determined that a national list of
50 to 60 chemicals was appropriate,
given limited Agency, State, and private
resources to reduce and measure these
E. What Final Adjustments Were Made
to the Draft RCRA PBT List?
  As a final step, EPA added and
removed certain chemicals from the list
for the particular reasons described
below. Adding and-removing chemicals
reduced the draft RCRA PBT List from
61 to 53 chemicals.
1. U.S./Canada Binational Agreement
Level 1 Chemicals
  EPA added dioxins, furans, and
octachlorosytrene to the RCRA PBT List
because of their high priority on the
"Level 1" list of the U.S./Canada
Binational Agreement.20 Four other
Level 1 chemicals were already among
the top tier chemicals for the RCRA PBT
List.21 Nine chemicals on the Level 1
list, including eight banned pesticides
and alkyl lead, are excluded because
they are either no longer produced (e.g.,
banned pesticides), or are found in very
limited quantities in wastes from only a
few production processes (e.g., alkyl
lead).22 In either case, these chemicals
are not very amenable to reductions
through waste minimization. The
Binational Agreement and the Level 1
list are available for review in RCRA
docket number F-98-MMLP-FFFFF.
2. Chemicals With Low or no PBT
  The Agency initially added chemicals
identified by other EPA programs to the
candidate list to provide a
comprehensive starting point in the
RCRA PBT List development process. At
this final step in the RCRA PBT List
development process, six chemicals
were removed for the following reasons.
Five of the chemicals—
tetrachlorethylene, trichlorethylene,
methylene chloride, 1,2-dichloroethane,
and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane—were
removed because their WMPT PBT
scores are below 7. Although individual
States may wish to pursue reductions in
these chemicals, EPA determined they
are not among the most highly toxic for
a national list. The sixth, silver, was
removed because it has no PBT score.
3. PCBs
  The Agency removed the PCB
chemical group from the RCRA PBT List

because production of PCBs is banned
in the U.S. and waste minimization
opportunities for PCBs in process waste
streams are believed to be very limited.

4. Di-n-octyl Phthalate and Butyl Benzyl

  The Agency previously removed both
of these chemicals from the EPCRA
Section 313 List of Toxic Chemicals in
response to delisting petitions.
Consequently, the Agency examined
these chemicals more closely to
determine whether to continue to
include them on the draft RCRA PBT
List. The Agency decided to remove di-
n-octyl phthalate from the draft RCRA
PBT List because data developed in
response to that delisting petition
indicated that the human and ecological
toxicity data were not conclusive.
However, EPA has retained butyl benzyl
phthalate on the draft RCRA PBT List
because the ecological toxicity criteria
considered for delisting from  the EPCRA
list were different than the  criteria used
in the WMPT for determining high
levels of concern for ecological toxicity.

5. Hexachlorocyclohexane  Isomers

  The Agency removed the alpha, beta,
and delta hexachlorocyclohexane
isomers and retained the gamma isomer.
The gamma isomer is believed to be the
predominant PBT isomer in waste
streams, and achieving waste
minimization for this isomer would
result in reductions in the other isomers
as well.

IV. EPA's Draft RCRA Waste
Minimization PBT Chemical List and
Issues for Public Comment

A. Which Chemicals Are Included on
the Draft RCRA PBT List?

  Table 5 below presents EPA's draft
RCRA PBT  List. The chemicals are
listed in alphabetical order. No rank
ordering is intended in this List, and, in
fact, the List treats these chemicals as
equal environmental priorities. The
Chemical Abstract Service  Registry
Number (CASRN) is also shown, where
Dioxins and Furans:
  »U.S. EPA. 199T. Great Lakes Binational Toxics
Strategy, Great Lakes National Program Office.
Chicago, IL. wivw.cpa.8Ov/grtlakes/p2/
  21 These four chemicals include
hexachlorobenzene, mercury and compounds,
PCBs. and benzo(a)pyrene. PCBs were subsequently
removed from the proposed RCRA PBT List (see
discussion below), and benzo(a)pyrene was
included in the category polycyclic aromatic
 "The eight banned pesticides include aldrin,
dieldrin. chlordane, DDT, DDD, DDE, toxaphene,
and mirex.

Federal Register/ Vol. 63, No. 216/Monday,  November 9, 1998/Notices
                                      TABLE 5.—DRAFT RCRA PBT LIST—Continued
    Dioxins (PCDD)	
    Furans (PCDF)	
Chlorinated Solvents:
    Chloroform	     67-66-3
    1,1-Dichloroethane	     75-34-3
    1,1,1-Trichloroethane	     71-55-6
    1,2-Dichlorobenzene	     95-50-1
    1,3-Dichlorobenzene	   541-7M
    1,4-Dichlorobenzene	!.....	   106-46-7
    1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene	   120-82-1
    1,2,4,5-Tetrachiorobenzene	•.	     95-94-3
    Pentachlorobenzene	   608-93-5
    Hexachlorobenzene	:.,....	   118-74-1 .
Other Halogenated Organics:
    4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether	    101-55-3
    Hexachlorobutadiene	     87-68-3
    Octachlorostyrene	 29082-74-4
    alpha-Endosulfan	   959-98-8
    beta-Endosulfan	 33213-65-9
    Heptachlor	     76-44-8
    Heptachlor epoxide	  1024-57-3
    gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane	      58-89-9
    Methoxychlor	,	     72-43-5
    Pentachloronttrobenzene	      82-68-8
    Pentachlorophenoi	     87-86-5
    2,4,5-Trichlorophenol	.....'.	     95-95-4
Organonitrogens:                          .                             .
    Nitrobenzene	     98-95-3
Nonhalogenated Phenolics:
    Phenol	   108-95-2
    2,4,6-tris-(1,1-Dimethylethyl)phenol	    732-26-3
Phthalate esters:
    Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	    117-81-7
    Butylbenzyl phthalate	      85-68-7
    Dibutyi phthalate	     84-74-2
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons**:
    Acenaphthene	•     83-32-9
    Acenapthylene	.	   208-96-8
    Anthracene	   120-12-7
    Benzo(g,h,l)perylene	    191-24-2
    Fluoranthene	:	   206-44-0
    Fluorene	     86-73-7
    2-Methyinaphthalene	      91-57-6
    Naphthalene	:	     91-20-3
    PAH group (as defined in TRI).
    Phenanthrene	     85-01-8
    Pyrene	   129-00-0
    Antimony	  7440-36-0
    Arsenic	!	  7440-38-2
    Beryllium 	'.	  7440-41-7
    Cadmium	,	  7440-43-9
    Chromium	.-...  7440-47-3
    Copper	-.	  7440-50-8
    Lead	  7439-92-1
    Mercury	;	  7439-97-6
    Nickel	  7440-02-0
    Selenium	  7782-49-2
    Zinc	  7440-66-6
    Cyanide	      57-12-5
  **The Toxics Release Inventory reports some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as a group, and reports other PAHs individually. The
10 individual PAHs listed in this table are not included in the TRI PAH group. See the Screening Report for a list of PAHs included in the TRI
PAH group.

                    Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 216/Monday, November 9,  1998/Notices
B. What Issues is EPA Requesting Public
Comment On?
  The Agency welcomes public
comment on any aspect of the
methodology used to develop the draft
RCRA.PBT List, including the data
sources, ranking criteria and scoring
schemes, the cutoff criteria, and the
final adjustments to the List. The
Agency also requests comment on the
specific issues listed below. The Agency
is not requesting comment on the data
or methodology used to develop the
WMPT. or the scoring results of the
WMPT. The WMPT went through a
thorough, comprehensive and
constructive public review and
comment process. EPA has incorporated
its response to those comments in the
underpinnings of today's notice and
therefore does not believe comments
regarding the WMPT are generally
pertinent to this effort.
  Specific issues for comment include:
1. Banned Chemicals

  Is it appropriate to eliminate
chemicals from consideration for the
draft RCRA PBT List because they are
no longer used in production or
generated in hazardous waste, or are
generated in very limited quantities
from very few production processes,
and therefore are not good candidates
for future reductions through waste
minimization? Is it appropriate to
eliminate banned pesticides, PCBs, and
alkyl lead for this reason, as the Agency
has done in developing the List?
2. Waste Minimization Feasibility
  Should the agency eliminate from
consideration PBT chemicals contained
In hazardous waste for which there are
few feasible waste minimization options
available, or should the agency consider
these as an incentive to encourage
research and development of waste
minimization methods for these
3. "Non-measurable" Chemicals
  The draft RCRA PBT List includes 16
chemicals that were reported in the
National Hazardous Waste Constituent
Survey but are not reported in the
Toxics Release Inventory, and therefore,
cannot be easily tracked over time. Is it
appropriate to include on the List
chemicals for ttiat TRI data, or other
annual chemical-specific data, are not
readily available for tracking national
chemical reduction progress? Are there
other reliable national sources of
chemical reporting data that could be
used to track generation and reductions
of these  chemicals?
4. Chemicals With Very High P, B, and/
or T Values

  Should chemicals with very high data
values for persistence, bioaccumulation
potential, human toxicity, and/or
ecological toxicity (e.g., with values at
the top end of the data distributions) be
considered for addition to the RCRA
PBT List, even though TRI data are not
available for tracking progress? How
would progress be measured for these

5. Chemicals With Low Reported

  Several chemicals on the RCRA. PBT
List are estimated in the National
Hazardous Waste Constituent Survey to
be generated in quantities of less than
100 pounds per year. The Agency did
not use a specific quantity cutoff in
developing the RCRA PBT List. Should
a quantity cutoff be used? If so, what is
the appropriate value for the cutoff?
Should different cutoffs be used for
chemicals which are the most toxic
compared to others which are less toxic?
If so, what should those cutoffs be?

6. Priorities Identified by Other

  Should EPA add to the RCRA PBT
List State or other organization's  priority
chemicals which do not already appear
on the List? Among these chemicals,
should those with low or no PBT scores
(e.g., waste solvents), or those with low
or no chemical quantities (e.g., some
Level 1 U.S./Canada Binational
Agreement chemicals) be included?  A
list of chemical priorities identified by
several States is located in RCRA docket
number F-98-MMLP-FFFFF.

7. Including Recycled Wastes in
Determining Quantities of RCRA-
Relevant Waste Associated with

  In considering the quantity and
prevalence of candidates for the RCRA
PBT List (step C.4 above), the Agency
included quantities that were recycled
in its scoring procedure. Should
recycled quantities be included when
determining the quantities of chemicals
associated with hazardous wastes in
developing the RCRA PBT List, or
should EPA measure chemicals only at
the point of generation?
  Dated: October 30, 1998.
Elizabeth A. Cotsworth,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 98-29952 Filed 11-6-98; 8:45 am]

Farm Credit Administration Board

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given,
pursuant to the Government in the
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of
the forthcoming regular meeting of the
Farm Credit Administration Board
DATE AND TIME: The regular meeting of
the Board will be held at the offices of
the Farm Credit Administration in
McLean, Virginia, on November 12,
1998, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as
the Board concludes its business.
Floyd Fithian, Secretary to the Farm
Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-
4025, TDD (703) 883-4444.
ADDRESS: Farm Credit Administration,
1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean,
Virginia 22102-5090.
this meeting of the Board will be open
to the public (limited space available),
and parts of this meeting will be closed
to the public. In order to increase the
accessibility to Board meetings, persons
requiring assistance should make
arrangements in advance. The matters to
be considered at the meeting are:

Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

—October 8, 1998 (Open and Closed)

B. New Business

1. Regulation

—Balloting and Stockholder
  Reconsideration Issues (Final) [12
  CFR Part 611]

2. Other

—Statement on Regulatory Burden
  (Notice of Intent; Comment Period

Closed Session*

C. Report

—OSMO Report
  * Session Closed—Exempt pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552b(c)(8) and (9).
  Date: November 5, 1998.
Floyd Fithian,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 98-30102 Filed 11-5-98: 1:18 pm]