-616
Tuesday
August 18, 1992
Part II
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 143 et al.
Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly
Listed Wastes and Hazardous Debris;
Rule
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
37194 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148,260,261,262,264,
265,268,270 and 271
[FRL-4132-4]
RIN 205Q-AD36
Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly
Listed Wastes and Hazardous Debris
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing treatment
standards under, the land disposal
restrictions (LDR) program for certain
hazardous wastes listed after November
8,1984, pursuant to a proposed consent
decree filed with the District Court that
established a promulgation date of June
1992 (EDFv. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-0598,
D.D.C.). EPA is also finalizing revised
treatment standards for debris '
contaminated with listed hazardous
waste or debris that exhibits certain
hazardous waste characteristics .
(hereinafter referred to as hazardous
debris), and several revisions to
previously promulgated standards and
requirements. These actions are being
taken as part of the RCRA Reform
Initiative, and are expected to facilitate
implementation of the LDR program.
EFFEtriVE DATES: This final rule is
effective on June 30; 1992, except for
§§ 148.17(a). 260.10, 261.3(c)(2)[ii)(C),
268.2. 268.5. 268.7, 268.9, 268.36(a), 268.40,
268.41. 288.42, 268.43, 268.45. 268.46,
268.50, 270.14. 270.42, 270.72, and 271.1,
which are effective November 16,1992;
and §§ 262.34. 264.110. 264.111. 264.112,
264.140, 264.142. part 264 subpart DD.
265.110, 265.111. 265.112, 265.140. 265.142,
265.221, and part 265 subpart DD. which
are effective February 18,1993.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemaking is identified as Docket
Number F-92-CD2F-FFFFF, and is
located in the EPA RCRA Docket, room
2427.401 M Street SW,, Washington, DC
20460. The docket is open from 9 a.m. to
4 p.m.. Monday through Friday, except
on Federal holidays. The public must
make an appointment to review docket
materials by calling (202) 260-9327. A
maximum of 100 pages from the docket
•nay be copied afno cost. Additional •
copies cost $.15 per page.
-On FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
?or general information, contact the ;
*CRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll
Vee) or (703) 920-9810 locally. For
nformation on treatment standards for
lewly listed wastes or hazardous
debris, contact !the Waste Treatment
Branch, Office pf Solid Waste (OS-
322W), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401 M |St., SW.. Washington, DC
20460, (703) 308-8434. For information on
capacity determinations or national
capacity variances, contact the Capacity
Programs Branch, Off ice'of Solid Waste
(OS-321W), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline •
I. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984
B. Pollution Prevention (Waste
Minimization^ Benefits
II. Summary of Final Rule
A. Newly Listed Wastes
B.'Changes to Current Regulations
C. Hazardous Debris . ,
III. Detailed Discussion of Final Rule: Newly
Listed Wastes
A. Recent Petro eum Refining Wastes (F037
and F038) '
• B. Wastes fromjthe Production;of
Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine
(K107, K108, Kl09. and KllO)
C. 2-Ethoxyethaiiol Wastes (U359)
D. Wastes from;the Production of
Dinitrotoluene and Toluenediamine
(Kill and Kli2,U328 and U353)
E. Wastes from jthe Production of Ethylene
Dibromide (KJ117. K118, and K136) and
Wastes from the Production of Methyl
Bromide (K131 and K132)
•F. Wastes from the Production of
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic Acid (K123,
K124, K125. aijd K126)
IV. Detailed Discussion of Final Rule:
• Changes to Existing Regulations
A. Revisions to the F001-F005 Spent
Solvents Treatment Standards
B. Conversion of Wastewater Standards
Based on Scrubber Water
C. Revisions to Treatment. Standards for
K061, KOB2, arid F006
D. Vanadium: Treatment Standards and
Appendix VIII
E. Notification and Certification for
Characteristic' Wastes
F. Wastes Listed Because they Exhibit a
Characteristic!
G. Storage and Treatment in Containment
Buildings
H. Retrofitting Stirface Impoundments
' Under Land Disposal Restrictions
V. Detailed Discussion of Final Rule: •
. , Hazardous Debris
A. Overview
• B. Definitions of {Debris and Hazardous
Debris
C. Treatment Standards for Hazardous
" Debris '• ! ' •
D. Exclusion of Hazardous Debris from
Subtitle C Regulation
E. Regulation of Treatment Residuals
F. Permit.Requirements for.Treatment
Facilities [
G. Capacity Variance for Hazardous Debris
H. Other Issues' i
VI. Capacity Determinations
A. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
B. Available Capacity
C. Petroleum Refining Wastes and Other
Organic Wastes
D. Required and Available Capacity for
Newly Listed Wastes Mixed with
Radioactive Contaminants
E. Required and Available Capacity for
Debris Contaminated with Newly Listed
Wastes
F. Capacity Determination for Underground
Injected Wastes
G. Revisions to Treatment Standards for
K061. F006, and K062
VII. Implementation
A. Facilities Qualifying for Interim Status
Due to Storage of Prohibited Wastes
B. Containment Buildings at Generator
Sites
C. Addition of Waste Management
Capacity'at Permitted and Interim Status
. Facilities
D. Conversion of Enclosed Waste Piles 'to
Containment Buildings at Permitted and
Interim Status Facilities
VIII. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
... States.
B. Effect on State Authorization
IX. Regulatory Requirements
A. Economic Impact Screening Analysis
Pursuant to Executive Order 12291
• B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), enacted on November 8,1984,
allow hazardous wastes to be land
disposed only if they satisfy either of
two conditions: (1) They can either be
treated, or otherwise satisfy, the
requirement of section 3004(m), which
provision requires EPA to set levels or
methods of treatment, if any, which
substantially diminish the toxicity of the
waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of .hazardous
constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are
minimized; or (2) they can be land
disposed in units satisfying the so-called
.no-migration standard in sections 3004
(d)(l), (e)(l), and (g)(5). Land disposal
includes any placement of hazardous
waste in a landfill, surface
impoundment, waste pile, injection well,
land treatment facility, salt dome
formation, salt bed formation, or
underground mine or cave. RCRA
section 3004(k).
. EPA was required to promulgate land
disposal prohibitions and treatment
standards by May 8,1990 for all wastes
that were either listed or identified as
hazardous at the time of the 1984
-------
amendments, a task EPA completed
within the statutory timeframes. RCRA
section 3004 (d), (e). and (g). EPA is also
required to promulgate prohibitions and
treatment standards for wastes
identified or listed after the date of the
1984 amendments (wastes referred to in
this notice as "newly listed and
identified wastes") within six months
after the listing or identification takes
effect. RCRA section 3004fe)(4J. EPA has
tiled with the District Court a proposed
consent decree that would put the
Agency on a schedule for adopting
prohibitions and treatment standards for
newly identified and listed wastes. The
promulgation date for the newly •
identified and listed wastes dealt with
in this rule is set for June 1992. (EDTv
Reilly. Civ. No. 89-0598, D.D.C.J
The land disposal restrictions are
effective upon promulgation. RCRA
section 3004(h)(l). However, the
Administrator may grant a national
capacity variance from the effective
date and establish a later effective date
{not to exceed two years) based on the
earliest date on which adequate
alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity which protects human
health and the environment will be
available. RCRA section 3004{h)(2). The
Administrator may also grant a case-by-
case extension of the effective date for
up to one year, renewable once for up to
one additional year, when an
applicant(s) successfully makes certain
demonstrations. RCRA section
3004fh)(3). See 55 FR 22526 (June 1.1990}
tor a more detailed discussion on
national capacity variances and case-
by-case extensions.
In addition to prohibiting land
disposal of hazardous wastes, Congress
prohibited storage of any waste which is
prohibited from land disposal unless
such storage is solely for the purpose of
the accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposal. RCRA section 3004(j). The
provision applies, of course, only to
storage which is not also defined as
land disposal in section 3004(k).
B. Pollution Prevention (Waste
Minimization) Benefits
EPA's progress over the years in
improving environmental quality
through its media-specific pollution
control programs has been substantial
Over the past two decades, standard
industrial practice for pollution control
concentrated to a large extent on "end-
of-pipe" treatment or land disposal of
hazardous and npnhazardous wastes.
EPA believes that reducing or
eliminating discharges and/or emissions
to the environment through the
implementation of environmentally
sound recycling and source reduction
practices sometimes.offer more cost
effective ways of achieving
environmental goals.
The Agency has identified a number
of waste streams where envirotunentail?
sound recycling has been identified as
BDAT. For example, we are
promulgating today in section IV.C
alternate treatment standards for
electroplating sludges (F006) and spent
pickle liquor (K062), based on high
temperature metals recovery (HTMR).
The Agency has determined that many
of these wastes have sufficient
concentrations of metals (nickel and
chromium), with low concentrations of
interfering chemicals, to be amenable
for recovery in HTMR units. Moreover,
the Agency is granting e generic
exclusion for F006 and K082 HTMR
nonwastewater residuals, provided that
these residuals meet designated
concentration levels, are disposed of in
Subtitle D units, and exhibit no
characteristics of hazardous waste.
(This exclusion is similar to the one that
was promulgated on August 8.1S91 for
K061. See 56 FR 41164, August 19,1991.)
The Agency expects that these
provisions will encourage more
generators to choose treatment
technologies for their wastes which also
recover some materials for reuse. In
addition, treatment standards for the
newly listed petroleum refining wastes
(F037 and F038) are based on some
recovery technologies (critical fluid
extraction and thermal desorption), as
well as on incineration.
II. Summary of Final Rule
Today's final rule is the first
nilemaking adopting treatment
standards for newly identified and listed
wastes as outlined in the consent decree
described above.
Before discussing the final rule, EPA
notes that certain aspects of the rule
could be affected by the recently
proposed rule (57 FR 21450, May 20,
1992) dealing with the question of when
wastes are hazardous, concentration
levels and circumstances when wastes
are not hazardous, as well as
circumstances when land disposal
prohibitions might and might not apply.
At present, however, the mixture and
derived from rules remain in effect (57'
FR 7628, March 3,1992), and so apply to
the rule adopted today. In addition, as
explained in more detail later in the
preamble, the Agency is codifying the
so-called contained-in policy with
respect to contaminated debris, and the
preamble likewise explains how and
when debris can be a hazardous waste
based on application of this principle.
37195
A. Newly Listed Wastes
EPA has promulgated a number of
hazardous waste listings since
enactment of HSWA in 1984. Section III
of today's rule describes the treatment
and/or recycling technologies that have
been identified as BDAT for 20 of these
listings and finalizes LDR treatment
standards based on BDAT. Wastes
included in today's rule include
petroleum refining wastes (F037 and
F038), wastes from the production of
unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine
(K107-K110), wastes from the
production of dinitrotoluene and
toluenediamine (Kill and K112). wastes
from the production of ethylene
dibromide (K117, K118. and K136J,
wastes from the production of
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid (K123-
K126J, wastes from the production of
methyl bromide (K131 and K132). and
several organic U wastes (U328, U353,
and U359). Future proposals will include
newly listed wastes not covered in
today's rule. Soil contaminated with the
newly listed wastes for which standards
are finalized today will be addressed in
a future proposal.
B. Changes to Current Regulations
The Agency is finalizing revisions to
the existing treatment standards for
organic constituents in F001-F005
wastes, involving conversion from TCLP
standards to standards based on total
concentrations. In addition, the Agency
is finalizing the conversion of
wastewater standards for 24 F and K
waste codes based on waslewater
treatment data for the constituents of
concern.
EPA is also finalizing alternate
treatment standards for F006 and K062.
and is also extending the K061 generic
exclusion published on August 19,1991
(56 FR 41164) to certain F006 and K062
wastes. The generic exclusion levels
have been slightly revised to reflect a
somewhat different fate and transport
model, the EPA Composite Model for
Landfills (EPA CML).
EPA is also revising the notification
and certification for prohibited
characteristic wastes and clarifying
existing rules regarding the status under
part 268 of wastes listed solely because
they exhibit a characteristic.
Finally, EPA is establishing a new
waste management unit known as a
containment building. EPA is indicating
that containment buildings are not land
disposal units, so that hazardous wastes
may be managed in such units without
first meeting treatment standards.
-------
i
37196 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regalations
C. Hazardous Debris
Debris contaminated with listed
prohibited wastes is already subject to
the LOR treatment standards for those
wastes, as is debris exhibiting a
hazardous waste characteristic for
which EPA has promulgated treatment
standards. Today, the Agency is revising
the treatment standards for such debris.
The Agency is also finalizing treatment
standards for debris that is
contaminated with those newly listed
wastes for which standards are
promulgated in this rule. This rule does
not identify or list any debris as
hazardous, and so does not bring any
additional debris into the subtitle C
management system. Only hazardous
debris that is currently subject to
subtitle C standards is covered by
today's rule. The Agency is requiring
hazardous debris to be treated prior to
land disposal, using specific
technologies from one or more of the
following families of debris treatment
technologies: Extraction, destruction, or -
immobilization. In the alternative.
hazardous debris may continue to be
handled in accordance with the
Agency's contained-in policy, and so
may be land disposed if it no longer
"contains" a hazardous waste.
To ensure effective treatment of
debris (i.e., treatment sufficient to
constitute BDAT). treatment must be
performed in accordance with specified
performance standards (see new Table 1
in today's rule). The consequence of
performing this treatment would be two-
fold. Not only would the debris no
longer be prohibited from land disposal,
but EPA would consider the treated
debris to no longer be or contain a
hazardous waste provided a destruction
or extraction technology is used for all
debris types/contaminant combinations
and provided that the treated debris
does not exhibit any characteristic of
hazardous waste. Such treated debris
could, therefore, be reused, returned to
the natural environment, or disposed of
in a subtitle D facility. •
Residuals generated from the
treatment of debris contaminated with
listed wastes would still be hazardous "
wastes by virtue of the derived-from
rule and would be subject to the
hazardous waste management system.
The Agency is today requiring that
residuals generated from the treatment
of hazardous debris be subject to the
numerical treatment standards for the
wastes contaminating the debris. A
detailed discussion is provided in
section V.G.
Finally, the Agency considered and
refected proposing numerical standards
for hazardous debris because of the
difficulty of sampling hazardous debris.
However, based on numerous comments
to the proposed rule] EPA is allowing
people the option of in-eating debris to
meet the existing treatment standards:
Such debris would remain hazardous
waste under the derived-from rule,
unless delisted. i
> '.' - \
III. Detailed Discussion of Final Rule:
Newly Listed Wastes
Since the enactment of HSWA in 1984,
EPA has promulgated a number of
•hazardous waste listings under 40 CFR
part 261 subpart D and has expanded
the number of waste's covered under 40
CFR part 261 subpart C. This section of
today's rule describes the treatment
and/or recycling technologies that have
been identified as BDAT for 20 of these
"newly listed" wastes. The Agency is
finalizing treatment standards under 40 .
CFR 268.41, .42, and |43 for these wastes
based on the transfet of performance
data from treating other hazardous
wastes that have been determined to be .
similar or more difficult to treat than
these wastes. :
This section does not, however,
finalize treatment standards for the '
following newly identified or listed
hazardous wastes: TJnose recently
identified under the TC rale (D018-
D043); characteristic! wastes generated
by mineral processing activities; spent
potliners from aluminum manufacturing ,
(K088); and listed wqstes from wood
preserving (F032, F034, and F035}. These
wastes, as well as wastes from coking
operations and chlorptoluene
production, will be addressed in
subsequent Federal Register notices.
Before discussing these new treatment
standards, the Agency wishes to clarify
one point-as to its methodology irt
establishing treatment standards: The
Agency has explained in a number of
past preambles that it accounts for
treatment process variability in
establishing treatment standards, and
does so by applying a statistically
derived variability fajctor to the mean
concentration of constituent'
concentrations in treatment residues
from the model BDAT technologies (see
55 FR 22539 as. an examplej. This
variability factor, EPA has explained, is
derived through a quantitative
procedure that determines'the statistical
99th percentile for the treatment
standard. • !"
Some commenters have inferred from
this explanation that ithe treatment
standards can only he achieved 99 .
percent of the time even by properly
operated treatment units. This is an
incorrect inference; although EPA
acknowledges that some of its preamble
language has promoted this reading. In
fact, EPA expects the treatment .[
standards to be achievable 100 percent
of the time by properly operating
facilities. Data points above the 99th
percentile of the statistical model, would
in fact represent extreme departures
from the mean and almost certainly
reflect quality control problems in
operation of the treatment technology.
All of the data used hi establishing
treatment standards are actually much
lower than 99th percentile values, as
well as values in excess of that 99th
percentile. (In addition, as EPA has
already explained,, for standards based
on combustion technology, the
technology routinely reduces waste
concentrations to lower than detection
values, yet the treatment standards
nevertheless apply a-variability factor to
a numerical detection limit, resulting in
treatment standards that are "greater
than the achievable levels (which are at
or below the detection limits) and
should be easily met by a well-designed,
well-operated incineration system."
A. Recent Petroleum Refining Wastes
(F037 and-FO38) ' > •
F037—Any sludge generated from tine
gravitational separation of oil/water/solids '
during the storage or treatment of process
wastewaters and oily cooling wastewaters
from petroleum refineries. Such sludges
include, but are not limited to, those
generated in: Ofl/water/solida separators;
tanks and impoundments; ditches and
other conveyances; sumps; and stormwater
• units receiving dry weather flow. Sludge
generated in storm water units that do not
• receive dry weather flow, sludges
generated from non-contact once-through
cooling waters segregated for treatment
from other process or oily cooling waters,
sludges generated in aggressive biological
treatment units as defined in 40 CFR
§ Z61.31fb)(2) (including sludges generated
in one- or more additional units after
wastewaters have been treated in '
aggressive biological treatment units) and
K051 wastes are not inchtded in this listing
F038—Any sludge and/or .float generated
from the physical and/or chemical
separation of oil/wates/solids in process
wastewaters and oily cooling wastewaters'
from wastewaters from petroleum
refineries. Such wastes include, but are not
limited to, all sludges and floats-generated
in: Induced air flotation [IAF] units, tanks
and impoundments, and ail sludges
generated in DAF units. Sludges generated
in storm water units that do not receive dry
weather flow, sludges generated from non-
contact once-through cooling waters
segregated for treatment from other process
or oily cooling waters, sludges and floats
generated in aggressive biological
treatment units as. defined in § 261.31 (b}{2)
(including sludges and floats generated in
one or more additional units after
wastewaters have been treated in
aggressive biological treatment units) and
-------
F037, K048, and K051 wastes are not
included in this listing
F037 and F038 are hazardous wastes
generated by facilities in the petroleum
, refining industry. Detailed technical
descriptions of the specific processes or
operations that generate these two
wastes can be found iit'45 FR 74884,
r May 19,1980; 55 FR 46354, November 2,
1990; 56 FR 21955, May 13,1991; and the
associated listing background document
EPA is today promulgating treatment
standards for F037 and F038; these
standards are the same as those
proposed on January 9,1992 (57 FR 958).
(The specific regulated constituents and
treatment standards for these wastes
are listed in the tables at the end of this
section). Since EPA is promulgating
concentration levels as the treatment
standards for waste.water and
nonwastewater forms of F037 and F038,
any treatment technology capable of
reaching the treatment standards can be
used except for impermissible dilution.
EPA's rationale and technical details
for promulgating today's treatment
standards can be found later in this
section of the preamble and in the Final
BDAT Background Document for F037
and F038. However, in summary,
commenters to the January 9,1992,
proposal generally concurred with EPA's
assertion that F037 and F038 have
similar treatment characteristics to
those of K051 and K048 (as well as other
petroleum wastes). Most commenters
also supported the transfer of available
K048-K052 performance data from K048
to F038 and from K051 and IC049 to F037.
In fact, new data submitted to EPA in
response to the May 30,1991, Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) and the January 9,1992,
proposal corroborates EPA's
transferring of existing K048-K052
performance data to F037 and F03a
These new data show that there are
other technologies in addition to
incineration and solvent extraction that
are capable of achieving the treatment
standards for the regulated constituents
of concern in petroleum wastes believed
as difficult to treat as F037 and FQ38.
The majority of cbmmenters also
supported EPA's proposal for regulating
the same constituents in F037 and F038
that are regulated in K051 and K048.
These commenters agreed with EPA that
adoption of the proposal should reduce
the administrative requirements and
compliance efforts required for the
petroleum wastes.
1, Regulated Constituents
EPA proposed regulating up to 18
BDAT List hazardous constituents that
are known to be present in wastewater
or non-wastewater forms of F037 or F038
as well as additional hazardous
constituents likely to be present in F037
and F038 because they are known to be
present in KJ048 and K051, (See
discussion in January 9,1992, proposed
rule, 57 FR 962.)
One commenter who generates
petroleum wastes such as API and DAF
sludges, submitted data characterizing
"four K sludges and five potential
refinery F waste sludges from five
surface impoundments." The commenter
believes that these data do not support .
the inclusion of most of the constituents
of concern associated with the LDRs.
EPA is not persuaded to change its
proposed approach. The fact that the
commeriter's presumably untreated K or
F sludges do not show certain
constituents at or above detection levels
should not be construed as an indication
that those undetected constituents were
absent. EPA's treatment studies on
petroleum wastes have shown, in fact,
that it is not unusual for hazardous
constituents to go undetected in
untreated wastes due to analytic matrix
interferences and, later on, be measured
in the treated wastes when the
interferences are removed by .treatment.
In addition, several members of the
regulated community responding to the
ANPRM of May 30,1991, commented
that F037 and F038 wastes are Hkely to
show variabilities in chemical and
physical composition and in the
treatment characteristics fpr the same K
or F wastes from one refinery to
another.
EPA is therefore-promulgating
treatment standards for all those
constituents proposed for regulation.
Regulating the same constituents
present in K048 and K051 should reduce
the administrative requirements and
compliance efforts for all of these
petroleum wastes. (See Response to
Technical Comments Background
Document for additional discussion.)
and F038, the treatment standards are
based on incineration. Levels of cyanide
were measured, in fact, in K048
incineration scrubber waters. EPA does
not expect any constituents in F037 and
F038 to interfere or behave differently
from those constituents in K048-K052 or
from the other wastes from which
performance data were transferred.
3. Treatment Standards for
Nonwastewaters
2. Treatment Standards for Wastewaters
EPA proposed to transfer the
treatment standards for organics in
wastewater forms of F037 and F038 from
the F039 wastewater treatment
standards (multi-source leachate). These
F039 wastewater treatment standards
were also proposed as a revision to
K048 and K051. All commenters
supported this proposal; As a result,
EPA is promulgating these wastewater
treatment standards for F037 and F038.
For metals in wastewater forms of
F037 and F038, the treatment standards
are based on chromium reduction
followed by lime and' sulfide !
precipitation and vacuum filtration. For
cyanides in wastewater forms of F037
EPA is promulgating the treatment
standards for F037 and F038
nonwastewaters that were proposed. In
particular, the treatment standards
proposed for the metals in
nonwastewater forms of F037 and F038
were based on stablizatipn of K048-
K052 solvent extraction residuals; thus,
these standards are set as
concentrations measured in waste
extracts (as measured by the TCLP).-
Similarly, EPA proposed for cyanide in
nonwastewater forms of F037 and F038
treatment standards based on
incineration of K048 and K051. Owing to
the similarities in waste composition of
F037 and F038 to K048-K052,
stabilization is considered BDAT for the
. metals in F037 and F038
nonwastewaters and incineration is
considered BDAT for cyanide in F037
and F038 nonwastewaters.
The proposed treatment standards for
the organics in nonwastewater forms of
F037 and F038 were based on the
incineration arid solvent extraction of
K048-K052. Owing to the similarities in
waste composition of F037 and F038 to
K048-K052, EPA has determined that
incineration and solvent extraction are
also BDAT for F037 and F038. The
majority of the commenters supported
this determination by EPA. In doing so,
EPA is applying the same approach as
used tp develop treatment standards for
the K048-K052 wastes in the Third Third
rule. In essence, allowing somewhat
more lenient treatment standards than
those based on performance of
incineration alone,,which standards
nevertheless result in substantial
reductions in waste toxicity and also
allow for hydrocarbon recovery,
furthering statutory resource recovery
objectives.
EPA's modified methodology of June
1.1990, incorporates protocols that take
into account several concerns that were
expressed by members of the regulated
community and hazardous waste
treatment industry at that time with
regard to the use and the applicability of
hydrocarbon recovery technologies for
the whole spectrum of petroleum
refining wastes. EPA also adopted the
modified statistical analysis for ,
-------
37198 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
determining which technology performs.
best so as not to preclude the use of one
or more hydrocarbon recovery
technologies that can significantly
reduce levels of toxic organics in these
wastes, and also recover some of the
wastes' hydrocarbon values.
After evaluating comments on the
Third Third proposal, EPA determined
that it was appropriate to promulgate
treatment standards based on both
incineration and hydrocarbon recovery
technologies. EPA concluded further
that although treatment standards based
on solvent extraction may be somewhat
higher (i.e., less stringent) than those
based on incineration, solvent
extraction was still providing"
substantial treatment to the organics of
concern. In addition, EPA determined
that solvent extraction provided the
benefit of recovering valuable oil, and
this benefit could a!s.o be provided by
other available hydrocarbon recovery
technologies such as thermal distillation.,
(See 55 FR 22596, June 1; 1990). This
same reasoning applies to the F037/F038
wastes that are the subject of today's
rule.
4. Response to Major Comments
The Agency is responding in this
preamble to a number of the major
comments received in response to the
January 9,1992, proposal The major
issues raised and addressed in this •••
section are:
• Grab versus Composite Samples.
• Must the Treatment Standards for
Nonwastewater Organics be More
Stringent?
Other comments received by the
Agency, including the review of new
performance data, are addressed by the
Agency in the Response to Technical
Comments Background Document that is
available in the docket associated with
this rulemaking.
a. Grab versus Composite Samples.
The American Petroleum Institute (API)
and the National Petroleum.Refiriers
Association (NPRAJ are both trade
associations that represent most
members of the petroleum refining
regulated community. API' and NPRA
support EPA!s proposed treatment
standards for the organics in
wastewater forms of F037 andF03&'
Since the majority of the treatment
performance data are based on
composite samples from wastewater
treatment processes, API and NPRA .
urged the Agency to enforce the
applicable treatment standards for
wastewater forms based on composite
samples and not on grab samples.
EPA in fact, enforces treatment,
standards based on the sampling "
analysis protocol used (i.e., grab or
composite) to support promulgation of
the standard, §§ 268.41(a), 268.43(a).
EPA's proposal ^nistakenly stated in the
preamble tables that enforcement of
these wastewater treatment standards
would be based solely on grab samples
for all the regulated constituents. EPA is
correcting this error in the final rule.
(See 268.41 and 268,43).
b. Should the \Treatment Standards for
Nonwastewater Organics be More
Stringent? TDl Thermal Dynamics
(formerly Southdown Thermal
Dynamics) resubmitted comments on a
thermal process that enables the
recovery of valuable organics from
petroleum wastes while reducing the
volume of wastes needing land disposal.
TDI's data are b'ased on the treatment of
K048, K049, andjKOSl by a thermal -
distillation patented process referred to
by the commenter as "HT-5 Process."
TDI's data show that all the proposed
organic treatment standards can be
achieved, indeecl, potentially surpassed,
through use of this technology.
Another treatment company, Retec,
also submitted comments in support of
the proposed treatment standards.
Retec's comments include performance •
data from an "8,'QOO gallon prototype
unit" and some j'field data" that have
treated sludges of K048, K050, K051,
F037, and F038 by biological treatment.
Retec refers to its biological treatment
process as the "bioslurry process.11
These data show that most of the
constituents of concern can be treated to
achieve (or, in some .cases, surpass) the
treatment standards.
The two commenters' ultimate point is
that their technologies remove more
toxics than the proposed levels and '
should therefore: be the basis for the
promulgated standards.
Comments submitted by TDI and the
Natural Resourcjes Defense Council
(NRDC) also state that EPA's proposed
F037 and F038 treatment standards are
not protective of human health and the
environment and so do not satisfy the
RCRA section 3004(m) criteria requiring
substantial reduction in the .toxicity of
the waste so that threats to human
health and the environment are
minimized. TDI believes, in fact, that
their "HT-5 Process", the CF Systems'
five-path process, and fluidized
incineration meet the 3004(m) criteria
and that data from these three processes
...should support promulgation of more
stringent standards. TDland NRDC also
urged EPA.to promulgate treatment
standards that are pursuant to EPA's
protocols to establish "best" treatment
and that conform to Congressional
intent in section &004(m).
EPA has reviewed comments from
TDI and NRDC. Based on this review,
EPA is not persuaded to promulgate
more stringent standards. EPA also
believes (contrary to TDI's and NRDC's
positions] that today's promulgated
treatment standards provide substantial
treatment of F037 and F038 wastes.
First. EPA is not persuaded by
NRDC's comments that, by setting
treatmentstandards for F037 and F038
based on "less effective treatment'
technologies such as incineration (and
solvent extraction), (EPA) may diminish
the market and the availability of HT-5
for mixed wastes." Even if this were a
relevant consideration, which it most
likely is not, today's promulgated
treatment standards are expressed as a
concentration-based level for all of the
(organic) constituents regulated in
nonwastewater forms of F037 and F038.
EPA has clearly emphasized that today's
standards do not preclude the use of
other treatment or recovery
technologies.
, The actual issue is whether the statute
requires that technology-based
'treatment standards be optimized, i.e:,
be technology-forcing, in all cases
(always assuming that the jurisdictional
minimize threat level is not yet reached),
or whether treatment that results in
substantial reduction of waste toxicity is
sufficient.
Technology-based treatment
standards are permissible as a means of
achieving the statutory objective of
treatment that minimizes threats given
the current uncertainty in determining
what that level is (see 55 FR 6641,
February 26,1990) and HWTC v. EPA,
886 F. 2d 355, 362 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
(However, technology standards are not
the only means to achieve the statutory
objectives. For example, the Agency
recently proposed concentration levels ,
that could serve as "minimize threat
levels", which could require
modification of a purely technology-
based approach to establishing
treatment standards (57 FR 21450, May
20,1992.)) However, these technology-
based standards need not be technology
forcing. Rather, the Agency has stated
that treatment standards are to be based
on the use of available technologies that
are capable of substantially reducing the
threats that the wastes may pose when
they are land disposed (55 FR 6641).
The legislative history confirms that
Congress did not necessarily envision
section 3004(in) 'treatment standards to
be technology-forcing, such as these the
commenters advocate. Rather,, such
standards were intended to require the
use of generally available effective
types of treatment (see 125 Cong. Rec.
S9178, July 25,1984, statement of
Senator Chaffee introducing the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
amendment that became section 3004
The requisite levels [or] methods of
treatment otabiiabed by the Agency should
be the best that has [sic} been demonstrated
to be avrolabte. This does not require a BAT-
type process as under the Clean Air or Clean
Water Acts which contemplates tecfanotogy-
forcing standards. The iatejnt here is to
require utilization of available technologies
in lieu of continued land disposal \vithout
prior treatment. [Congressional Record of
July 25,1984.89178}.
Thus, standards based an use of
"best" treatment technologies need not
b.e limited td optimally performing
treatment (as under the Clean Water
Act}, but include available types of
treatment that substantially reduce
wastes' toxkaty and short-term and
long-term threats the wastes could pose
when land disposed.
to light of this, legislative intent, and
the fact that BDAT for FU37 and F038
wastes is based on the performance of
two commercialry available treatment
technologies that provide substantial
treatment to petroleum wastes that are
as difficult to treat as F037 and FB38
EPA believes that the BDAT
Methodology adopted in this rulemaking
is justified and allowed under 3004fm).
Detailed discussions of EPA's data
analysis and rationale can he further
found m fee Final BDAT Background
Document for F037 and F038.
TTH also, argued that EPA's approach
is inconsistent .with the Agency's own
promulgated methodology for
establisMng treatment standards. To
some extent, this argument reprises the
point |ust addressed. (For example, the
commenter'a point that use of Analysis
of Variability protocols show that
performance- of its technology to be
superior reaHy raises the farther
question of whether treatment standards
must therefore be based on performance
of that technology), fe any case, EPA
used the same revised methodology it
adopted in developing the treatment
standards for K(H&-K052 wastes in the
Third Third rule.
TDI submitted comments regarding
EPA's Methodology and Protocols for
Developing BOAT Treatment Standards
for F037/F038 wastes. TDI disputes
EPA's evaluation of their performance
data andr in particular, EPA*s
detenninattoniof the proposed treatment
standards for organics in
nonwastewater forma of F037 and F038.
TDI submitted * report entitled Analysis
of U.S. EPA> Proposed Land Disposal
Restrictions for F037 and FO3B Newly
Listed Petroleum Refining Wastes. On
the basis of this report, TD! believe*
EPA has violated' its own "standard
protocol pjrooedafes". and, after
reanalyzing all the performance data,
TDI urged EPA to withdraw the
proposed treatment standards. TDI'a
comments (and TDI'* technical report)
seem to indicate that TDI analyzed the
F037 and F038 proposal's performance
data based on EPA's protocols and
statistical procedar-es found in the Final
Best Demonstrated Available
Technology {BDAT} Background
Document for Quality Assurance/
Quality Control Procedures and
Methodology of October 23,1991. TDI
reviewed the available performance
data based on analyses and
methodologies that EPA employs when
developing treatment standards that are
based on destruction or immobilization
treatment technologies.
However, the QA/QC document
clearly statea that wheaEPA identifies
the potential for developing treatment
standards based OQ recovery or
recycling technologies, EPA may choose
to modify its methodology in developing
BDAT treatment standards (EPA also
used modified methodologies in the
promulgation of amended organic
treatment standards forKM8-K052, in
the Third Third final rule, and the recent
final rule for K061, High Zinc
Subcategory nonwastewaters. A brief
description of each of EPA's modified
approaches is presented in the October
23,1991, document (see pp. 3-12—3-17,
of the October 23,1931, Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Document}}.
This is exactly what EPA is doing here;
see the Proposed BDAT Background
Document for F037 and FOSftfor the
explanation.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
F097—Continued
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Regulated constituent
Chromium (total)
Nickel.
1.7
Maximum for
any single grab
sample—Total
composition
(mg/kg)
Maximum-for
any single grab
sample—TCLP
(mg/t)
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F037
CWastowaters]
Regulated constituent
Acenaphthene
Anthracene... . .
Benzene ..
Benzofajanthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chrysene...
Dint-butyl phthalate. „..
Ethytbenzene
Ftaofene .„.
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene _
Xylenes (total) _
Maximum for
any 24
composite
sample — Total
composition
(mg/T)
0 059
0 061
0.2&
ryncQ,
0.057
0*039=
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F037
fNonwastewatecsJ
Regulated- constituent
Anthracene.
Benzene „„
Benzo(a)anthracene •' ~~~
Benzofa^pyrene-
Bis{2-etnylh«cy9phtnalate ........
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthaf^._
Ethylbenzene :..„;
Naphthalene _
Phenot
Pyrene
Toluene . _.
Xylenes (total). _..
Cyanides (total)
Maximum for
any single grab
. sample— Total
composition
(nVkg>
2fl
U
20
12
7.3
15
3.6
14
42
34
3.6
38
U
,'22
t^
Regulated constituent
Cyanides (total)
Lead _„.
Maximum for
any single grab
sample— Total
composition
fmg/l)
0.028
0,20
aQ37
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F038
CNonwastewaters] -
Regulated constituent
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-«thj*iex^|)h»halate._.. „;
Di-n-butyl phthalate™ .
Ethylbenzene. ;._:_ I]
Naphthalene _
Phenanthrene
Maximum tor
any single grab
sample— Totat
composition
,(ma/l<9)
14
t2
73
t-5
a*
t4
42
34
-------
37200 Federal Register / Vol. b7. No. 160 / Tuesday.; August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
F038—Continued
[Nonwastowaters]
Rotated constituent
Phenol............ ,™
Pyrerx). ,_..„...-......«..... „_.
Tohxino,. ....,._....„.._....,.,,....................
Xytono* (toial)..-... . ,
Cysnkfo (total) —
Maximum (or
any single grab
sample— Total
composition
(mg/kg)
36
36
14
22
1.8
Regulated constituent
Maximum for
any single grab
sample—TCLP
(mg/l)
Chromium (total)
Nickel. »,„...»„,
1.7
0.20
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F038
CWaslowators]
Regulated constituent
BOfKCflflfl H..II ... i .
Bofuo{o}pyrono ,„.„.._„„..„..„„„....
Bij(2.othythoxyOphtha1ata
CJxyMflo „......„........„._,..,............
Df-n-butyt phtha!ato.~.......... .............
Ethytboraono. ....___.,.....................
FJoorono...,™..™..™. —
Napttlha.'ono „„„.„_„_..........._.....
Prvonanihfono... „_....„..„
Phono) ..~............ ..._...,_.,........._..._
Pyiona ._«...„...,........_......_._...........
Toluono .„.._.........,.._.„...„... „..„.
Xytonos (total). •••••—..—•—.
014
0.061
0.28
0059
0.057
0.057
0.059
0.059
0059
0.039
0.067
0.080
0.32
Regulated constituent
CyanJdos (total)
Chromium (total).....
Load...
Maximum (or
any 24
composite
sample—Total
composition
(mg/l)
Maximum for
any single grab
sample—Total
composition
(mg/l)
0.028
0.20
0.037
B. Wastes from the Production of
Unsymmetrical
DImethylhydrazine (K107, K108, K109, and
KilO)
KlOT—Column bottoms from product •
separation from the production of 1,1-
dlmothylhydrazine from carboxylic acid
hydrazldos
K108—Condensed column overheads from
product separation and condensed reactor
vent gases from the production of 1,1-
dlmethylhydrazides from carboxylic acid
hydrazino
K109—Spent filter cartridges from product
purification from the production of 1,1-
dimethylhydrazides from carboxylic acid
intermediates '.
KllO—Condensed column overheads from
intermediate separation'from the
production of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine from
carboxylic acid hydrazide intermediates
EPA proposed on January 9,1992 (57
FR 965} to establish treatment standards
for these wastes expressed as required
methods of treatment. As was discussed
in the preamble to the proposed rule,
these wastes are being regulated despite
the fact that EPA is not aware of
facilities generating them. For
nonwastewater forms of these wastes,
the required method of treatment was
incineration. For wastewater forms, the
required methods of treatment were
incineration or, alternatively, chemical
oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption. The basis for expressing the
proposed treatment standards as
required methods of treatment was that
these wastes are relatively unstable in
.water resulting in difficulties hi accurate
quantification in treatment residues.
(See 57 FR 965.) j .
The wastewater standards ,
promulgated today for these wastes
differ from the proposed standards in
that EPA is adding biodegradation
followed by carbon adsorption,
(BIODEG fb CARBN) to the methods
designated as method-pf-treatment
standards for K107-K110 wastewaters in
tables 1 and 2 of 40 CFR 268.42. The
Agency is adding this standard to be
consistent with other sections of this
rulemaking, where in response to
comments supporting the use of
biodegradation as an alternative method
of treatment, the Agency is promulgating
biological treatment as ^equivalent to
chemical oxidation. The Agency is
including biodegradation plus carbon
adsorption for these hydrazine wastes
based on hydrolysis data indicating that
hydrazines break dowri rapidly in water.
The definition of BIODEG as a
technology-based standard for listed
wastewaters calls for operating the unit
such that "a surrogate" compound or
indicator parameter has been
substantially reduced iii concentration
hi the residuals." EPA believes that this
provision allows permitting and
compliance authorities enough control
over the BIODEG unit sb that
biodegradation can be designated BDAT
for these wastes, which; are known to
hydrolyze rapidly to compounds.
amenable, to biological Degradation.
EPA received no comments on its
proposed treatment standards for the
nonwastewater forms of these wastes.
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating
the treatment standards for K107-K110
nonwastewaters as proposed:
incineration (INCIN) as a method of
treatment.
C. 2-Ethoxyethanol Wastes (U359)
EPA is promulgating methods of
treatment for 2-ethoxyethanol wastes
(U359), whose generation and
characteristics are described in the
proposed rule preamble (57 FR 968). The
promulgated standards differ somewhat
from the proposed standards; first, EPA
is adding biodegradation followed by
carbon adsorption, (BIODEG fb CARBN)
to the methods designated as method-of-
treatment standards for U359
wastewaters in Tables 1 and 2 of 40 CFR
268.42. The proposed wastewater •
treatment standard was incineration or
chemical oxidation followed by
biological treatment or carbon
adsorption. Second, .EPA is promulgating
also fuel substitution (FSUBS) as an
alternative standard to incineration
(INCIN) for O359 nonwastewaters. (See
57 FR 969.)
EPA had proposed methods-of-
treatment as standards, rather than
. concentration-based numerical
standards, because this waste is
relatively unstable jn water, resulting in
difficulties in accurate quantification in
treatment residuals. Several , '
commenters, however, requested that
the Agency set concentration-based
' standards for 2-ethoxyethanol wastes
and suggested several innovative
analytical methods to quantify 2-
ethoxyethanol, EPA acknowledges that
2-ethoxyethanol can be quantified by
direct injection methods (i.e. those not '
requiring a purge step in the analytical
procedure). EPA is, nevertheless,
promulgating methods of treatment as
standards because EPA has only limited
treatability data for 2-ethoxyethanol to
serve as a basis for calculating
numerical treatment standards. EPA's
decision to change the wastewater
standards to include biodegradation
followed by activated carbon adsorption
is consis.tent with the revision in this
rule of the K107-K110 wastewater
standards allowing BIODEG as a
method-of-treatment based on the waste
components' extreme instability in
water.
The definition of BIODEG as a
technology-based .standard for listed
wastewaters calls for operating the unit
. such that "a surrogate compound or
indicator parameter has been
substantially reduced in concentration
in the residuals." EPA believes that this
provision allows permitting and
compliance authorities adequate control
over the BIODEG unit so that
biodegradation can be designated BDAT
-------
Federal Register / VoL 57. No. 16O / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
$7281
for these wastes since 2-ethoxyethanol
is known to hjfdrolyze Eapidly to
ethanol, which is known to be. amenable
to biological treatment.
EPA is promulgating incineration
(INCINf as a method-of-treatment
-• standard for U359 nonwastewsters as
proposed, but is also including- fuel
substitution (FSUBS) as. an alternative.
„ EPA is adding FSUBS because 2-
* ethoxyethanof fs a readily oxirfizable
carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen
compound that will not release
undesirable combustion products such
as halogen acids,, nitrogen,, or sulfur
dioxides.
D. Wastes From the Product!ait of
Diniteotolaeae and Toiaenedfamine
(Kill andKlZZ. U32& and U353}
Kill—Product wash waters from the
production of dinitrotoluene via nitration of
toluene
K112—Reaction byproducts from the drying
column in the production of tohtenediamine
via hydrogenaiion of diriitrotoiuene
U328—Ortho-totuidiae
U353-£a»a-tokjidine
EPA proposed on January 9,1992, to
establish treatment standards for these
wastes expressed as required method®
of treatment The proposed rate
discussed the generation and
characteristics of these wastes in
greater detail £57 FR 965). FOE
nonwastewater forms of theses wastes,
the required method: of treatment was
incineration. For wastewatet forms, the
required methods of treatment were
incineration or. alternatively., chemical
oxidation followed'by carbo.n
adsorption. The basis for expressing the
proposed treatment standards as
required methods, of treatment was that
many constituents of these wastes are
relatively unstable in water resulting in
difficulties in accurate quantification hi
treatment residues. (See 57 FR 965J
The Agency is finalizing the proposed
standards wife two substantive changes
for KIM. KK2, U32J8, and U3535 First
EPA Is replacing the proposed methods-
of-treatment standards for Kill
wastewaters and nanwastewaters with
concentration-based standards
numerically equal to the F039 standards
for2,4-ddnitrotoluerie and 2,6-
dinitrotoluene. Second, EPA is adding
biodegradation followed by carbon
adsorption (BIODEG fb CARBN}. to the
methods of treatment specified as
treatment standards for K112,U328, and
U353 wastewaters in Tables 1 and 2 of
40 CFR 268.42.
In particular., data from one
commenter indicated that the
Concentrations of 2,4-dinitrotoluene and
2,6-dinitrotoluene in Kill wastewaters
and nonwastewaters are sufficiently
high such that treating the Kill wastes
to the F03& treatment standards for
these constituents should be an
acceptable surrogate to ensure that the
other constituents are treated ta
acceptably low levels.
The other constituents include
nitrocresolsv nitrophenols, and
nitrobenzoic acid; since reliable
analytical methods are not available to
quantify these constituents in waste
matrices* the Agency wilt not set
concentration-based treatment
standards for them. By setting
concentration-based standards for the.
quantifiable components of Kill
wastewaters and nonwastewaters, EPA
is allowing the use of any treatment
system (other than impermissible
dilution) that meet these numbers for the
dinitiotoluenes.
Data from this same commenter also
indicated that biological treatment can
achieve significant reductions in the
concentration of toluenediamines.in
K112 wastewater streams. Based on the
commenter's data demonstrating
substantial reductions in K112
wastewater toluenediamine
concentrations, in the course of
biological treatment* EPA is adding
biodegradation (BIODEG) to the set of
methods-of-treatment designated as
treatment standards for K112
wastewaters.
EPA believes, in addition, that o-
.toluidine and p-rtoluidine, the listing
components of U328 and U359, are
sufficiently chemically similar to
toluenediamines. that the treatment
.standards for K112 should also apply to
U328 and U359 wastes. EPA is,
therefore, including BIODEG among the
methods-of-treatment standards
promulgated for U328 and U359
wastewaters.
The definition of BIODEG as a
technology-based standard for listed
wastewaters calls for operating the unit
such that "a surrogate compound or
indicator parameter has been
substantially reduced m concentration
in the residuals." EPA believes that this
provision allows permitting and
compliance authorities adequate control
over the BIODEG unit so that
biodegradation can be designated BOAT
for these wastes, which have been
documented to amenable to biological
treatment.
EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for K112, U328 and U359
noawastewaters as proposed:
incineration (INCIN) as a method of
treatment.
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR. Kt 11
ENonwastewatersi
Regufated constituent
2,4-Dinitrototeene..
2,6-Dintootoiuene
Maximum for
sampler-Total
cofnpositiorr
140
26
BOAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR Ktn
EWastewateVsl ' ' '
Regulated constituent
2,4-Dinrtrotoluens
2,6-Dinitrototuene......
Maximum for
any single grab
sample—Total
composition
(mg/D
0.32
0.55
E. Wastes From the Production of
EthyleneDibromide(Kll7,Ktl8and
Kl36}and Wastes From the Production
of Methyl Bromide fK!31 andKl32)
• K117—Wastewater production, from the
reactor vent gas scrubber in the production
of ethyleae dibiomide via bromination of
ethylene.
K118—Spent adsorbent solids from
purification of ethylene dibromide via
bromination of ethylene dibromide via
bromination of ethyfeoe.
K136—Still bottoms from the purification of
ethyfene dibromide in the production of
ethytene tiibromide via bramination of
ethylene.
Kiai—Wastewater from the reactor and
spent sulfuric acid from the acid dryer froln
the production of methyl bromide.
K132—Spent adsorbent and wastewater
separator solids from the production of
me.thyl bromide;
With one exception, today's rule
promulgates the treatment standards for
ethylene dibromide wastes £K117, K118
and K13&) and methyl bromide wastes
(K131 and K132) that the Agency
proposed in the January 9,1992
proposed rule, where it discussed the
generation and characteristics of these
wastes (57 FR 966-967). These are
concentration-based standards
numerically equal to the FO39 standards
for the constituents of these wastes; the
BDAT Background Document far U and
P Wastes and Muhi-Sowrce Leaehate
(F03S) (volumes A and C) describes how
each standard was calculated. The
nonwastewater standards (volume C)
are based on the results of a series of
incineration tests performed by the
Agency in the course of developing
treatment standards for earlier land
disposal restrictions ruleroakings. The
wastewater standards fvolume A) are
based on data collected by EPA's Office
-------
37202 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
of Water and Office of Research and
Development and reflect a variety of
industrial wastewater technologies.
Technologies used to develop the
wastewater numbers promulgated here
include steam stripping, activated
sludge, and air stripping.
The one change that EPA is making is
as follows: EPA proposed treatment
standards for "1,1,2-tribromomethane"
in the January 9,1992, notice (57 FR 996
and 997). (This was a misprint for 1,1,2-
Iribromoethane, a constituent present in
the ethylene dibromide process waste
stream K118). At the time of the
proposed rule, EPA was considering
adding 1,1,2-tribromoethane to its BDAT
List of constituents known to be
amenable to quantification in waste
matrices with existing SW-846 methods.
EPA has since decided not to add 1,1,2-
tribromoethane to the BDAT List and is
consequently not promulgating
treatment standards for this compound.
As a result of soliciting data on the
proposed standards in the May 30,1991,
Advance Notice of Proposed ' •
Rulemaking and then in the January 9,
1992, Proposed Rule, EPA received
comments from the two facilities ,
believed to generate all of these waste
streams. Both supported the use of
steam stripping for treating brominated
wastewaters. One of the tw6
commenters submitted data
characterizing the results of steam ..
stripping groundwater that had become
contaminated with ethylene dibromide
and several other brominated and
chlorinated compounds. Because these
da'ta did hot clearly identify
corresponding influent and effluent
streams, they could not be used to
evaluate the performance of the system
in terms of contaminant removal.
This cornmenter also endorsed the
incineration-based numerical treatment
standards for nonwastewater forms of,
these wastes. A second commenter
objected, however, to the incineration-
based nonwastewater standards. In •
particular, the commenter claimed that
bromine forms corrosive hydrogen
bromide in incinerator combustion
chambers. This commenter, the sole
generatpr of K118, reported difficulties
in incinerating a batch of K118 '"
nonwastewater at a commercial facility
and requested that EPA base all •
treatment standards for organobromine
wastes on steam stripping.
The Agencya'cknowledges.that there,
may be difficulties in incinerating
brominated wastes (even though one
commenter explicitly endorses
incineration-based standards for K117,
K118, K131, and K132 nonwastewaters).
In the absence of performance data on
an alternative process for
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
the incineration-based nonwastewater
standards that ^vere originally proposed.
Steam stripping, and any other forms of
waste treatment other than
impermissible dilution, may also be used
to achieve the numerical treatment
standards regardless of which
technology served as the basis of the
standards. Furthermore, the regulated
community has; options, including
applying for treatability or capacity
variances, for overcoming technical
difficulties in treating especially
problematic batches of wastes.
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K117.jK118,ANDK136
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Ethylene dibromide i .• ....
Bromomethane i
Chloroform I
Maximum for
any single grab
sample-^Total
composition
(mg/kgj
15.0
150
5.6
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
K117,|K118, ANDK136
[Wastewaters] •
Regulated constituent
i
Ethylene dibromide .
Bromomethane
Chloroform
Maximum for
any single grab
' sample— Total
composition
(mg/l)
0028
01t
0046
BDAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K131
JANDK132
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Brpmomethane (methyl bromide) ....
Maximum for
any single grab
sample—Total
composition
(mg/kg)
15
J3DAT TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K131
AND K132
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Bromomethane (i
[methyl
bromide).
Maximum for
any single grab
sample—Total
composition
(mg/l)
F. Wastes From the Production of
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic Acid IK123,
K124, K125, andKl26)
K123—Process wastewater (including
supernatants, filtrates and wash waters)
from the production of
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid and its
salts.
K124—Reactor vent scrubber water from the
production of ethylenebisdithiocarbamic
acid and its salts.
K125—Purification solids (including filtration,
evaporation and centrifugation solids) from
the production of
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid and its
salts.
K128—Bagbpuse dust and floor sweepings in
milling and packaging operations from the
production of ethylenebisdithiocarbamic
acid and its salts. •
EPA is promulgating the treatment
standards as proposed for
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid wastes
(EDBC) (K123-K126). The preamble in
• the proposed rule describes the
generation and characteristics of these
wastes in greater detail (57 FR 967). The
Agency proposed incineration (INCIN)
as a method of treatment as the
treatment standard for K123-K126 .
nonwastewaters and incineration or
chemical oxidation followed by
biological treatment or carbon
adsorption (INCIN or CHOXD) for K123-
K126 wastewaters. EPA received no
comments challenging these treatment
standards.
Although EPA is expanding the set of
methods of treatment as standards to
include BIODEG by itself for the methyl
hydrazine wastes K107-K110, the
toluenediamine waste K112, the
toluidine wastes U326 and U353, and 2-
ethoxyethanol 11359, EPA is not adding
BIODEG alone to the set of methods of
treatment for the EDBC wastewaters.
For each of the cases where EPA is
today adding BIODEG to the list of
promulgated methods of treatment as
standards,'EPA has either treatability
data documenting successful treatment
of these wastes or their close analogues
in a biological unit or data
demonstrating that these wastes readily ,
hydrolyze to simple, relatively nontoxic
compounds known to be readily
amenable to biological degradation. In
the absence of any such data' about
EDBC waste amenability to hydrolysis
or biodegradation, EPA chooses not to
include BIODEG as a primary method of
treatment for EDBC wastewaters.
0.11
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 57. No. 160 /Tuesday, August 18. 1992 / Rules aiid Regulations
37203
IV. Detailed Discussion of Final Rule:
Changes ta Existing Regulations
A. Revisions to the F001-F005 Spent
. Solvents Treatment Standards '
FOOl—The following spent halogenated
solvents used in degreasing:
TetracMoroethylenei trichloroethylene,
.methylene-chloride, 1,1,1-tfichloroethane,
carbon tetrachlpride, and chlorinated ,
fluorocarbdnsr all spent solvent mixtures/
blends used in degreasing containing,
before-use, a total of 10 percent or more (by
volume) of one or more, of the above
halogenated solvents or those solvents
. listed in F002, F004, and F005 and still
' bottoms from the recovery of these spent
•solvents and spent solvent mixtures.
F002—The following spent halogenated
solvents: Tetrachloroethylene, methylene
chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-
. trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1,1,2-
trichioro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane, ortho-
dichlorobenzene, trichlorofiuoromethane,
and 1,1,2-trichloroethane; all spent solvent
mixtures/blends containing, before use, a
total of 10 percent or more of the above •
halogenated solvents or those listed fn
F001, F004; or F005; and still bottoms from
the recovery of these spent solvents and
spent solvent mixtures.
F003—The. following spent nonhalogenated
solvents: Xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate,
ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobufyl
ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, -
• and methanol;- all spent solvent mixtures/
blends containing, before use, only the
above spent nonhalogenated solvents; and
all .spent solvent mixtures/blends ••-"''•
containing, before use, one or more of the-
above nonhalogenated solvents, and a total
of 10 percent or more (by volume) pf one or
more of those solvents listed in Fool, F002,
F004, and FOOS; and still bottoms from the
recovery of these spent solvents and spent
solvent mixtures.
FOQ4-—The following spent nonhalogenated
.solvents: Cresol and cresylic acid and
.nitrobenzene; all spent solvent mixtures/
blends containing, before use, a total of 10
percent or more (by volume) of one-or more
of the above-nonhalogenated solvents or
those solvents listed in F001, F002, and
F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of
these spent solvents and spent solvent
mixtures. ... •
FOOS—The following spent nonhalogenated
- solvents: Toluene, methyl ethyl ketone,
carbon disulflde, isobutanol, pyridine,
benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, and 2-
nitroprbpane; all spent.solvent mixtures/
blends containing, before use, a total of 10
percent or more (by volume) of one or more
of the above nonhalogenated solvents or
those solvents listed in F001, F002, or F004;
and still bottoms from the recovery of these
spent solvents and spent solvent mixtures,
-The Agency js promulgating revised
treatment standards for solvent
wastewaters of F001-F005 wastes as
proposed in the January 9,1992 notice
(57 FR 969-971).
1. Regulatory Background
a. Listing Definitions. On May 19,1980
(45 FR 33119), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) listed 26
commonly used organic solvents as
hazardous Wastes when spent or
discarded. The solvents were listed as
EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. FOQl; F002,
FOOS, F004, and FQ05. These listed
wastes included certain spent
halogenated and nonhalogenate'd
solvents, including still bottoms from the
recovery of these solvents.
On December 31,1985 (50 FR 53315),
the Agency promulgated an amendment
to th,e listings to include mixtures
containing a total of 10 percent or more
(by volume) of one or more of the listed
solvents (the 10 percent threshold
always applied to solvent mixtures
before use). The Agency believed that
establishing a threshold level below the
minimum solvent concentration
typically used in solvent formulations
would bring the majority of solvent
mixtures used in commerce into the
hazardous waste management system,
while excluding dilute mixtures. The
Agency also clarified in the December
31,1985, Federal Register (50 FR 53315).
that the listings cover only those
solvents that are used for their "solvent"
properties* i.e., to sqlubiiize (dissolve) or
mobilize other cpnstituents.
Manufacturing process wastes where
solvents were used as reactants or
ingredients in the formulation of
commercial chemical products are not
covered by the listing.
The definition of the spent solvents
listing did not include four solvents that
were added to the F001-F005 listing on
February 25,1986 (51 FR 40607):
Benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, 2-
nitropropane, and 1,1,2-trichloroethane.
b. F001-F005 Treatment Standards.
The Agency promulgated treatment
standards for the F001-F005 spent '
solvent wastes on November 7,1986 (51
FR 40593). The Agency also promulgated
a requirement that compliance with the
treatment standard be measured in the
waste extract as measured by the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP).
This approach was taken because
useful data were not available on total
constituent concentrations in treated -
residuals, and as a result, the TCLP data
were considered to be the best measure
of performance.
Since that time EPA has based
treatment standards for all organic
constituents on the total constituent
concentration'analysis found in the
treated waste. EPA has based this
decision on the fact that the best
demonstrated available treatment :
(BOAT) for organic wastes generally •
destroy the hazardous organic
constituents, Accordingly, treatment
should reflect the extent to which the
various organic compounds have been
destroyed or the total amount of
. constituent remaining after treatment.
c. Methylene Chloride Standard
Revised. As part of the First Third Rule,
the Agency revised and promulgated the
treatment standard for methylene
chloride in F001-F005 wastewaters from
the pharmaceutical industry (53 FR,
31152). The revised treatment standard
was based on the transfer of
wastewater treatment data from steam
stripping of methylene.chloride.
Compliance with this treatment
standard is measured by a total
constituent analysis.
d. Setting Treatment Standards for
Four (4) "Newly Listed" Constituents (51
FR 6737, February 25,1986). In the Third
Third rule (55 FR 22576), the Agency
promulgated treatment standards for
1,1,2-trichloroethane, benzene, 2-
ethoxyethanol, and 2-nitropropane in
F002 and FOOS spent solvents. (EPA did
not amend the previously promulgated
treatment standards for the other
solvent constituents in F002 and FOOS).
The concentration-based treatment
standards for 1,1,2-trichloroethane and
benzene in wastewater forms were
based on performance data generated
from: biological treatment, steam
stripping, carbon adsorption, liquid :
extraction, and others. The
concentration-based treatment • '
standards promulgated for l,l,2r
trichloroethane and benzene in
nonwastewater forms were, based on •
performance data from incineration.-.'
These treatment standards are
measured by total constituent analysis,
EPA had also determined that the
available data were insufficient to
establish concentration-based treatment
standards for wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of FOOS containing
2-nitropropane and 2-ethoxyethanol and
instead promulgated methods of
treatment as the treatment standards.
Again, EPA is not revising this
previously promulgated treatment
standard. , •• .
2. Overlap Between F001-F005 Solvents
and Other BOAT Standards.
Many of the solvent constituents that
are regulated in F001-F005 wastes are
also regulated hi the First, Second, and
Third Third rules, as discussed in the
preamble to the January 9,1992
proposed-rule (57 FR 970).
In the November 22,1989 proposed
rule for the Third Third wastes, EPA
proposed two alternative sets of
-------
37204 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
concentration-based treatment
standards for wastewater forms for the
majority of the U and P listed wastes,
many of which are solvent constituents
found in F001-F005 wastes. One set of
treatment standards was based on the
concentration of each constituent in
incinerator scrubber water; whereas, the
second set of treatment standards was
based on wastewater treatment
performance data for each constituent.
On the basis of comments received, the
Agency promulgated treatment
standards based on wastewater '
treatment performance data. These
treatment standards were promulgated
on June 1,1990 (55 FR 22601).
The Agency also proposed treatment
standards for nonwastewater forms of U
and P listed wastes on November 22,
1989 (54 FR 48372). In the final Third
Third rule, the Agency promulgated
treatment standards for approximately
75 constituents, establishing either
concentration-based standards, or
incineration as a method of treatment as
BOAT.
Treatment standards for several F and
K listed wastes containing the same
solvent constituents as are present in
F001-F005 solvent wastes were also
promulgated in the Third Third rule as
discussed in the January 9,1992
proposed rule (57 FR 970).
3. Comments Received on the January 9,
1992 Proposed Rule
* The Agency received a number of
generally favorable comments on the
proposed approach—that is, most
commenters supported revising the
nonwastewater treatment standards
from the existing TCLP standards to
standards based on total concentrations.
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
(HWTC) expressed concerns, however,
with regard to meeting concentration
based standards for five constituents:
chlorobenzene, n-butyl alcohol, o-cresol,
ethyl acetate, and nitrobenzeneone. EPA
acknowledges HWTC's concerns with
regard to potential analytical difficulties
in the analysis of these five constituents.'
EPA has, in fact, addressed this issue in
the June 1,1990 final rule (55 FR 22541);
If the treater uses incineration to treat
these wastes and achieves a non-detect
level within an order of magnitude of the
promulgated treatment standards, then
they are'considered to have achieved
the standard (see 55 FR 22541, June 1,
1990).
Most of HWTC's problem constituents
would be able to comply with the
treatment standard after the order of
magnitude allowance is taken into
account. One constituent, o-cresol,
according to the data submitted by
HWTC, appears to exceed the proposed
treatment standard. [After reviewing •
available incineration and combustion
data for this constituent, EPA believes •
the proposed treatment standards (and
the one order of magnitude allowance)
are reasonable and achievable. In fact,
the Agency has promulgated treatment
standards for o-cresol in K019, F039 and
U052 at a level of 5.8 ppm with detection
limits of less than 2.0 ppm. Also, o-cresol
is a regulated constituent in K052, whose
treatment standard of 6.2 ppm is based
on a detection limit of 2.2 ppm which
was-based on treatnjent data submitted
from industry (55 FR 22594). EPA is
therefore, promulgating today, treatment
standards for each oiie of the five
constituents as proposed on January 9,
1992 (57 FR 971). j .
4. Final Approach '
The Agency is promulgating revised .
treatment standardslfor both
nonwastewater and Wastewater forms
of F001-F005 wastes; as proposed. (See
the Table at end of this section for
specific treatment levels.) The
methodology used to develop the
treatment standards for both
nonwastewater and iwastewater forms
of F039 (multisourceSleachate) was used
to determine the revised treatment
standards for the F001-F005 spent
solvents. These revisions do not,
however, include the four solvents that
were added to the solvents listings:
benzene, 2-ethoxyetbanoU 2-
nitropropane, and 1,1,2-trfchloroethane.
Treatment standards for these
constituents were promulgated in the
Third Third final rule in accordance
with the previously mentioned
methodology. I
Today's rule does not include revised
treatment standards [for nonwastewater
forms of carbon disulfide, • '
cyclohexanone, or methanol based on
total constituent analysis. These three
constituents are not well suited for total
constituent analysis,! and, in fact, are
more appropriately analyzed by the
TCLP methodology. The Agency did not
propose to revise the existing TCLP
treatment standards,| for these three
constituents, in the January 9,1992
rulemaking. The Agency is retaining the
existing TCLP standards for these three
constituents in F001-!F005
nonwastewaters hi today's rulemaking.
(TCLP treatment standards for these
three constituents appear in a table at
the end of this section).
Because the Agency does not want to
require unnecessary and burdensome
testing, the TCLP test will only have to
be performed if the waste includes only
one, two or all three of these
constituents. If the waste contains any
of these three constituents along with •
any of the other 26 constituents found in
F001-F005 for which the Agency is
. promulgating treatment standards based
on total constituents analysis, only the
total analysis need'be performed. It is
assumed that after treatment is
performed, for these organic
constituents, and the total constituent
standards are achieved, that" these three
constituents will also have been treated-
a. Revisions to the Standards for
Cresols. In the Solvents and Dioxins
rule, the Agency promulgated BDAT •
treatment standards for "cresols." At.
that time, the Agency did not distinguish
between the various isomers that are
present in cresols. As a result, the
Agency promulgated a concentration-
based treatment standard for cresol
wastewaters of 2.82 mg/1 based on the .
performance of activated carbon
adsorption. For nonwastewaters, the
Agency had no data on TCLP extracts of
residues from the incineration of cresols
{cresylic acid) to use in the development
of the treatment standard EPA, instead,
used chemical structure as the basis for
transferring the treatment data from
methyl ethyl ketone to cresols (cresylic
acid) in spent solvents. The treatment
standard of 0.75 mg/1 for
nonwastewaters is based on the
transferred data.
In the Third Third rule, EPA
promulgated treatment standards for
U052. U052 is listed as "cresols (Cresylic
acid). U052 typically contains various
levels of ortho-cresol, meta-cresol, and
para-cresol. Analytical methods' are
usually reported for o-cresol(CAS No.
95r-48-7) and a combination of in- and p-
cresols, because m-cresol and p-cresbl
cannot generally be distinguished by
analytical methods. Thus, the Agency
promulgated concentration-based
standards for U052 based on an analysis
for o-cresol and the mixture of m-cresol
andp-cresol.
Based on this, the Agency is today .
modifying the current treatment
standards for the constituent "cresols"
in F001-F005 wastes as proposed. (57 FR
970, January 9,1992).
b. Modification to the Regulatory
Placement ofPOOi~F005 Standards: In
today's rule, EPA is promulgating
revised treatment standards for solvent •
wastewaters (FOpl-FO05) in Table CCW
' (40 CFR 268.43) as proposed. (The
following treatment standards for
wastewaters are based on F039
wastewater data, and for
nonwastewater is based on incineration
data). . ' -
-------
Federal Regbter/Vol. 57, No. 16O / Tuesday,. August 16, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
37205
PROMULGATED BOAT TREATMENT STAND-
ARDS FOR F001-F005 SPENT SOLVENT
WASTES
[Wastewater; Total Concentration]
Regulated constituent
Acetone ...;. ;..,
n-Butyl alcohol ,
Carbon ciisulfide
Carbon tetrachloride „..
Chtorobenzene „
Cresoi(m- and p- isbmers)
o-Cresol „ ;
Cydohexanone ,'...„.;
1.2-Dichlorobenzene... „
Ethyl acetate .'. _
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether,
Isobutyl alcohol _ „._
Methanol „........:.„..;..:
Methytene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Pyridine
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene.....-, ,„„
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
• Trichloroethylene
1,1,2-Trichtoro-1,2,2,-
trifluoroethane , :.
Trichloromonofluorornethane
Xylenes (total) '.
Wastewater
0.28
5.6
0.014
0.057
0.057
0.77
0.11
0.36
0.088
0.34
0.057
0.12
5.6
5.6
1 0.089
0.28
0.14
0.068
0.014
0.056
0.08
0.054
0.054
0.057
0,02
0.32
1 The mettiytene chloride- treatment standard for
wastewaters generated from pharmaceutical plants
is 0.44 mg/l. ' , . f
NA: Not applicable. . . ' ,
PROMULGATED BDAt TREATMENT STAND-
ARDS FOR F001-F005 SPENT SOLVENT
WASTES
[Nonwastewaten Total Concentration)
.Regulated constituent
Acetone
n-Butyl alcohol _....I.l
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
CresoUm- and p- isomers) '.
o-Creso|.:.., ,
Cydohexanone ;
1,2-Dichlorobenzene .'
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene .....;..;.
Ethyl ether ;...:.' „
Isobutyl alcohol _.
Methanol .'.#. •__..__.!
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl Isobutyl ketone.i _
Nitrobenzene '.
Pyridine..
Tetrachloroethylene „
Toluene.... .,; ;..........
1,1,1-Trichloroethane...
Trichloroethylene
1.1.2-Trichloro-1,2,2,v •
trifluoroethane:
Trichlorompnoffuoromethane......
Xylenes (total)....:.... ....„
Nonwastewater
(mg/kg)
160
2.6
'NA
5.6
5.7
3.2
5.6
'NA
6.2
33
6.0
160
170
'NA
33
36
33
14
16
5.6
28
5.6
; 5.6
28
33
28
1 These treatment standards' are based on TCLP,
not total constituent concentration (see following
table with TCLP treatment standards).
NA: Not applicable. .-. • : ' '
PROMULGATED BOAT TREATMENT STAND
ARDS FOR F001-F005 SPENT SOLVENT
WASTES
[Nonwastewaten Toxictty Characteristic Leaching
Procedure}
Regulated constituent
Carbon disulfide.
.Cyclohexanone...
Methanol
Nonwastewater
(mg/l)
4.8
0.75
0.75
B. Conversion of Waste water Standards
Based on Scrubber Water
K015—Still bottoms from the distillation of
benzyl chloride
K016—Heavy ends qr distillation residues*
from the production of carbon tetrachldride
K018—Heavy .ends from the fractionation
column in ethyl chloride production
K019—«eavy ends from the distillation of
.ethylene dichloride in ethylene dichloride
production
K020—Heavy ends from the distillation of
Vinyl chloride in vinyl chloride production
K023—Distillation light ends from the -
production of phthalic anhydride from
naphthalene
K024—Distillation bottom tars from the
production of phthalic anhydride from
naphthalene .
K028—Spent catalyst from the
hydrochlorinator reactor in the production
of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
K030—Column bottoms or heavy ends from
the combined production of
trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene
K048—Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float
from the petroleum refining industry
K049—Slop oil emulsion solids from .the
petroleum refining industry
K050—Heat exchanger bundle cleaning
sludge from the petroleum refining industry
K051—API separator sludge from the
petroleum refining industry
:052—Tank bottoms (leaded) from the
petroleum refining industry
K087—Decanter tank tar sludge from coking
operations
K093r—Distillation light ends from the
production'of phthalic anhydride from
ortho-xylene . ••'-'.'•
K094—Distillation bottoms from the
production of phthalic anhydride from
ortho-xylene
U028—Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
U069—Di-n-butyl phthalate
U088—Diethyl phthalate
U102—Dimethyl phthalate
J107—Di-n-octyl phthalate
U190—Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic acid)
On November 22,1989 (54 FR 48372),..
EPA proposed as part of the Third Third
rule concentration-based treatment
tandards for numerous listed wastes
>ased on the performance of
ncineration. For the wastewaters^ the
treatment standards were based on tile
omcentration of the constituents of ;
oncern in incineration scrubber waters.
In the final rule (55 FR 22520). .however,
EPA altered its apprbach.to setting these
standards and promulgated treatment
standards for wastewaters based on
actual wastewater treatment data for
the constituents of concern. This change
was adopted for a number- of reason^.'
First, it was stated in the final rule for
the SecondThird wastes (54 FR 26829J
and reiterated in the final rule for Third
Third wastes (55 FR 22577) that when
the Agency had appropriate wastewater
treatment, data from well-designed and
well-operated wastewater treatment
units it preferred to use those Sata
rather than scrubber water data to
develop wastewater treatment
standards. This is because incineration
is not a normal treatment method for
wastewaters. In addition, alternative
standards were proposed in the Third
Third notice for multisource leachate
(F039) wastewaters based on a transfer
of performance data from various
sources. Second, commenters on the
proposed Third Third rule had urged the
Agency to develop treatment standards
for wastewater forms based on. residues
from wastewater treatment technologies
rather than incineration scrubber
waters. Gommenlers on previous rules'
had also stated that wheii EPA had
performance data from technologies
treating wastewaters containing the
same or similar constituents that EPA
should use it to develop treatment
standards. -...•-.- :..*'.".,' '••:. ; -•
The Agency reviewed all oif the
aforementioned data during the Third.
Third comment period and promulgated -
constituent-specific concentration-based
standards. Detailed informatlonron the
development of the wastewater
reatinent standards can be found in the
background document titled Final Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
BDAT) Background Docunient for U
and P Wastes and Multi-Source . •
«eachates (F039), Volume A: ..
/Vastewater Forms of Organic U and P .
Wastes and Multi-Source Leachates
F039) for Which There Are
Concentration-Based Treatment .
Standards. (This document can be'found
n theRCRA docket fprthe third Third
inalrule). ' . . ^ ::*
As part of the First Third and/Second;
Third rules, EPA promulgated treatment'
tandards for wastewater forms of 23 K
and U wastes (i.e., K015, KOIBi KOiB,
K019, K020. K023, K024, K028, K030,
K048. K049, K050, K051, K052, K087., ,
JC093, K094, U028, U069, U088, U102.
31Q7, and U190). These wastewater
reatment standards were based on data
rpm incineration scrubber waters. Upon .
eyiew of all available data-and ,,- ; - ,
omments, the Agency believes that
-------
Wasto coda and regulatBd organic
constituent
K015:
Anthracene „,,
Banzai chloride
Benzofb and/or kjfluoranthone
Pfwnanthrona.._ „ . .
Tokxma...,
K016:
Hoxachtorobenzene. , ^
Hoxochtofobutabtone... i
Kexachtorocyctopentadione
Hcxachloroethane .:
Totrachtofoethone . ,
K018:
Chtoroethane.
Chtoromothano ._.„....
1.1-DfchtofOOthano.- ~_
1,2-Dichioroethano ' ......
Hexachtofobenzens....-
HoxachkxobutndiQno.
PoftUcbtofoethane
1.1,1-Trlchtoroelhana
Hoxacbtoroethana
K019:
bb<2-cWoroethyn-«ther....
Cbkxobcnzena.
Chloroform
Revised
standard
(mg/l)
0.059
. 0.28.
" 0.055
0.059
0.080
. 0.056
0.055
0.057
0.055
0:056
0.27
0.19
.0.059
0.21 -
, 0.055
•0:055
MA
•0.054
0.055
0.033
0.057
0.046
I j
PROMULGATED TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR VARIOUS F AND K
WASTEWATERS—Continued
Waste code and regulated organic
constituent
1,2-Dichloroetnane
p-Dichlorobenzene ;.
Fluorene
Hexachloroetharje ,
Naphthalene 1
Phenanthrene ....I
1,2.4,5-Tetrachlo'robenzene.....
Tetrachloroethene
1,2,4-Trichlorobepzene
• 1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
K020:
1,2-Dtehloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloi-oethane..
Tetrachloroethene :.
K023: Phthalic anhydride (measured
as phthalic acid).'.
K024: Phthalic anhydride (measured
as phthalic acid).l
K028: |
1,1-Dichloroetharje
Trans 1,2-Dichtorpethane
Hexachlorobutadiene :.
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethane :.....;
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachlor|oethane
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1 -Trichtorethahe
1,1,2-Trichloroeth'ane
K030: !
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichtorobenzenb _„
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethanja
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethene
1,2,4-Trfchlorobenzene
K048: ;
Benzene j
Benzo(a)pyrene...l
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthal
Ethylbenzene....
Fluorene
Napthalene .......
Phenanthrene...
Phenol
Pyrens.
Toluene
Xylenes (total)..
K049:
Anthracene
Benzene....;
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-pf)thalate !.!"Z
Carbon disulfide...!
.Chrysene. I.
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene \.
Napthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol :
Pyrene '.j
Toluene „. j
Xylenes (total) „.
:050:
Benzo(a)pyrene...
Phenol.-.....! „..
051: •
Acenaphthene ._ ,
Anthracene ,
B'enz(a)anthracene
Benzene.....; :—
Revised
standard
(mg/l)
0.21
0.09
0.059
0.055
0.059
0.059
0.055
0.056
0.055
0.054
0.21
0.057
0.056
0.069
Q.069
0.059
' 0.054
0.055
0.055
NA
0.057
0.057
0.056
0.054
0.054
0.088
0.09
0.055
0.055
NA
0.055
0.056
0.055
0.14
0.061
0.28
0.059
0,057
0.057
0.059.
0:059
0.059
0.039
0.067
0.080
0.32
0.059
0.14
0.061
0,28
0.014
0.059
0.036
0.057
0.059
0.059
0.039
'0.067
0.080
0.32
0.061
0.039
0:059
0.059
0.059
0.14
PROMULGATED TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR VARIOUS F AND K
WASTEWATERS—Continued
Waste code and regulated organic
constituent
37206 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
BDAT for these wastewaters is better
represented by concentration-based
treatment standards based on actual
wastewater treatment technologies
rather than scrubber waters generated
from incineration. Therefore, the Agencj
is today promulgating concentration-
based treatment standards for these
wastewaters as proposed. The wastes
affected by this change come primarily
frota three general treatability groups:
chlorinated organics, petroleum wastes,
and phthalate wastes. The Agency
believes that this change is consistent
with the changes made to the
wastewater standards in the final Third
Third rule. It should be noted, however,
that any technology not otherwise
prohibited (e.g., impermissible dilution)
may be used to meet the concentration-
based treatment standards for these
wastewaters, including incineration.
Finally, during the development of the
Third Third rule, the Agency determined
that for pentachloroethane (a regulated
constituent in K018, K028, and.KOSO),
complications arose in terms of how
reliably the constituent could be
quantified (55 FR 22611). As such, the
Agency made a decision to promulgate a
method (or methods) of treatment, rather
than a constituent-specific standard.
Today, EPA is deleting
pentachloroethane from further
regulation in the wastewater forms of
K010, K028, and K03Q, as discussed'in
the January 9,1992 proposed rule.
Treatment of other constituents will act
as reUable surrogates for the treatment
of pentachloroethane in these wastes.
PROMULGATED TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR VARIOUS F AND K WASTEWATERS
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate ,
Chrysene
-. Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Napthalene ,
Phenanthrene '.
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene :. <
Xylenes .(total) -.
K052:
Benzene^
Benzo(a)pyrene
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene ,
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
K087:
Acenaphthalene ......
Benzene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrens
Toluene .'....
Xylenes (total)
K093: Phthalic anhydride (measured
as Phthalic acid) ,
K094: Phthalic anhydride (measured
as Phthalic acid)
U028:Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate
U069: Di-n-butyl phthalate '...
U088: Diethyl phthalate
U102: Dimethyl phthalate
U107: Di-n-octyl phthalate
U190: Phthalic anhydride (measured
as phthalic acid)
Revised
standard
(mg/l)
0.061
0.23
0.059
0.057
0.057
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.039
0.067
0.080
0.32
0.14
0.061
0.11
0.77
0.036
0.057
0.059
0.059
0.039
0.080
0.32
0.059
0.14
0.059
0.068
0.055
0.059
0.059
0.080
0.32
0.069
0.069
0.28
0.057
0.2
0.047'
0.017
0.069
NA: Not applicable.
C.,Revisions to Treatment Standards for
K061, K062, andFOOe
With two exceptions, the Agency is
promulgating as proposed the treatment
standards for the iron and steel process
wastes K061 and K062 and the
electroplating waste F006. The January
9,1992, proposed rule (57 FR 975-977)
contained three major provisions for
K061, K062, and F006: (1) Removing the
Low Zinc and High Zinc subcategories
for K061 electric arc furnace dust wastes
and establishing the high zinc
subcategory nonwastewater standards
for all K061 nonwastewaters regardless
of zinc level; (2) setting alternative
treatment standards for K062 and F006
nonwastewaters with recoverable
amounts of nickel and chromium; and (3)
excluding from regulation as a
hazardous waste nonwastewater
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37207
residues generated from high-
temperature metals recovery (HTMR)
treatment of F006 and K062 provided the
residues meet the designated generic
exclusion levels, they are disposed of in
a subtitle D unit, and they do not .exhibit
one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics.
One of the two changes, the Agency
has made between proposal and
promulgation consists of basing the
promulgated' generic exclusion on a
different fate-and-transport model than
the proposed exclusion and thus
promulgating different exclusion levels
for several contaminants. The second
change is that EPA is promulgating
neither treatment standards nor
exclusion levels for vanadium, thus
effectively deleting vanadium from the
K061, K062, and F008 rulemaking;
The August 19,1991 (56 PR 41164),
final rule for K061 (electric arc dust) set
numerical treatment standards for high-
zinc K061 nonwastewaters based on the
performance of high-temperature metals
recovery units. This final rule also
promulgated a generic exclusion from
the derived-from rule fornonwastewater
residues generated from HTMR
processing of K061 wastes.
TodayVrale extends both the HTMR-
based treatment standards and the
generic exclusion criteria for HTMR
residues to K062 (steel finishing pickle
liquor) and F006 (electroplating
wastewater treatment sludges)
nonwastewaters. • . " '
1. Removal of the Low Zinc Subcateeorv
for K061 Wastes
The Agency is today transferring the
treatment standards promulgated for
high-zinc (greater than 15 percent) K061
nonwastewaters (56 FR 41164, August
19,1991) to low-zinc K081
nonwastewaters; by doing this, the
Agency eliminates the low- vs. high-zinc
categories and regulates all K061
nonwastewaters with the same
numerical treatment standards and
generic exclusion levels. The
promulgated treatment standards are
based on the performance of high-
temperature metals recovery (HTMR);
however, since these are concentration-
based standards, any technology,
including stabilization, that meets the
treatment standards can be used.
2. Alternative Treatment Standards for
F006 and KOB2 Nonwastewaters Based
on High Temperature Metals Recovery
(HTMR)
The Agency is promulgating
alternative treatment standards for K062
and F006 nonwastewaters as proposed.
These treatment standards, based on
HTMR, are the same as those
promulgated in August 1991 for "high-
zinc" nonwastewaters and the
standards promulgated in this rule for
all K061 nonwastewaters.
EPA is also promulgating a new
regulatory section (40 CFR 268.46) for
any treatment standards serving as
alternates for compliance with
standards in 40 CFR 268.41, 268.42 and
268.43.
The alternative treatment standards
for F006 includes standards for
cyanides. Although the Agency has no"
HTMR performance data for cyanide,
EPA believes (as discussed in the
proposed rule at 57 FR 975) that HTMR
treats cyanide to a level comparable to
incineration. Since no commenters
challenged this belief and there is no
reason to believe HTMR units will not
destroy cyanide as efficiently as
incineration, EPA is promulgating
alternative cyanide standards for F006
developed from incinerator
performance. The HTMR-based
alternative treatment standards are
higher numerically for several
constituents (chromium in K062;
cadmium, nickel and silver in F006) than
the original stabilization-based
standards. These higher numbers are
acceptable to the Agency as alternative
treatment standards because the HTMR-
based alternatives regulate more
constituents than the original
stabilization-based standards, and also .
because they express the Agency's
preference for recycling methods.
3. Generic Exclusion of F006 and K062
HTMR Nonwastewater Residues
•EPA is promulgating generic exclusion
levels for nonwastewater residues
generated from HTMR of F006 and K062
in rotary kilns, flame reactors, electric
furnaces, plasma arc furnaces, slag
reactors, rotary hearth furnace/electric
furnace combinations, or industrial
furnaces. These residues can go into
subtitle D units if the residues meet the
generic exclusion levels for all
constituents and these residues that do
not exhibit any of the hazardous
characteristics.-The Agency received a
variety of comments on the generic
exclusion for all K061, K062, and F006
HTMR residues. Some of the comments
supported this; extension of the generic
exclusion: Others objected to the •
exclusion levels and to the Agency's •
decision to limit the generic exclusion to
HTMR residues.
Although the vertical arid horizontal
spread (VHS) model was the basis for
calculating,the proposed generic
exclusion levels, EPA indicated in the
January 9,1992 proposed rule preamble
that it also was considering basing > •
exclusion levels on an alternative
model, the EPA Composite Model for
Landfills (EPACML) (see 57 FR 976; see
also 56 FR 67197, December 30.1991 for
adopting use of the model in site specific
delistings). Most commenters discussed
the EPACML alternative and urged the
Agency to use it rather than the VHS
model to develop generic exclusion
levels for this rule.
The most salient consequence of the
change in models from VHS to EPACML
is that EPACML generic exclusion levels
for arsenic and zinc are higher than the •
BOAT standards in the HTMR-based
alternative treatment standards for K062
and F006 and in the HTMR-based BDAT
standards for K061, EPA retained the
EPACML-based generic exclusion
numbers regardless of their values
relative to HTMR BDAT standards
, because the generic exclusion is
independent from BDAT in such a way
that EPA has no reason to adjust generic
exclusion levels in order to reconcile
them with BDAT standards when the
numerical values differ significantly for
a particular compound. The different,
and occasionally overlapping, sets of
numbers for BDAT standards and
generic exclusion levels reflect the fact
that these are two different sets of
regulatory controls on HTMR residues
from K061, K062, F006. BDAT standards
apply to residuals from treatment of
hazardous waste—which are themselves
still hazardous wastes because of the
derived-from rule intended for land
disposal. They reflect the best level of
performance that treatment technology
can provide and they apply to
hazardous wastes concentrations of
contaminants determined (by the model)
to pose minimal health risks when the
waste is disposed in a unit permitted
under RCRA Subtitle D. A generic
exclusion takes a waste out of the
hazardous-waste universe because
when a waste meets generic exclusion
levels the exclusion essentially exempts
it from subtitle C management.
The Agency also received a number of
significant comments on the proposal to
grant a generic exclusion for residues
from HTMR processing of F006 and K062
nonwastewaters. Many commenters
favored the proposed exclusion. Waste
Management Inc., (WMI) and the
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
(HWTC) objected, however, on several
grounds.
WMI submitted comments similar to
those it previously submitted for the
K061 high^zinc subcategory nile. In
particular, the commenter objected to
the generic exclusion for a number of
reasons. First, there are relatively few
HTMR treaters of F008 and K062; site-
specific delistings are a more'
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
appropriate alternative. Second.
excluding slag to be used as a road-base
material is an inappropriate application
of the VHS. Third, EPA based the
exclusion decision on inadequate data
regarding the different types of HTMR
processes that are potentially subject to
the exclusion and on inadequate data on
the fate of organic species that may be
present in the feedstocks. Fourth, the
VHS model to exclude K061 did not
consider exposures from runoff or wind
dispersion. Fifth, there is concern about
unaddressed air emissions problems>
xvith the HTMR processes themselves.
The Agency responded to the
substantive issues in these comments in
the K001 high-zinc subcategory final
rulemaking. EPA's position remains that.
although the generic exclusion may ,
affect a small number of facilities at the
time of promulgation, other HTMR
facilities may be constructed in the
future. More important, however, EPA's
generic exclusion decision in regard to
these wastes depends on the potential
hazard (e.g., waste volume, composition)
of the waste generated, not on the
number of facilities generating the
waste.
In today's final rule, the Agency is
using EPACML instead of the VHS'
model to represent more accurately the
groundwater hydraulics at landfills.
EPACML predicts the potential for
groundwater contamination from wastes
that are co-disposed with municipal
solid waste in an unlined land disposal
unit and is, therefore, an appropriately
conservative methodology for evaluating
the risk from landfilled HTMR residue.
In addition, as in the August 19,1991
rule for K061, the Agency is limiting the
generic exclusion to F006 and K062
HTMR residues, among other things,
disposed of in a subtitle D unit and thus
Is not evaluating the appropriateness of
EPACML for quantifying the safety of
any use constituting a disposal scenario
such as-use as roadbase. Consequently,
this generic exclusion does not cover
material to be used as a product.
The Agency disagrees with the
comment that inadequate data were
collected from the different types of
HTMR processes that are potentially
subject to exclusion. In determining the
BDAT treatment levels, the Agency
reviewed all the treatment performance
data available from various HTMR
processes. (These data are available in
the Background Document supporting
this rulemaking). EPA then calculated
the final treatment standards baaed on
the data from well-designed and well-
operated HTMR processes. Thus, EPA
believes that it has adequately
characterized the performance of the
major HTMR processes with respect to
achieving the BDAT treatment levels.
EPA notes further that since the
exclusion levels are essentially risk-
based numbers (i.e., the numbers are
based either on the model or are the
slightly lower technology-based
numbers), the issue of (the sufficiency of
treatment performance characterization
data.does not affect the validity of the
generic exclusion .standards. To address
the Agency's intent to establish
"minimize threat levels" which could
require modification of the purely
technology-based BDAT standards, EPA
is evaluating the alternatives'proposed
in the Hazardous Wast|e Identification
Rule (HWIR) (see 57 FR 21450, May 20,
1992).. I
In response to the commenter's
concern about the fate jof organic
species in the feed to HTMR processes,
the Agency remains convinced that,
considering that HTMR units operate at
higher, temperatures and longer
residence times than incinerators, that
HTMR units will destroy organic
constituents as well as incinerators. All
available data showed ho quantifiable
levels of organic constituents in treated
residues, confirming EPA's engineering
opinion; nor do the processed wastes •
typically contain appreciable
concentrations of organics. (The Agency
notes that while developing the BDAT •
treatment standards fornonwastewater
HTMR K061 residues it investigated
whether toxic organic constituents were
present in the HTMR residues. The
available treatment performance data •
did not indicate the presence of BDAT
list organic constituents |at detectable
levels). In addition, as part of its
delisting petition requesjt for residual
slag from treatment of KD61 waste by
HTMR, Horsehead Resojurce and
Development Company (HRD) analyzed
residual slag samples for sixteen
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
(PAHs) constituents most likely to be
products'of incomplete combustion.
None of the sixteen PAHs was detected
in any of the samples generated from
coke-fired and coal-fired' processing.
WMI objected that using the VHS
model to generate generic exclusion
levels for K061, K082, ami F008 is not
appropriate because it only considered
.contaminant transport in| groundwater
and excludes exposures from run-off or
wind dispersion: |
As already indicated, the Agency has
chosen to limit the scope lof the current
generic exclusion to slag 'disposed of in
a subtitle D unit. The Agency is
confident that the EPACML is
appropriate fora land disposal scenario
and is therefore finalizing the generic
exclusion for F006 and K062 residues
from HTMR processes with the ,
condition that such disposal occur. See
the discussion of the EPACML model at
56 FR 32993, July 18,1991.
The Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council (HWTC) also objected to the
Agency's proposal to include F006 and
K062 residues resulting from HTMR
processing in the generic exclusion.
HWTC was concerned that the
exclusion was an automatic, self-
implementing process requiring neither
analytical verification nor review by
EPA or the public. Section IV.E. of
today's rule describes EPA''s revised
recordkeeping requirements for
genetically excluded HTMR K061, K082.
and F006 residues (and characteristic
wastes). This section explains EPA's
choice of a tracking and handling
system for generically excluded wastes.
With respect to the issue concerning
air emissions, the Agency notes that all
existing HTMR units use baghouses, wet
scrubbers, or some other form of air
pollution control device (APCD) to
capture particulate matter present in the
off-gases. These units may also be
addressed pursuant to amended section
112 of the Cleari Air. Act. The amended
section 112 requires the application, of
maximum achievable control technology
(MCAT) controls to major sources of
hazardous air pollutants, plus further
risk-based controls (if necessary) at a
later time. Therefore, EPA does not
believe that these units need also be
subject to the BIF regulations (see 56 FR
7142, February 21,1991 for further
discussion on EPA's basis for not
regulating air emissions from these units
under subtitle C).
Another issue was HWTC's objection
to EPA's granting a generic exclusion for
HTMR residuals from processing F006
and K062 while denying the exclusion
for other non-HTMR recycling and
treatment technologies treating F006 and
K082. - • , . .
The Agency based the decision to
grant a generic exclusion for HTMR
residues only for the following reasons:
The generic exclusion, will only apply to
those nonwastewater residues
generated by HTMR processes and .not
to other non-HTMR processes, such as
hydrometallurgical processes or :...-.
stabilization.'The Agency currently
lacks sufficient data to evaluate the -- '"
.residues from hydrometaUurgical
processes or to develop an appropriate
sampling and analysis methodology for .
residues from hydrometallurgica) .
processes. • ' •
The Agency presented the reasons for
not generically excluding stabilized
residues in the August 19,1991 K061 '-'-
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 57, No. 160 /, Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37209
high zinc final rule (56 FR 41173). The
HTMR residues demonstrate consistent
leaching behavior whereas stabilized
matrices do not. The chemical bonding
that occurs in the high temperature and
oxidation/reduction conditions within
the HTMR units is inherently different
from the bonding that forms the basis of
cementitious and. pozzolanic
stabilization. In addition, the kinetics of
the reaction forming the bonds in these
HTMR processes are superior in terms
of immobilizing metals to the kinetics of
bond formation in cementitious
reactions because they are faster.
(Common forms of cement are not
typically considered set until after a
minimum of 72 hours and often not
considered fully cured until after 28
days]. Furthermore, stabilization is
highly matrix-dependent and prone to
chemical interference. Most commercial
stabilization facilities develop special
mixes to control curing time and/or
product integrity.
EPA reminds the regulated community
that it is not prohibiting stabilization as
treatment for K061, K062, and F006
waste, and that facility-specific delisting
remains an option for stabilized K061,
K062, and F006 wastes. Because of the
inherent differences between HTMR
and stabilization stated above and
because existing data do not support a
generic exclusion for stabilized K061,
K062, and FOOS wastes, the Agency -
chooses not to extend generic exclusion
to these stabilized residues.
D. Vanadium: Treatment Standards and
Appendix VIII
The Agency is deferring the expansion
of the list of inorganic constituents in
appendix VIII and is not including
vanadium in the treatment standards.
These remain technical issues that EPA
has not yet resolved in the brief time
allocated in promulgating today's
regulations. The proposed HWIR (57 FR
21450, May 20, 1992) identified exclusion
criteria for Vanadium, and the Agency is
continuing to assess how to address
Vanadium in HWIR and future Land
Disposal Restrictions.
Because of concerns about
Vanadium's low volatility and
consequent tendency to accumulate in
slag residual, the August 19, 1991, rule
for high-zinc K061 nonwastewaters •
reserved vanadium rather than set a
numerical treatment standard. Data
reviewed by the Agency for the high-
zinc rule since that time does not
support setting a treatment standard for
vanadium. EPA is therefore not
promulgating treatment standards for
vanadium in K061 nor promulgating
vanadium standards in alternative
standards for K062 and F006 wastes in
this rule. ,--..-
FINAL GENERIC EXCLUSION LEVELS FOR
K061 AND K062 HTMR RESIDUES
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
A '
Arsenic ....„
Barium
Beryllium .„.
Cadmium .
Chromium (total) ..
Mercury
Nickel _„
Silver „.....-.
Zinc ;...
Maximum for any
single composite
sample— TCLP
(mg/l)
0.10
0.50
. 7,6
0.010
0.050
0,33
0.15
0 009
1.0
0.16
0.30
0.020
70
FINAL GENERIC EXCLUSION LEVELS FOR
F006 HTMR RESIDUES
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium •...
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver. :
Thallium
Zinc .?..... ;. .
Regulated constituent
Cyanide (Total)
Maximum for any
single composite
sample— TCLP
(mg/l)
0.10 '
0.50
7.6
0.010
0.050
0.33
0.15
0.009
1.0
0.16
0.30
0.020
70
Maximum for any*
single composite
sample — (mg/kg)
1.8
FINAL TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K061
CLow and high zinc subcategories, nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium ..
Beryllium
Cadmium „
Chromium (Total) „ .
Lead
vlercury ...
Nickel :
Selenium _
Silver
Thallium
Zinc ;
Maximum for any
single composite
sample — TCLP
(mg/l)
2.1
0.055
7.6.
0.014
0.19
0.33
0.37
0.009
5.0
0.16
0.30
0.078
5.3
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR K062
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated
•' constituent •
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
(Total)
Lead
Mercury...
Nickel
Selenium
Silver.
Thallium...:
Zinc
Alternative
treatment;
standards based
. on HTMR
performance
maximum for
any single'
composite .
sample — TCLP
(mg/l)
2,1
0.055
7.6
. ••- ' 0.014
0.19
0.33
0.37'
0.009
5.0
0.16
0.30
0.078
53
Treatment
standards
based on
stabilization
maximum for
any single grab
sample — TCLP
(mg/l)
NA
- NA
NA
NA
NA
0.094
0.37
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA— Not Applicable.
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR F006
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated
constituent
Antimony
Chromium
(Total)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium ,
Zinc
Regulated
constituent
Cyanides
Cyanides
(Amenable) ...
Alternative
treatment
standards based
on-HTMR
performance
maximum for
any single
composite
sample — TCLP
(mg/l)
2.1
0.055
7.6
0.014
0.19
0.33
0.37
' 0.009
. 5.0
0.16
0.30
0.078
5.3
Alternative
treatment
standards based
on HTMR
performance
maximum for
any single
composite
sample (mg/kg)
1.8
NA
NA — Nnt Annli>ahlo
Treatment
standards based
on stabilization
maximum for
any single grab
sample— TCLP
. (mg/0
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.066
5.2
0.51
NA
0.32
NA
0.072
NA
NA
Treatment
standards based
on alkaline
chlorination
maximum for
any single grab
sample (mg/kg)
590
30
-------
37210 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
E. Notification and Certification for
Characteristic Wastes
The Agency is finalizing a revision to
the recordkeeping requirements for
certain wastes that meet LDR standards
and are treated to nonhazardous levels.
The change in notification and
certification requirements affects two
groups of wastes: characteristic wastes
that meet LDR .standards and are
treated below the regulatory levels
established for characteristic wastes,
and K081, K062, and F006 residues from
high temperature metal recovery that
meet the generic exclusion levels and do
not exhibit any hazardous waste
characteristics. As proposed (see 57 FR
977), the Agency will no longer require
the generator or treater to submit to EPA
or an authorized state a notification and
certification for each off-site shipment of
these wastes. Instead, amended
§ 268.9{d) and § 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C) now
require that the generator or treater
prepare the notification and certification
for the initial shipment only, place one
copy in the generator's or treater's own
files, and send another copy to the
appropriate EPA region or authorized
state. The documentation must be
retained by the generator or treater for
at least five years. The generator's or
treater's records must be updated if the
process or operation generating the
waste changes and/or if the subtitle D
facility receiving the waste changes;
however, the generator or treator need
only notify EPA or an authorized state
on an annual basis (at the end of the
calendar year but no later than
December 31) if the process or operation
generating the waste changes or if the
subtitle D facility receiving the waste
changes. The document must include the-
name and addjress of the subtitle D
facility receiving the waste," a waste
description, applicable treatment
standards, and a certification that the
standards have been met. ForK061,
K062, and F006 residues from high :
temperature metal recovery, the
recordkeeping requirements in
§ 261.3(c)(2)(ii)(C) supersede those in
§ 268.7(a)(6). . • *•.
The Agency proposed this change
because the existing requirements
appeared to pose an unnecessary •
paperwork burden. It did not appear
necessity for EPA* or the states to be
notified concerning every shipment of
characteristic-wasted) and K061, K062, '-
and F008 residues treated to '."
nonhazardous levels; yet, at the same
time, EPA and the states still need to be
able to verify such treatment when
conducting inspections of Waste
management operations. The Agency
requested comment on the paperwork
burden of the existing requirements, on
its proposal, and on several alternative
requirements that would also reduce the
recordkeeping burden (see 57 FR 977).
Several commenters described the
existing burden as "significant" or
"onerous." One commenter said the
requirement is [especially burdensome
for facilities with multiple shipments per
day and is unnjecessary since the waste
is deemed nonhazardous. Another
commenter stated that one of its plants
had submitted jover 1300 identical
• notification and certification documents
in an eighteen-month period as a result
of the § 268.9(dJ requirement. Still other
commenters said the existing
requirement is not onerous, since
facilities .can use fill-in-the-blank type
£ I ** *
forms.
The majorityi of commenters, however,
supported the requirement being
finalized today; Those who supported
the requirement promulgated today
interpreted it tq require a reasonable
level of recordkeeping while providing •
readily available information to allow
identification of the subtitle D facilities
receiving the whste. Several of these
commenters said the alternative
proposals were! overly burdensome
without providing attendant benefits.
Commenters |who supported the
existing recordkeeping requirements
argued that subhiittal of a certification
to EPA is the only incentive for
generators to ensure that excluded
waste going to subtitle D units is
properly treated. One commenter argued
that the new proposal would weaken the
RCRA system of cradle-to-grave
protection. Another commenter
advocated notification to the subtitle D
facility receiving the waste, because
only the generator or treater has
sufficient information to determine if it •
meets the land disposal restrictions.
After considering all comments, EPA
is finalizing the [proposed revision
because it is confident that there is little
need for documentation of every
shipment of the identical nonhazardous
waste, nor is there a need for EPA or
states to be informed of each shipment
for disposal, as long as the information
is. available to inspectors. As for
requiring notific|ation of subtitle D
facilities receiving the waste, EPA
remains concerned that such a
requirement wojild be counterproductive
(see discussion at 55 FR 22662 to 22663).
F. Wastes Listed Because They Exhibit
a Characteristic,
In-the January 9,1992 proposed rule,
EPA proposed a clarifying change to the
existing regulations dealing with the
applicability of land disposal
prohibitions to wastes that-are listed
solely because they exhibit a non-toxic
characteristic of hazardous wastes (see
57 FR 978). An example are the non-
chlorinated solvents listed as F003 for
which EPA promulgated numerical
treatment standards in 1986. EPA had
previously stated that such wastes
cannot be diluted to meet the treatment
standards and that these wastes must
be treated to meet the part 268 treatment
standards (56 FR 3871, January 31,1991;
57 FR 978). Put another way, the land
disposal prohibitions would apply at the
point of generation for such Wastes.
EPA's proposed clarification was that
the same principles apply with respect
to mixtures of wastes listed because
they exhibit a characteristic and other
solid wastes (57 FR 978).
Upon reviewing this issue further,
however, EPA realized that the principle
appeared inconsistent (or could be read
to be inconsistent), with respect to
wastewaters listed because they exhibit
a characteristic, with the rules adopted
in the Third Third regulation regarding
management of characteristic
wastewaters. In the Third Third
regulation, EPA applied prohibitions at
the point of disposal for wastes that are
hazardous because they exhibit a
characteristic and are^ disposed in non-
hazardous Class I injection wells; the
Agency also applied dilution
prohibitions at the point of disposal for
most characteristic wastewaters
managed in wastewater treatment
systems ultimately discharging pursuant
to sections 307 or 402 of the Clean Water
Act. See §§ 148.1(d), 268.3(b); and 55 FR
22656-22659 (June 1,1990). This would
indicate that wastewaters which are
listed because they exhibit a
characteristic would not be prohibited
from disposal by underground injection
provided they do not exhibit a
characteristic when they are injected. In
addition, such wastewaters can
permissibly be diluted to meet the
treatment standards before management
in surface impoundments, provided the
impoundments are part of treatment
systems that are discharging pursuant to
Clean Water Act requirements and
provided the waste does not exhibit a
characteristic when placed in an
impoundment. ' . . •-
After considering this issue, and after
soliciting and receiving further public
comment on the-point, EPA is
interpreting its rules so as to be
consistent With the approach of the
Third Third rule with respect "to
wastewaters that exhibit a
characteristic for the reasons set out in
that rule. Thus, prohibitions for .
wastewaters that are listed solely '
because they exhibit .a- characteristic
-------
Federal-Register-/ Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / 'Rules and Regulations
37211
will apply at the point of disposal as
explained above. Put another way, EPA
is reading the existing rules in |§ 148.1
and 268.3(b) as applying to wastewaters
that are listed solely because they
exhibit a non-toxic characteristic.
The Agency is not reconsidering, or
reopening, the issue of treatment
standards for nonwastewaters that are
listed because they exhibit a
characteristic.;thus, such wastes cannot
be land disposed until treated to meet
the applicable treatment standards, and
cannot be diluted to meet those
treatment standards (56 ER 3871). This
would also be true of mixtures involving
such listed wastes, since otherwise the
prohibitions would have no real
meaning. . •
Finally, with respect to wastewaters,
the Agency recognizes that the issue of
the legality of the Agency's application
of prohibitions for characteristic
wastewaters at the point of disposal has
been submitted for judgment to a panel
of the District of Columbia Circuit Court
as part of the litigation over the Third
Third rule (Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, No. 90-1230). The
Agency's action today clarifying that the
same rules apply to wastewaters listed
because they exhibit a characteristic
and other characteristic wastewaters
thus would be subject to the decision
reached in this'litigation.
G. Storage and Treatment in
Containment Buildings
In some cases, hazardous wastes
prohibited from land disposal must be
stored for short periods of time to
facilitate recycling, recovery, treatment,
or transport off site to meet LDR
standards; treatment may also be
performed while these materials are
being stored. Some of these non-liquid
hazardous wastes are generated in large
volumes (often in batches), and may not
be amenable to management in RCRA
tanks or containers. These wastes are
sometimes stored or treated on concrete
pads or similar floors inside buildings.
EPA currently classifies this type of
management unit as an indoor waste
pile, which EPA considers to be a land
disposal unit based on the statutory
definition of land disposal in section
3004(k). See 52 FR 40605 (November 7,
1986). Lead slags and spent potliners
from primary aluminum production are
examples of hazardous wastes that are
amenable to management in such units
because of their volume or bulk;
contaminated debris may also be
managed in such units. EPA believes
that management of a hazardous waste
inside a unit designed and operated to
contain the hazardous waste within the
unit—akin to storage in a RCRA tank or
container—does not pose the types of
potential harms or uncertainties
Congress sought to address in defining
land disposal, as it did in RCRA section
3004{k). These include uncertainties
regarding containment of hazardous .
constituents placed on the land and the
potential for, persistence, toxicity,
mobility and bioaccumulatipn of
hazardous wastes placed oh the land. A
unit designed, constructed, and operated
to contain the hazardous waste within it
may, moreover, fulfill the congressional
goal of waste management that is
protective of human health and the-
environment. See section 3004(d)(l){A)-.
(C) and i003(a)(5),
EPA is today promulgating standards
allowing management of hazardous
wastes, including but not limited to lead
slags, spent potliners, and contaminated
debris within units, to be termed
"containment buildings", which will not
be considered placement on the land
and thus not constitute land disposal as
defined in section 30Q4(k) of RCRA. To
allow storage and treatment of
prohibited wastes in containment •
buildings, EPA today is establishing a
.new definition-of containment building,
amending the existing definition of pile
to exclude containment buildings, and
including containment buildings within
those units covered by § 268.50 as
permissible for storage of prohibited
wastes (since these buildings are no^
longer land disposal units), albeit
subject to the prohibition on extended
storage. EPA is also establishing specific
design and operating standards for such
units under §§264 and 265, and allowing
generators' containment buildings to be
eligible under § 262.34 for the 90-day
generator provisions if their unit(s) .
meets all of the technical requirements
for containment buildings (refer to
discussion on 90-day applicability
upcoming in this section).
Under today's rule, all containment
buildings—both permitted and
unpermitted—must achieve the same
level of performance. Accordingly, EPA
today is promulgating standards that
require containment buildings operating
under the part 265, subpart DD interim
status standards to be designed, ;
operated, and maintained to meet the
same design and operating requirements
as permitted containment buildings.
These are either the design and
operating standards in subparts DD of
parts 264 or 265.
Virtually all public comments
supported the establishment of this new
type of management unit. The rule
promulgated today incorporates only
minor changes from the proposed rule.
To, provide adequate time for design
and construction of containment .
buildings, the effective date for these
provisions shall be February 18,1993.
However, owner/operators who wish to
begin operating containment buildings
under these provisions prior to the
effective date may do so provided that
they notify the Regional Administrator
of their intent, and they comply with the
requirements of subpart DD prior to
beginning operation.
1. Containment Buildings Are Not Land
Disposal Units
The final rule indicates that
containment buildings are not land
disposal units. Thus, prohibited wastes
can be stored in containment buildings
without first meeting a treatment
standard.
We explain below in detail how
containment buildings are defined.
However, the key features for
determining that they are not land
disposal units are that wastes are stored
indoors in a secure structure (securely ,
walled, roofed, and floored) that is
designed to provide containment
comparable to that provided by tanks or
containers. EPA sees no statutory
command precluding Agency discretion
to define such units as not involving
land disposal, nor did any commenter
suggest that the Agency was barred
from this determination. Moreover,
storage in such units does not raise the
types of environmental concerns and
uncertainties (see section 1002(b){7) and
3004(d)(l)(A)-(C)) that Congress sought
to address in requiring hazardous
wastes to be pretreated before being
land disposed. Also, by defining
containment buildings as not involving
land disposal, the Agency is preventing
the anomaly of bulk hazardous wastes
not amenable to tank storage, yet
requiring storage before treatment, being
unable to be legally stored because non-
tank or container storage would be
defined as land disposal. An example is
battery parts and groups that must be
staged before being smelted. (55 FR ,
22637.) Accordingly, EPA is exercising
its discretion to define containment
buildings as not being land disposal
units.
2. Definition of Containment Building
EPA today defines in § 260.10 a new
unit, "containment building," as a
"hazardous waste management unit that
is used to store or treat hazardous waste
under the provisions of subpart DD of
parts 264 and 265." Subpart DD of parts
264 and 265 enumerates the design and
operating standards for these units that
ensure containment comparable to that
of a RCRA tank or container. EPA is
-------
37212
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
also modifying the definition of "waste
pile" to exclude these units.
Under today's rulet a containment
building unit is not defined as land
disposal pursuant to RCRA section
3004{k) if the unit meets the
requirements of § 264.1100 and
§ 285.1100. The unit must, among other
things, be completely enclosed and have
self-supporting walls, a primary barrier,
designed to be sufficiently durable to
withstand the movement of personnel,
wastes, and handling, equipment in the
unit, a secondary containment system
(unless the unit manages non-liqufd
wastes only or has obtained a variance
from the secondary containment
standard), a liquid collection system,
and controls for fugitive dust The floors,
walls, and roof of the unit must be
constructed of man-made materials with
sufficient structural strength to support
themselves, the waste contents, and any
personnel and heavy equipment that
operate within the unit. The unit also
must be designed and operated to
prevent tracking of materials out of the
unit.
3. Applicability of the 90-Day
Accumulation Exclusion in § 262.34
a. Containment Buildings Are Eligible
for 00-Day Status. Under § 262.34, a
generator may accumulate hazardous
waste on-site for 90 days or less without
a permit or without having interim
status provided he complies with the
requirements of subpart I. J. or W of 40
CFR part 265, among other requirements.
To date, EPA has limited applicability of
this 90-day provision to generators'-
containers, tanks, or drip pads [see 55
FR 50450, December 6,1990). EPA today
is extending the 90-day generator
exemption in § 262.34 to include
containment buildings. The extension of
the 90-day generator exemption to
containment buildings is consistent with
the application of the 90-day generator
exemption to similar types of hazardous
waste storage units, e.g., tanks and
containers.
Commenters to the proposed rule
overwhelmingly supported the extension-
of the 90-day generator exemption to
these units. Some commenters also
suggested that EPA extend this
exemption, to all containment buildings;
others suggested extending this
exemption beyond 90'day.s. The 90-day
generator provision, is premised; oa the
need to avoid undue interference with
generators' production processes (45 FR
2730, February 28,1980J and stands a* a
narrow exception to otherwise '
applicable permitting requirements. This.
rationale does not appear to apply to. :
off-site facilities-. Therefore^ the Agency
is not extending its applicability irt'
today's rule. However, EPA notes that
extensions-may be granted to the 90-day
time period under existing, rules when
certain specific circumstances, apply
(see 55 FR 50450, December 6,1990).
Specific to the comments suggesting
that EPA, extend the 90-day generator
provision to all containment buildings
including off-site facilities, EPA is not
taking action in today's rule..EPA will,
however, take comment on a proposal to
expand the 90-day generator exemption
to. all containment buildings in .the
upcoming proposal for petroleum
contaminated debris !to be deferred from
the TC. At that time, ^he Agency will
evaluate whether theiAgency.'s narrow
exemption for 90-day! units to generators
should be expanded to off-site units for
all tanks, containers, 'and containment
, buildings. I ' .
• b. Documenting Compliance with 90-.
Day Limitations. In- the proposed rule,
EPA requested comment on whether
generators who store or treat hazardous
waste in containment buildings pursuant
to the 90-day accumulator provisions
should be required to maintain on site,
for the operating life of the containment
building, a descriptioiji of the procedures
ensuring that no waste remains in the
containment building for more than 90
days. EPA proposed that documentation
of each waste removal be required in
the generator's on-site' files recording, at
a minimum, the quantity of waste
removed and the. date! and time of
removal. EPA also noted that certain
operations, for example, the continuous
processing of wastes or blending of
wastes, might complicate the generator's
ability to determine wlien a particular
waste volume ceased (to be present
within the containment building. EPA
requested public comment on how best
to ensure and' document generator.
compliance with the requirement
limiting the time waste may be
accumulated within this containment
building to 90 days or less. '..
Several commentersi suggested a
"mass balance" approach' wherein- the
volume removed from Ja containment
building over the course of 90 days
would be required to be at least equal to
the amount placed in the unit during that
period to ensure compliance with the
time limit EPA does not believe that this
would be adequate. While such an
approach might ensure1 that the average
residence time of wastes in the. unit is
less than 9O days, it could not assure
that all wastes reside in the unit for less
than that period. |
InsteadwEPA agrees fwith commenters
who suggested that documented
procedures ought to assure that each
volume of waste resides in the unit for
no more than 90 days. This requirement
could be met in two ways: (1) By-
documenting that the unit is emptied at
least once every 90 days,, or (2) by
having and documenting (in writing) the
procedures in place to ensure that
wastes in the unit are. segregated by age
and that no portion of tfee stored wastes
is allowed to remain beyond the time
limit. As part of that latter
demonstration, owner/operators must
document that the nature of their
hazardous waste management operation
is consistent with respecting that 90-day
limit For example, a generator who
plans to use such a unit to accumulate
waste for ofJ-site shipment on a monthly
basis should be able to meet this test;
one who. ships waste off site semi-
anmjaily could not do so. Given the
statute's normal permitting scheme as
well as the constraints on extended
storage in section 3004(j), EPA believes
this degree of assurance of actual waste
turnover is justified.
EPA does not seek to require
documentation of each individual
addition or removal of waste from the
unitr rather, the required written
documentation must show that
procedures are in place to ensure that
individual additions and removals of
wastes ar6 consistent with the 90-day
time limit for each portion of the wastes
managed in the unit. However, if the
generator cannot meet'the 90-day time
limit or if a hazardous waste is stored or
treated in an off-site containment
building, Hie unit must have interim
status or a permit in accordance with . •
existing, regulations. • '.
c. Reclassification of Regulated Units
to 90-Day;Status. EPA anticipateathaf
some currently operating units that have
been previously classified as waste piles
will be converted to containment
buildings as, a result of today's rule. It is
possible that there may be (or have
been) releases of hazardous wastes from
such units. When this rule was.
proposed,. EPA .raised the issue of
whether unit-specific corrective action. -
authority under RCRA should be "
retained for new unita and for existing
interim status- or permitted units that
• subsequently; become 90-day generators
with containment buildings as their only
RCRA aefivity. EPA pointed out that,
evett without RCRA corrective action
authority/^ generates would $till be,
liable for any releases under CERCLA.
' Several commemtis's suggested thai
some or allunits eontrarted to '••••
.containment buildings shMsM-ndt be
subject to eorrectiva; actioa.. While the
Agency understands* thieae cafflBnentejs'
specific corrective action is an
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^MMBMMI^MBBB^MBMBHH^HMiMrtM^Bi^^B^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^—^-^^—_
37213
appropriate part of the standards for
containment buildings to remediate
releases that conceivably occur or may
occur from the unit Such standards are
a routine part of every standard for a
RCRA hazardous waste management
unit, including 90-day generator units.
See, e.g. § 265.196 (corrective action for
tanks including 90-day tanks) and
§ 265.443(m) (corrective action for drip
pads including 90-day drip pads). The
Agency knows of no legal or policy
justification for excluding these units
from corrective action .requirements (i.e.,
not redressing hazardous waste releases
from such units).
However, new units operating under
the 90-day generator provision will not
trigger facility-wide corrective action
under RCRA by themselves under the
terms of today's rule, because no permit
is required for their operations and the
units have never had interim status or
permits (see RCRA sections 3004(u) and
3008(h)). These units, however, must
remediate unit-specific releases 'as just
discussed, and also would be solid
waste management units if the facility
requires a RCRA permit for other units.
For previously regulated units, EPA
expects that the "unit" for the purpose
of corrective action will include the "
entire structure, or the entire portion of
the structure operated, when the
containment building is a part of a larger
structure.
As noted above, 90-day containment
buildings must meet the same
substantive standards as permitted and
interim status units. This includes a
requirement of obtaining certification by
a professional engineer that the unit is
designed and constructed to meet the
requirements for containment buildings
and must maintain such certification at
the facility (§ 262.34(a)(l)(iv)). The
subject of such certifications is
discussed at greater length below.
Generators planning to convert to or
install containment buildings in advance
of the effective date for these
requirements are required to place
certifications for these units in the
facility's operating record no later than
60 days from the date of initial operation
of the unit as a'containment building.
After February 18, it993,'PE certification
is required prior to operation of the unit.
4. Containment Building Requirements
The specific requirements for a
containment building restrict the types
of hazardous wastes that may be stored
or treated in the unit and specify
performance standards for the design
and operation of the unit to ensure a
measure of protection of human health
and the environment greater than that
provided by an indoor waste pile, and
substantially equivalent to that provided.
by a RCRA tank or container. See
subpart DD, parts 264 and 265.
'a. Acceptable.Wastes. Many
commenters supported EPA's proposal
to allow dry wastes or wastes with
"very small quantities".of free liquids to
be managed in containment buildings. "
Comments were divided on whether the
term "very small" used in the proposal
required an explicit definition or implied
an unnecessary and arbitrary limit pn
the amount of liquid included in a '•
hazardous waste to be managed in a
containment building. Today's rule
states that-wastes managed in
containment buildings not be liquid in
form (i.e., flow under their own weight
to fill the vessel in which they are
placed, or contain so much liquid that
they are readily pumpable) or release
such large quantities of liquid into the
unit that liquid removal systems cannot
prevent accumulation of liquid to
significant depths. (These liquid wastes
can, of course, be managed in tanks and
containers that are inside containment
buildings.)
EPA developed the containment
building standards so that owner/
operators could store or treat hazardous
wastes that are not liquid in form, and •
which are not amenable to management
, in tanks or containers (perhaps because
the waste occurs in a bulky form, or
because it is produced in great volume.)
This can facilitate .owner/operator
compliance with the prescribed BDAT
standards. However, any waste that is
non-liquid in form can also be stored/
treated in containment buildings even if
the waste already comply with the land
disposal restriction standards. The
standards discussed below will ensure
that these wastes will not pose a hazard
to human health or the environment
when managed in containment
buildings.
Prior to incorporating these concepts
into this rule, EPA considered
developing a Policy Directive whereby
certain hazardous wastes, i.e., aluminum
spent potliners, recycled lead batteries,
and possibly electric arc furnace dusts,
were definitively identified as'
candidates for management within
containment buildings. Although EPA
believed wastes that are non-liquid in
form could also be managed more
practicably in containment buildings
rather than tanks or containers,
information on such wastes remained
lacking. EPA considered two options
regarding hazardous wastes eligible for
management in these units: (1) All
hazardous wastes, including
contaminated debris; and (2) only
contaminated debris and certain
additional bulky, high volume hazardous
wastes that EPA currently understands
cannot be practicably stored/treated in
tanks or containers. Public comments on
the proposed rule stated that EPA
should not limit eligibility to debris and
certain bulky, high volume hazardous
wastes or to specific waste codes, and
that a specific limitation on the amount
of liquid included in the waste was also
not appropriate. *'
EPA sees no reason to restrict
eligibility to only those hazardous
wastes for which EPA has data '
available or to. only prohibited wastes.
When designed, constructed, and
operated in accordance with the
standards being promulgated today, a
. containment building.managing
hazardous waste that is non-liquid in
form will ensure protection of human
health and the environment.
Example: A secondary lead smelting
facility recovers lead from battery plates
and groups taken from lead-acid
batteries. One of the steps involved in
this process, battery cracking,
necessarily generates wet lead-bearing
materials. For process efficiency, among
other reasons, free liquids are removed
to the extent feasible prior to staging the
materials for furnace feed. However,'
some residual free liquid remains and
cannot be removed easily. In this
example, the overall form of the
material is non-liquid, even though some
amount of free liquid remains despite
attempts to remove it. These wastes are
eligible for management in containment
buildings.
Example: A facility is cleaning up an
area containing contaminated soil. The
excavated soil contains water in the soil
matrix, and is at or near the point of.
saturation. Visual inspection of the soil
reveals that the am'ount of free liquid
expected to be released in a ' .
containment building is very small in
comparison with the total volume of the
waste and the liquids management '
capacity of the unit. This material may
be managed in a containment building.
b. Acceptable Activities. Containment
buildings can be used to store hazardous
waste for such activities as treatment
(including recovery or other recycling)
or transport off site to meet LDR
treatment standards. As noted
elsewhere in today's rule, wastes may
be treated in containment buildings as
well as stored in them. Examples of such
treatment could include .some of the
technologies discussed in appendix I to
this preamble for treatment of
contaminated debris. Many of these
technologies require the use of liquid. In
many cases, such treatment would be
conducted in tanks or containers within
such buildings, and the existing
-------
37214 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
standards for tanks and containers
would apply. For example, a method for
treating hazardous- debris could include
treatment in a tank within a
containment building followed by
storage for a short-period in the
containment building. In this example,
treatment In the tank would b& regulated
under the RCRA tank standards,,while
subsequent storage of the treated waste
would be regulated under the
: containment building standards.
In other cases, treatment in tanks and
containers as such may not be possible.
For example, personnel may not be able
to apply safely some of the prescribed
debris treatment technologies to large
bulky debris within a tank or container.
Therefore, EPA is also allowing
treatment that utilizes the addition of
liquid as part of BDAT treatment in
designated areas within containment
buildings. Any drainage or accumulation
of liquids applied to hazardous debris-
must comply with relevant regulations.
EPA is requiring that liquids be removed
from the containment building at the
earliest practicable time in order to
preserve the effectiveness of liquid
containment systems (§ 264.11oa(b}(2)(ii)
and § 265.1101(b)(2)(iij).
c. Design and Operating Standards.
EPA is promulgating" the following
design and operating standards for .
permitted units, units operated under -
interim status, and units under the 90-
day accumulation exemption. In general,
the design and operating standards are
intended to ensure containment of waste
equivalent {or, with regard to air
emissions superior) to the containment
achieved by tanks. Thus, the units must
be designed to contain releases to land
through primary and in some cases
secondary containment systems, and to
contain potential particulate emissions
as well. The unit is also to be designed
to prevent exposure of waste to-
precipitation.and wind. As noted above,
EPA is determining that these units are
not engaged in land disposal based on
designs for this level of containment.
Moreover, the design andjoperating
standards should ensure protection df
human health and *he environment (as.
do the tank standards).
Thus, to distinguish these units from
waste piles—Le., land disposal units—
hazardous wastes managed in these
units most be fully contained within the
unit. As such, the unit must be : . •'
compteteHy enclosed with a floor, walls
and a roof to prevent exposure ta
precipitation and wmd £§-264;tl01{a)(l)
and § 2B5Jtl01(aKl})- Many of the
hazardous wastes currently managed in
thuse waste pika may have significant
volumes of fineparticulates. EPA
believes that enclosure within a
structure, in conjunction with other
measures to control fugitive dust
emissions, will prevent the escape of
these fine particulates from the unit.
Although a number of commenters to
the proposed rule did not believe
complete enclosure to be necessary,
EPA continues to regard this as key to
ensuring complete containment of
wastes managed hi these units, and thus
distinguishing these units from land
disposal units such as piles; ..
i. Floors, Walls, and Roof. The floor,
walls, and roof bf the unit must be
constructed of man-made materials with
sufficient structural strength to support
themselves, .the waste contents,, and any
personnel and Heavy equipment that
operate within the unit. Fragile barriers
that would not jvithstand repeated
contact with handling equipment used in
the unit thus are not suitable, and units.
designed with such ineffective barriers
would not be containment buildings.
Operating, events such as deliberate or
accidental placement of materials
against containment walls must be
taken into account in designing and
constructing the unit. Factors such as
settlement, frost-heave, and exposure to
wind force must also be considered. All
surfaces to be in contact with hazardous
wastes must be [chemically compatible
with those wastes. Because the intended
use for these units is short-term storage
or treatment thk unit must be designed
to accommodate appropriate levels of
loading and unloading activity during its
Operating lifetime. (See § 264.1101 (a)(2)
and § 265.1101(a)(2).)
ii. Primary and Secondary
Containment. EPA is requiring several
measures to- ensure that hazardous .
wastes are managed in a fashion that
ensures containment of contaminants
and prevents releases into the
environment. All containment buildings
must be equipped with a primary barrier
designed and constructed bf materials to
prevent hazardous wastes from being
accidentally or Deliberately placed on
the land beneath or outside the unit. The
design and construction of the primary
barrier wiH varj^ depending on- the type
. of waste to be managed in the unit. For
containment buildings used to manage
wastes without free liquids,, the primary
barrier may be a concrete floor if the
wastes to be managed will not migrate
into the'concrete matrix. Containment
buildings used to manage wastes with
even small amounts of free liquids must
be provided witti a primary barrier
designed and constructed of materials to
prevent migration of hazardous
constituents int& the barrier and a liquid
collection and removal system that will
minimize the accumulation of liquid on
the primary barrier (§ 264.1101(b)(2) and
§ 265.1101 (b)(2)). In this case, the
primary barrier might be a steel or
flexible membrane liner covered by a
concrete wear surface. The liquid
collection and removal system above
the primary barrier should be designed.
constructed, and operated to minimize
the accumulation of liquids above the
primary barrier. EPA expects that a
minimum one degree slope for the
primary barrier combined with
appropriate means for collecting and
removing liquids (e.g. 'troughs, drains,
dikes,, or sumps and/or pumps as
necessary)'will meet this goal. The
determination of the presence of free
liquids must be made using, for example.
the paint filter test (EPA test method '
SW-86) if applicable, a visual
examinations, or other appropriate
'means.
The primary barrier must be sloped to
drain liquids or other wastes to the
collection system, and to ensure -that
liquids are not released 'into any
portions of the unit that are not provided
.with secondary containment. This latter
requirement far separation between
"wet" and "dry" areas of a containment
building is discussed below in greater
detail.
• In all eases, the primary barrier must
be designed to withstand the movement
of personnel, wastes, and handling
equipment in the unit. (See
§ 264.1101(a)(4) and § 265.1101(a)(4),) By
this, EPA means that coatings or
membranes that might be exposed to
abrasion or tearing by personnel,
wastes, or equipment must be
sufficiently durable to withstand that
activity, be protected from it, or be
scheduled Sot replacement on a regular
basis as needed as part of the design of
the unit. The primary barrier must be
maintained to be free of cracks, gaps,
corrosion; or other deterioration that-
could result in the significant release of
hazardous wastel
Portions of containment buildings
used to manage hazardous wastes
containing free liquids must, in addition,
be provided with secondary.
containment systems- including (1) a
secondary barrier and (2) a leak
detection system. The secondary barrier
must be designed and constructed of
materials to prevent the- migration of
hazardous constituents into this barrier.
The leak detection system-, which lies
below the primary barrier and above the
•secondary barrier, mast be-capable of
detecting, eofleeting, and removing teaks
of hazardous constituents through the
primary barrier at the earliest
practicable time-. In keeping with the
-------
_JTederal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37215
\ :
design standards for liners and leak
detection systems (57 FR 3462), this may
be achieved by installation of a system
that is, at a minimum: (!) Constructed
with a bottom slope of 1 percent or
more; and (2) constructed of a granular
drainage material with a hydraulic
conductivity of lX10~2
-------
37216 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and. Regulations
intended to come in contact with the
hazardous waste. (See
§ 284,1101(c)(l)(ii) and
§ 265.1101(cKl)(ii).) EPA considers it a
necessary good housekeeping practice
lo prevent stored/treated hazardous
waste from spilling over the walls of the
unit and, in the case of certain
hazardous wastes, to be able to contain
any potential "landsliding" of material
out of the unit. It is important to note
that Ihe walls referred to in this
provision are those containment walls.
or parts thereof, designed and
constructed to be in contact with the
hazardous waste and to support its
weight. The following example
highlights this distinction.
Example: A facility has constructed a
containment building to accumulate its
hazardous waste prior to conducting
treatment to meet LDR standards. The
unit has a reinforced concrete floor and
10-foot high reinforced concrete walls.
The remainder of the sidewalls, built
atop the concrete wall and extending to
the roof, are constructed of steel framing
with fiberglass panels. In this example,
the hazardous waste stored/treated
inside the unit must not be piled any
higher than the 10-foot reinforced
concrete walls. The remainder or upper
portion of the walls are not designed to
support the weight of the waste and may
not provide adequate containment of the
waste in the event of an unexpected
shift in the position of a portion of the
waste, i.e., hazardous waste could
escape through the panel joints.
A number of commenters to the
proposed rule had concerns with the
prohibition on piling wastes above the
height of the walls intended to contain
them, noting correctly that many wastes
can be formed into conical piles
extending substantially above the height
of walls which may be supporting a
portion of their weight. EPA's reason for
including this requirement is to assure
that there was no possibility of
accidentally overtopping the
containment walls. Accordingly, today's
rule retains this requirement. EPA notes,-
however, that this requirement ig,,'
intended to apply only to those walls
that could come into contact with the
waste and are intended to contain the
waste. The examples below clarify
EPA's Intent.
Example: If waste is stored in a room
within the containment building, where
the interior walls, i.e., the walls of that
room, are designed to support and/or
contain hazardous wastes, those walls
must meet the standards for
containment walls. Exterior walls that
could not come into contact with the •
waste would not have to meet those.
requirements in this case.
Example: If waste is stored in "stalls"
within the containment building, where
the walls that define the stalls are not
designed and constructed to meet the
requirements for containment walls,
then the exterior walls must do so. Note,
however, if the stalls are intended to
separate wet and dry 'areas or to
document that wastes' are accumulated
for less than 90 days, fhe stalls must be
constructed to fulfill their function under
normal operating conditions.
v. Standards for Doprs and Other
Openings. A related set of issues in the
proposed rule refers to specifications for
door and other wall openings used for
equipment and personnel. EPA proposed
that these doors and openings should be
capable of providing the same level of
structural support and containment as
the rest of the wall, and invited public
comment on specific standards for doors
and openings that are part of a wall
otherwise providing support and
containment of hazardous waste
managed within a containment building.
Today's rule departs somewhat from'
the proposed rale on these issues: In
response to many public comments, EPA
- is clarifying that doorsj and other
openings do not necessarily need to
meet the same structural standards as
walls. Depending.on the nature of the
wastes and the operations to be carried
out in a particular unitj a relatively light-
weight door may be adequate if; (1) It
provides an effective barrier that
controls fugitive dust emissions from the
unit to meet the ho Visible emissions
standard (see.§ 264.1101(c)(l)(iv) and
§ 265.1101(c)(l)(iv)), an'd (2) the unit is
designed and operated in a fashion that
assures that wastes will not actually
come in contact with the door. This
latter requirement could be satisfied, "in
many cases, by a set-bkck .of wastes
stored in the unit. As nbted above, these
requirements may be satisfied by either.
interior or exterior watys, subject to
constraints jjosed by the way .the waste
is managed, • . ! "
vi. Measures to Prevent Tracking. EPA
believes routine handling of hazardous
waste within many of these units
demands the frequent, if not constant.
presence of personnel and handling
equipment, e.g., front-end loaders,.
cranes. As such, particularly when the ,
hazardous waste includes small' ' '.
particulates or where handling of the
haz'ardous.waste generates dust, the
potential for tracking hazardous waste
out of the unit may be significant.
Therefore, EPA is requiring that the
owner/operatorensureith'e containment
of hazardous waste within the unit with '
appropriate measures to prevent this.
(See § 264.1101(c)(l)(iii) and
§ 265.1101(c)(l)(iii}.) Wash-down of
vehicles and equipment prior to exiting
the unit and dedicating vehicles and
equipment for the sole purpose of
operating within the unit are examples
of measures that owners/operators of
these units could take when the
potential exists for tracking of
hazardous waste out of the unit. In
addition, owner/operators must prevent
tracking of water or wet materials from
"wet" areas to "dry" areas.
vii. Control of Fugitive Dust
Emissions. Because of the dusty nature
of many of the hazardous wastes that
may be managed in these units and the .
dusty conditions that can be caused by
the handling of these wastes within the
. unit, EPA also is requiring that owner/
operators control fugitive dust emissions
during normal operating conditions. (See
§ 264.1101(c)(l)(iv) and
.§ 265.1101(c)(l)(iv).} EPA has revised
these requirements from the proposed
rule based on extensive public comment.
Today's rule provides substantial
additional flexibility to owner/operators
in how they may achieve the required
degree of control. However, EPA is also
specifying the standard more rigorously.
and clarifying the presumption that
owner/opera tors must install and ' '
.operate systems to control fugitive dust
emissions unless they can demonstrate
that the wastes to be managed in the
unit will not release significant amounts
of fine particulates from the building as
they are handled or treated.
The proposed rule required a system
whereby a negative pressure was
maintained within the unit and
particulates collected, e.g., by fabric
filter or electrostatic precipitator. In
response to public comments, today's
rule provides greater flexibility in
controlling fugitive dust, but more
specificity in the degree of control that
must be attained,
The final rule requires that there be no
visible emissions through any unit ., .... .-
openings: This-state of no visible ,-;
emissions must be maintained. . < •: ...
effectively at all times during routine
and operating and maintenance
conditions, including when vehicles and
personnel are entering and exiting the
containment building/This standard is
based on current standards required by
EPA's Air Office. A test method found in
40 CFR part 60 appendix A, Method 22—
Visual Determination of Fugitive
Emissions from Material Sources and
Smoke Emissions from Flares^-ca'n be •
used to determine compliance with the
no visible emissions requirement. It is a,
timed method where -an observer, using
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37217
a stopwatch, determines if for a given
period of time a source has visible
emissions. If used1 to meet these
standards, .negative pressure dust'
control systems should assure that the
. air flow through openings such as
windows and doors is inward at all
times. All dust control systems must be
operated and maintained in accordance
with sound air pollution control
practices (these practices are described
in more detail in 40 (5FR part 60, subpart
292).
Techniques other than the
maintenance of negative pressure may
be utilized where they can be shown to
maintain no visible emissions from
openings in the unit. The owner or
operator of a containment building is
required to maintain control of fugitive
dust emissions such that any unit
openings (e.g., doors, windows, seams,
vents, cracks, etc.) exhibit no visible
emissions outside the containment
building. Compliance with this
requirement may include such measures
as double door (airlock-type) entry
designs. All units must have the
certification of a professional engineer
that any dust control .system is designed
to achieve the no visible emissions
standard..
Notwithstanding any other ,
requirements of subpart DD of parts 264
and 265, if the method of controlling
fugitive dust emissions includes the
application of liquids, the Regional
Administrator has the discretion, to
waive the secondary containment
requirement for containment buildings
or areas of containment buildings where
liquids will be used to control dust or to
otherwise protect worker health and
safety in accordance with OSHA
requirements. (See § 264.1101(e) and
§ 265.1101{e).) EPA notes that the
application of free liquids alone may not
be sufficient to control fugitive dust
emissions. .
viii. Inspection Plan. To ensure the
unit is operating as designed, EPA is
requiring all owner/operators to have an
inspection plan for all containment
buildings that establishes an inspection
program that ensures maintenance of
the structural integrity of the unit and
prompt detection of any leaks or
releases to the air, ground, or water.
EPA is requiring an inspection schedule
for these units whereby, at least every
seven days, monitoring/leak detection
equipment, the containment building,
and the area surrounding the
containment building is cheeked to
ensure the .unit is being properly
operated and that no leaks/releases'
have occurred to the air, ground, or
water. (See § 264.1101(c)(4) and ,
§ 265.1101(c)(4).) This is consistent with
the existing inspection requirements for
drip pads and for liner and leak
detection systems. These observations
must be recorded in the facility's
operating record. In the event that a
condition is detected that has led or
could lead to a release of hazardous
waste, the owner or operator must
repair the condition within a reasonably
prompt time following discovery, in ;
accordance with the standard
procedures for similar units. (See §
264.1101(c)(3) and § 285.1101 (c)(3).)
In response to comments on these
inspection requirements, EPA points out
in today's rule that these weekly
inspections need not be unduly
burdensome. Electronic monitoring of
liquid in secondary containment
systems or of air pressure differentials
between the inside and outside of a
containment building are-examples of
relatively cost-effective monitoring
techniques.
ix. Engineering Certification. In the
proposed rule, EPA identified that it was
considering but was not proposing a
requirement for written certification by
an independent registered professional
engineer (e.g., one who is not an
employee of the company, or of its
parent or subsidiary.) The benefit of
such a certification would be to ensure
that any new or existing containment
building is designed and constructed
with sufficient structural integrity to
safely manage and contain the
hazardous waste. Public comment was
divided on the appropriateness of
requiring independent certification. EPA
has decided riot to require that this
' certification be made by an independent
professional engineer. Since
professional engineers are certified and
licensed by States and thus have a
substantial incentive to maintain their
professional reputation, a professional
engineer must certify that the
containment building has been designed
with sufficient structural integrity and is
acceptable for storing and treating
hazardous waste according to the
standards specified by EPA. The
assessment must show that the
foundation, structural support, primary
barrier, secondary containment system
(where required), fugitive dust control
system, and leak detection system are
designed to meet today's standards and
that the containment building has
sufficient structural strength and
compatibility with the waste to be
stored or treated. (See § 264.1101(c)(2)
and § 265.1101(c)(2).)
x. Temporary Containment Buildings.
Finally, EPA is aware that in situations
such as hazardous waste site
remediation efforts, appropriately
designed and operated containment
buildings could serve to enhance the .
performance of bioremediation
treatment technologies. It may not
always be'appropriate for containment
buildings intended for temporary use to
be constructed or operated in exactly
the fashion outlined in today's rule. EPA
plans to address temporary containment
buildings in a future rulemaking.
d. Closure Requirements. Today's rule
promulgates requirements for closure of
containment buildings that are.
consistent with the closure requirements
that apply to waste piles (§§ 264.258 and
265.258) and tanks [§§ 264.197 and
265.197). At closure, owners or operators
of both permitted and 90-day
containment buildings will be required
to clean close the units by removing all
hazardous waste from the containment
building and by removing or
decontaminating all hazardous waste
residues, contaminated containment
system components, contaminated
subsoils, and structures and equipment
. contaminated with Waste, and managing
them in accordance with the Subtitle C
regulations. If the unit containment
building cannot be clean closed, the unit
must satisfy the requirements for closure
that "apply to landfills under § 264.310 or
265.310. For a discussion of the
requirements for clean closure and the
"remove or decontaminate" standard,
see 52 FR 8504, March 19,1987.
Owner/operators of interim status
wa'ste piles"who wish to convert these
units to interim status containment
buildings need not necessarily clean
close their units prior to conversion;
closure requirements applicable to these
units may be deferred until closure of
the containment building.
5. Revised Definition of Pile
EPA today is revising the regulatory ,
definition of pile to exclude containmen
buildings. Specifically, EPA is revising
the definition of "pile" to explicitly
exclude containment buildings that
accumulate or treat prohibited wastes,
under the proposed requirements of
Parts 264 and 265. Although EPA has
previously classified all roofed
structures used to'manage dry wastes as
indoor waste piles, EPA believes-that •
there are distinctions between indoor
waste piles that constitute land
placement and containment buildings.
Most commenters generally supported
these changes'as proposed, although a
limited number of commenters
suggested that EPA revise the
definitions of "pile" and "tank" more
extensively. EPA may refine -those
definitions further in separate action at '
-------
37218
.Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18, 1992 / RulesandJRegulations
a later date, but EPA believes that the
definitions in today's rule (which are
substantially similar to those in the
proposed rule) identify the distinctions
between the various types of units with
sufficient clarity to indicate which are
land disposal and which aren't.
Under existing § 264.250, indoor waste
piles are required to exclude liquids or
material containing free liquids, be
protected from surface water run-on,
control dispersal of waste by means
other than wetting, and not generate
leachate through decomposition or other
reactions. In contrast, the containment
building design and operating standards
provide a higher level of containment
and are in many ways comparable to
RCRA tanks—that is, the hazardous
waste is contained during storage or
treatment. For example, containment
buildings must be fully enclosed, have
weight-bearing walls and floor systems
designed and constructed of materials to
prevent migration of hazardous
cohstituents, be equipped with a
secondary containment system in areas
where the hazardous waste contains
significant quantities of free liquids, and
be provided with fugitive dust emission
controls. Whereas containment
buildings are designed to manage
moisture associated with non-liquid
wastes, indoor waste piles are
• precluded from including any water
whatsoever.
6. Amendment of § 268.50 Storage
Prohibition and Permit Requirements
Under existing § 268.50, the storage of
hazardous wastes prohibited from land
disposal is also prohibited unless,
among other requirements, the waste is
stored in tanks or containers on site
solely for the purpose of the
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate recovery, treatment, or
disposal. At the time EPA adopted this
provision, tanks and containers were the
only types of storage units that did not
also involve land disposal, Under
today's rule, there will also be other
types of storage units (i.e., containment
buildings, subpart X storage units) not •
involving.land.d5sposal..There may also
be other types of miscellaneous storage
units in the future, which units would be
regulated .under subpart X. EPA is thus
promulgating this rule to conform
§ 268.50 to include these units.
modifications for waste piles by adding
an item which classifies a modification
to a waste pile to meet the standards for
a containment building as a Class 2
modification. EPA .believes that many
facilities will make modifications to
their permitted ^vaste piles to meet the
standards for containment buildings. For
more information on these permit
modification procedures, see 53 FR
37912, September 28,1988.
EPA is also amending section I of
appendix I of § 270.42 to add item 1.6,
which allows permitted facilities to
convert' existing waste piles to
containment buildings by submitting a
Class 2 modification to the Agency. EPA
believes that the public should have the
opportunity to cbmment on the
modification request, which the Class 2
procedures proyide. However, EPA
believes that this modification is not
significant enough to warrant the Class
3 procedures because the unit is an
existing unit, and the technical
standards are more stringent-for
containment buildings than for waste
piles. ' •
Some of the hazardous debris
treatment processes that were proposed
as BOAT under § 268.45 would take
place in units that EPA proposed to
define as containment buildings. To
assist in the development of treatment
capacity by permitted facilities to meet
the requirement^ of this rule, the Agency
proposed to change the criteria that
must be met to grant a temporary
authorization. Th'e existing regulation at
§ 270.42(e)(3)(ii)(B) allows approval of
the request if the activity is necessary to
treat or store restricted wastes in tanks
or containers in accordance with part
268. Today's rule amends these criteria
to include the treatment or storage of
hazardous debris in containment
buildings meeting the requirements in
proposed subpart DD, parts 264 and 265.
8. Amendments to the Change During
Interim Status •Procedures in § 270.72
7. Amendments to the Permit
Modification Procedures in § 270.42
Today's rule also amends appendix I-
of § 270.42 by adding section M which
will classify permit modifications
involving containment buildings. In
addition, tpday's rule amends the
Section 270.72(b) (6) lifts the .
reconstruction limit for changes to treat
Or store in tanks and containers
hazardous waste [subject to land
'disposal restrictions imposed by part
268, provided thaj: such changes are
made solely for the purpose of
complying with part 268. EPA believes .
that this change should also apply to
treatment of storage of hazardous
wastes in containment buildings.
Today's" rule amends § 27p.72(b)(6) to
make treatment or storage in
containment buildings as regulated
under subpart DD, parts 264 and 265,
exempt from the reconstruction limit.
9. Amendment of § 268.7 Waste
Analysis and Recordkeeping.
Requirements
Today's rule amends § 268.7 Waste
Analysis and Recordkeeping
requirements to include the management
or treatment of prohibited waste in
containment buildings.
10. Revision of § 260.10 Definition of
Miscellaneous Unit
Today's rule also makes a conforming
change to the § 260.10 definition of a
miscellaneous unit by excluding
containment buildings from that
definition.
H. Retrofitting Surface Impoundments
Under Land Disposal Restrictions
1. Regulatory Background
On February 4,1992, EPA proposed a
rule reconciling apparent conflicts in
statutory language regarding surface
impoundments receiving newly
identified and listed prohibited
hazardous wastes that have not been
treated to mee't a treatment standard (57
. FR 4170). EPA is taking final action on
that proposal in this FR Notice because
the issue is relevant to wastes '
(particularly F037/F038) for which
standards are being adopted today.
(EPA also discussed this issue in the
proposal to this, rule at 57 FR 999-1000.)
a. Issue. EPA has identified a conflict
in the Resource Conservation and
Recovery-Act (RCRAJ concerning the.
deadline by which surface
impoundments managing wastes that
are both newly identified or listed as
hazardous (i.e., identified or listed after
the date of enactment of HSWA) and
prohibited from land disposal must
come into compliance with the minimum
technological requirements .(MTRs) of
section 3004 (o)(l)(A) and 3005(j)(l). The
MTRs require surface impoundments to
have a double liner with a leak
detection system, and a ground-water
monitoring system.1 In a typical
situation, an impoundment will be
receiving a. hazardous, prohibited
wastewater or generating a hazardous,
prohibited sludge in the impoundment.
These wastes .typically will not meet
treatment standards when placed in
impoundments. The statutory conflict
arises because one .set of-provisions
states that impoundments can receive
1 EPA has stated that land disposal facilities
newly regulated under subtitle C of RCRA as a
result of a newly identified or listed hazardous" •
waste must install a ground-water monitoring
system within one year of the effective date of the
listing or characteristic rule (55 FR 39409. September
27.1990). This deadline will not change as a result
of this final rule. •
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37219
'• untreated prohibited wastes only if they
meet MTRs. Moreover, it is assumed.
that the -lack of MTR impoundments
creates, a; shortage of treatment capacity,
justifying a variance. A further potential
problem exists because normally only
MTR impoundments are allowed to
receive restricted-wastes subject to
capacity variances. On,.the other hand, a
different statutory provision allows
impoundments up to four years to
achieve compliance with MTRs (or to
close). The conflict arises if the LDR
prohibitions come into play before this
four-year period expires.,'
. We now describe the relevant.
statutory provisions in more detail.
Section 3005(j)(6) allows a four-year
compliance period for meeting the
surface impoundment MTRs after the
promulgation of additional listings or
characteristics of hazardous waste. At
the end of the four-year period, the
impoundment must either meet MTRs or
cease receiving, treating, or storing
hazardous waste (referred to as
"closing" in this discussion). (Thus
impoundments newly in the system are
given the sdme four years to retrofit or
close that existing impoundments
receive. Section 3005(j)(l).) Congress
thus acknowledged that retrofitting or
closure is not a quick process, but rather
one that requires time, thus tempering
the need to protect the environment with
an acknowledgement that there must be
a reasonable period for changing '
operations.2
Section 3004(g)(4) requires EPA to
prohibit newly identified or listed .
hazardous wastes from land disposal
(i.e., promulgate treatment standards for
all such wastes not disposed in no
migration units) within six months of the
date of the new listing or characteristic.
Section 3004(h)(4), which also deals with
land disposal restrictions, states that
during a national capacity variance
(which EPA.issues if sufficient treatment.
capacity is unavailable nationwide) or
case-by-case extension period (for
individual facilities demonstrating that
they are unable to find existing
treatment but have a binding
contractual commitment to provide
treatment capacity), wastes not meeting
the treatment standards may be placed
2 Section 3005fj) is actually a series of deadlines
connected with the retrofitting of surface
impoundments. For those units that undoubtedly
have to retrofit, the time period is four years, while
those that may qualify for variances pre subject to
interim deadlines for application and action on the
variance request, and then a period, if the variance
is denied, to retrofit within the time remaining in the
four-year period. There are also retrofit deadlines
for units initially granted variances, but later found
to be leaking. These units are given shorter periods
(two or three years depending on the variance), but
this is appropriate where there is an actual leak.
in a surface impoundment only if the
impoundment is in compliance with the
MTRs.3 Mobil Oil Corp. v. EPA, 871 F.2d
149 (B.C. Cir. 1989), Finally, section
3005(j)(ll) states that only surface
impoundments meeting MTRs, and that
. are dredged annually, may receive
prohibited wastes that have hot yet met
a treatment standard. •• '•'.'•
As noted above, these provisions
raise two sources of potential conflict. .
The first is how long non-MTR
impoundments can continue to receive
prohibited wastes (i.e., wastes not -
meeting a treatment standard and for •
which there is no capacity variance).
Section 3005{j)(6) indicates four years
while section 3005(j)(ll) does not allow
it. A second conflict occurs for
impoundments managing wastes
granted a national capacity variance or '
case-by-case extension when-treatment
standards are promulgated, because it is
unclear whether surface impoundments
must be in compliance with the MTRs at
that time (per section 3004(h)(4)) or four
years after the promulgation of the new
listing or characteristic.
b. History. This conflict was not
apparent when Congress enacted the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) or when
EPA first implemented the land disposal
restrictions, even though the earliest
land disposal restrictions dates (24
months from the enactment of HSWA
for solvents and dioxins and 36 months
for the California list wastes) would
appear to cut short the November 8,1988
retrofit deadline (four years after HSWA
enactment) for interim status surface
impoundments if they received wastes
for which 'EPA granted a capacity
variance. The issue did not arise
because EPA interpreted section 3004(h)
differently at that time; rather than
requiring an individual unit receiving
restricted waste to meet the MTRs, EPA
required only those units within the
same facility that were otherwise
subject to the MTRs to be in compliance.
As a practical matter, that meant that
only new, replacement, or expansion
units had to meet the MTRs.
In the August 17,1988 rule
promulgating the land disposal :
restrictions for the First Third Scheduled
Wastes (53 FR 31138), EPA changed its
interpretation to require individual units
to comply with the MTRs. That
reinterpretation became effective four
years after the enactment of HSWA and
was upheld in Mobil Oil Corp. v. EPA,
3 RCRA sections 3004(h)(2) and 3'004(h)(3) restrict
the duration of national capacity variances and
case-by-case extensions to a maximum of four
years. If capacity becomes available sooner, it must
be used.
871 F.2d 149 (D.C. Cir. 1989). There was
no conflict at that time because the four-
year retrofitting period ended at the
same time that the revised interpretation
took effect.
The conflict was mentioned in the
Third Third proposal (54 FR 48499,
Npvember. 22,.1989), which stated that if
EPA issues a capacity variance for
newly identified or listed hazardous
wastes, it would have to reconcile the
differences in sections 3005(j)(6) and *
3004(h)(4). (The notice did not allude to
potential conflicts with section
3005(j)(ii) because it was assumed that
the' lack'of MTR impoundments would
give rise to circumstances justifying
capacity variances, triggering the
potential conflict with section
3004(h)(4)rj Several commenters
responded to this issue. Some stated
that section 3005(j)(6) explicitly afforded
four years to retrofit surface
impoundments newly brought under
subtitle C regulation. Another
commented that the four years provided
to retrofit surface impoundments
managing regulated mineral processing
wastes may not be adequate, and that
the schedule should be determined site-
specifically. • '
Others disagreed, however, that a
conflict exists between sections
3004(h)(4) and 3005(j)(6). They argued
.that: (1) EPA's interpretation of section
3004(h)(4), rather than any inherent flaw
in the statute, led to the apparent
"conflict," and (2) the general language
of section 3004(h)(4) cannot override the
specific language of section 3005(j)(6),
wherein the issue of newly identified or
listed hazardous waste is addressed
directly. EPA did not resolve this issue
in the final Third Third land disposal
restrictions rule, but rather left it for
later resolution. EPA is taking this
opportunity to resolve the conflict.
2. Agency Interpretation
a. How long can impoundments
continue to be used to receive or
generate newly identified orJisted
hazardous wastes? The first set of
provisions potentially in%onflict are
3005(j)(6) and 30p5(j)(ll). As noted
above, one provision allows four years
to retrofit or close an impoundment, the
other says that only MTR impoundments
can receive prohibited wastes not
meeting a treatment standard. Once
EPA promulgates a treatment standard,
the question is whether a non-MTR
impoundment can receive prohibited
wastewaters, and continue to generate
prohibited sludges, i.e., whether these
wastes can continue to,be land disposed
(section 3004(k)) within the non-MTR
impoundment, assuming, as is almost
-------
37220
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
certain, that the wastes do not meet the
treatment standard when they are
disposed in the impoundment.4
As noted below, the same question
arises if one assumes that lack of
existence of MTR impoundments
triggers capacity variances, because
§ 268.5{h) (codifying section 3004(h) (4))
indicates that only MTR impoundments
are eligible to receive the restricted
wastes subject to the variance
(assuming impoundments disposal).
EPA believes that this' set of
provisions is in conflict, since any other
reading means that Congress gave a
four-year window for continued non-
MTR impoundment use with one hand,
and snatched it away with the other by
means of section 300S(j)(ll).s The
Agency is resolving this conflict by
allowing interim status surface
impoundments a four-year period (from
the effective date of the waste
identification or listing) to continue
using the impoundment to receive
prohibited wastewaters and generate
prohibited sludges. This allows the
period Congress appeared to deem
typically necessary to close or retrofit
an impoundment (see also section
3005(j)(l) where Congress provided the
same four-year period for impoundments
managing wastes identified or listed as
* The Agency adheres to Its consistently held
vlow that wastes generated In surface
Impoundments are land disposed within the
meaning of section 3004{k). The Land Disposal
Restrictions for Solvents and Dloxlns final rule.
which l
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37221
closure, commenters pointed out
(correctly) that this would entail
removal not only of accumulated.
sludges but subsurface contaminated
soils as well which are not the focus of
the, treatment requirements, and that ,
forcing clean closure could interfere
with otherwise available'and potentially
more cost-effective types of .closure
options. .' .
EPA finds many of these comments
persuasive and believes that the
following interpretation best resolves
these issues. First, EPA is not
interpreting these provisions as
necessitating annual dredging of
accumulated sludges, Either the
impoundment will close in a short time
(no more than four years), or it will be
retrofitted and become subject to the
annual dredging requirement in section
3005(j)(ll) (as implemented by
§ 268.4(a)(2)(ii)). If the impoundment
closes, EPA is interpreting the
provisions to allow closure with wastes
in place (unless the unit operator
chooses to clean close the
impoundment). Thus, under this reading,
continued use of the impoundment
would be allowed during the four-year
retrofit/closure period (as explained in
section 1 above), use of the
impoundment during that time would
not be disrupted by a dredging
requirement, and the impoundment
would be alloAved 'to close with wastes
in place. These are the same options
that were available to impoundments in
1984 managing wastes already identified
or listed as hazardous.
3. Technical Analysis
a. Introduction. .Owners or operators
of surface impoundments managing
newly listed or characteristic hazardous
wastes have several options for
complying with the minimum
technological requirements. Facilities .
may retrofit the surface impoundments
with liners and leak detection systems
in compliance with the requirements of
section 3004(o)(l)(A)(i). Alternatively,
facilities may replace their treatment
surface impoundments with wastewater
treatment tanks regulated under the
Clean Water, Act or may opt to close the
surface impoundments and send the
waste off-site. -
EPA believes that very few facilities
managing newly regulated wastes in
surface impoundments will choose to
retrofit their impoundments. For
example, the Chemical Manufacturers
Association (CMA) conducted an
informal survey of 582 chemical
manufacturing facilities in the fall of
1989 to obtain information about the
management of "non-hazardous wastes."
in surface impoundments. Twenty-seven
facilities reported that 85 surface
impoundments would be newly •
regulated as a result of the Toxicity
Characteristic rule (55 FR11798, March
29,1990);, of these 85, only 9 would be
retrofitted with liners and leak detection
systems. Replacing surface
impoundments with tank systems was- •
the most frequently planned method of
compliance for the respondents to this •
survey. Past experience also indicates
that surface impoundment owners or
operators are more likely to replace
their surface impoundments with tank .
systems than to retrofit the
impoundments. RCRA section 3005(j)(l)
required surface impoundments that
were in existence and that qualified for
interim status on the date of enactment
of HSWA to come into compliance with
the MTRs by November 8,1988. Most
facilities with surface impoundments
replaced their impoundments with tanks
in response to this deadline. Less than
five percent of these facilities actually
retrofitted their surface impoundments.
To support today's rulemaking, EPA
undertook an analysis to determine how
much time is needed for owners or
operators of newly regulated surface
impoundments to comply with the MTRs
either by replacing the impoundments
with wastewater treatment tanks
exempt from RCRA subtitle C standards,
or .by retrofitting the surface
impoundments with liners and leak
detection systems according to the
requirements of section 3004(o)(l)(A)(i).
EPA collected information from a
variety of sources, including facilities
that have implemented these practices
in the past or plan to do so in the future
(e.g., in response to the TC), tank
manufacturers, and engineers. The
results were summarized in the
proposed rule (57 FR 4170), and are
available in the background document.8
4. Conclusion
EPA found that the time needed to'
comply with the.MTRs varies
considerably based on case-by-case
factors'(e.g., current waste management
practices, land availability) and regional
factors (e.g., climate). According to
8 It should be noted that the potential statutory .'
conflict at issue in this'rulemaking is most
immediately relevant to wastes newly regulated as
a result of the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule (55
FR 11798, March 29,1990). According to the
regulatory impact analysis for the TC, about
730,000,000 metric tons per year of wastewaters
managed in surface impoundments at over 2,000
facilities are estimated to exhibit the TC (U.S. EPA.
OSW. U.S. EPA Background-Document. Toxicity
Characteristic Regulatory Impact Analysis. Final
Report. March 1990). This potential conflict will also
arise with respect to all future newly identified or
listed hazardous wastes; however, the TC rule is
used as an example throughout this section:
EPA's information sources, six months
appears not to be enough time to either
retrofit a surface impoundment or
replace the impoundment with a
wastewater treatment tank. Replacing a
surface impoundment with a tank
frequently takes two to four years, and
retrofitting a surface impoundment .
frequently takes two to three years.
EPA believes that most interim status
surface impoundments managing wastes
newly identified or listed as hazardous
will be ables to comply with the surface
impoundment MTRs-within four years of'
the date promulgating the listing or
characteristic. Thus, the four-year period
allowed in section 3005(j)(B) is a
, reasonable period within which to come
into compliance.
V. Detailed Discussion of Final Rule:
Hazardous Debris
A. Overview
The Agency is today promulgating a
final rule for the treatment of hazardous
.debris. Until today, debris destined for
land disposal that was contaminated
with a prohibited RCRA hazardous
waste or that exhibited a prohibited
RCRA hazardous characteristic was :
subject to the treatment standard for
that listed waste or characteristic. See,
e.g., 55 FR 22649 and RCRA sections
3004 (d)(3) and (e)(3J. Although
hazardous waste debris (as well as
contaminated media) is subject to the
LDR prohibitions, there is no
requirement that it have the, same
treatment standards as the wastes with
which it is contaminated. Indeed,.
because 'hazardous debris may be a
matrix significantly different from the
underlying prohibited waste, it is
appropriate as a technical matter to
determine whether different treatment
standards were appropriate.
Today, EPA is promulgating treatment
. standards for hazardous debris '
prohibited from land disposal. Under
today's rule, hazardous debris must be"
treated by specified technologies based
on the type of debris and type of
contaminant(s) present or, as an
alternative, meet the LDRs for the
specified prohibited listed or
characteristic waste with which it is
contaminated. • : '..•'.v
EPA has specified a number of BOAT
technologies for hazardous debris, with
the choice of technology left up,to the
generator and/or treater managing the
waste. The technologies include widely
used treatment methods. EPA thus .
believes that it is preserving in this rule
as much flexibility for the treatment'of
hazardous debris as possible. •
-------
37222 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
Prohibited hazardous debris is defined
generally as solid material (that is not a
process waste) having a particle size of
60 mm or larger and that is intended for
land disposal and exhibits a prohibited
characteristic of hazardous waste or
that is contaminated with a prohibited
listed hazardous waste. Hazardous
debris must be treated by one of the
specified treatment technologies for
each "contaminant subject to treatment"
defined as: (1) The BDAT constituents
for the listed waste that are subject to
land disposal restriction standards (as
found in § 268.41 and 268,43); and (2) the
RCRA hazardous waste constituent(s)
for which the hazardous debris fails the
Extraction Procedure toxicity-
characteristic, in addition to any other.
characteristic which causes the debris to
be hazardous (i.e.. ignitability,
reactivity). As an alternative, the
generator of the hazardous debris may
choose to treat the hazardous debris .to
the existing waste-specific treatment
standards for the waste contaminating
the debris. However, in choosing this
alternative, the generator or treater
would be required to sample and
analyze the treated debris to ensure
compliance with the treatment
standards prior to disposal in a Subtitle
C land disposal unit/
To-ensure effective treatment, the
treatment unit would be required to -
meet performance standards or design
and operating conditions specified in die
rule. In addition, the treatment unit
would generally be subject to the Part
264 and 265 standards for treatment
facilities to ensure protection of human
health and the environment.
The rule addresses not only the issue
of when hazardous debris is sufficiently
treated, but the farther question of when
it is a hazardous waste. Under the rule,
treated hazardous debris would be -
excluded from the definition of
hazardous waste provided that: (l)The
debris is treated to the performance or
design and operating standards by an
extraction or destruction technology
rather than an immobilization
technology 8; and (2) the treated debris
does not exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste. If an immobilization '
technology is used, the treated debris
would not be automatically deemed a
nonhazatdous waste. In addition, the
j Agency coalddetennine on a case-by-
I case basis under today's rule that "debrisi
no longer "contains1; hazardous waste
' In lhoPk»«»lI land disposal restrictions rule,
Ihe Agency wiU reopen, ud request comment on the
isHue of whether Immobilized debris should be
excluded from SubUUe C regulation. (See discussion '
In Section VJJ.2.)
and is excluded from Subtitle 6
regulation.
Residuals generated by the treatment
of hazardous debris are subject to the
numerical treatment standards for the
waste contaminating the debris.
B. Definitions of Debris and Hazardous
Debris '••
1. Definition of Debris
, EPA is today defining debris as solid
material exceeding 60 mm (2.5 inch)
particle size thai is: (1) A manufactured
object; or (2) plant or animal matter; or
(3) natural geologic material (e.g.,
cobbles and boulders), except that any
material for which a specific treatment
standard is. provided in Subpart D, part
268, is not debris.10 A mixture of debris
and other material such as soil or sludge
is also subject tcj regulation as debris if
the mixture is comprised primarily of •
debris by volume, based on visual
inspection. Process residuals such as
smelter slag and| residues from the
treatment of waste (e.g., incinerator
ash), wastewater, sludges, or. air
emissions residues (e.g., collected
particulate matter) are hot debris. We
discuss below th'at debris must be
intended for discard (i.e., rather than
continued use), that debris must be a
solid material, th'e rationale .for selecting
a 60 mm particle [size criterion for debris
(i.e., as opposed to the 9.5 mm particle
size proposed) and for applying the size
criterion to all debris (i.e., not just to
geologic materials as proposed), the
rationale for regulating as debris
mixtures of primarily debris and other
materials, the rationale for not
regulating process residuals as debris,
and the rationale! for regulating
nonempty containers as hazardous •
waste subject to J2xisting LDRs rather
than as debris. !
a. Debris Must Be Discarded or
Intended for Discard. Debris must of
.course be either a solid waste or media
(e.g., boulders) th'at .is discarded or
intended for discard to be subject to the
treatment standards in today Is rule.
Those commenters on the proposed rule
expressing concern that the proposed
rule in some wayjvitiated (or was
intended to vitiate) this basic principle
were mistaken. This means that such
materials that might at some later time
become debris, such as equipment or
building structures, but that are still in
use are not subject to the.treatment
standards. Such in-use material is not a,
solid waste because it has not been
discarded or intended for discard, as
these terms ace used in § 261.33 (i.e.,
likely abandoned, as defined in § 261.2"
(a)(2)(i)and(b)) .
Media debris (e.g., boulders) is also
not subject to regulation as solid waste
unless discarded or intended for discard
and so is not automatically subject to
the treatment standards.
Once debris becomes a solid waste by
virtue of being discarded (including
media debris that becomes subject to
regulation as solid waste by virtue of
being discarded), it is not necessarily
subject to the treatment standards. For
example, contaminated debris that is
not actively managed after the effective
date of the prohibitions (i.e., the
effective date of the LDRs for the
hazardous waste contaminating the
debris] would not be subject to the
standards. See 53 FR 31148 (Aug. 17,
1988). On the other hand, debris which
is contaminated with hazardous waste
disposed before the hazardous waste
. listing effective date and which is
actively managed is subject to the
prohibitions and so would have to be
treated to satisfy the treatment
. standards promulgated today before the
debris could be land disposed (assuming
disposal will not occur in a no-niigration
unit). Chemical Waste Management v.
EPA, 869 F. 2d 1526 (D.C. Cir.. 1989).
b. Debris Must Be a Solid Material.
The rule defines debris as a "solid
material." This means solid in a literal
sense as defined in a common
dictionary. A solid material is a material
that retains its volume at room
temperature without the need for
support by a container. Examples of
solid materials that are debris if
intended for discard and if their particle
size is 60. mm (2.5 inches) or greater
include: (1) Glass; (2) concrete
(excluding cementitious or pozzolanic
stabilized hazardous wastes); (3)
masonry and refractory bricks; {4)
nonintact containers J1 e.g., crushed
drums); (5) tanks; (6) pipes, valves*
appliances; or industrial equipment; (7J
scrap metal (as defined in 4Q CFR
261.1(c){6}); (8} animal carcasses; (9) tree
stumps and other plant matter; (10) rock
(e.g., cobbles and boulders); and (11)
paper, plastic, and rubber. Not only is
defining debris as solid material in
accord with the common-sense view of
what debris is, but, more importantly, it
is geared to the treatment standards
adopted today that ensure effective
decontamination Of solid materials by
removal or destruction of hazardous
waste. Clearly, if a liquid could be
>0 For example, lead acid or cadmium batteries
are not debris- because they are subject to specific
treatment standards under 5 26&.42.
11 See discussion in section V.B.l.f of the text.
regarding regulation of Intact and nonintact
containers. •
-------
ifedetal Register J Vagi. 37,, JMo. see if BHiesday, August aa, 3992 / Stales amd Regulations
.
contamination does not s
taf
to remove
material, itanajrhazaEdoHS.-debriB)prior .to treatment
of the«dflbids, they must be managed as
: hazardous swastel) liquids that are
entraj}pedimddebri8*vill be.effectiverj
treated under .todaytsjtreatment
standards &r«.extiaction'Or destruction "
technologies. Jf.ansextraction technology
is used, 'the. toxic iceastituents in the
liquid .will be removed from the debris
as a«teeatmerrt residue and is suhject.to
the LDRs for the waste contaminating
the debris. .If a destruction technology is
used, .*he.toxic,constituents in the liquid
should be destroyed.
'Wejiote,?however; thatdebris that is
immobilized '.prior to iand .filling may oioi
contain free Mquids,as provided by
§§ 264.314 and.265.314. Thus, free liquids
(including liquids anicnished containers)
cannot .be ^present-in debris ,that is •
macEoeiacapsulated^or .sealed, -and
cannot be present indebris that has
been micorencqpsulated.
c. Debris Has a Particle Size Larger
Than BO, mm. Today's rule defines debris
as.8oh'd.material ,with,a particle size-of
60 mm,(2.5.inches),or .greater. We
discuss below the rationale for
increasing the particle size to>60 mm
from the proposed 9.5 mm particle size,
the rationale for .applying the size
criterion to all debris, xtot just to
geologic matter as (proposed, the
rationale I or deHning 60 mm or larger
clumps of Itae-Tgrainedjnaterials (e.g.,
dumps, of compacted.clay}.asjnondebris
material,, and how the particle size
criterion is to.be implemented.
(1) Rationale for increasing the
Particle Sizemmt{8 inches) because:
(1) It is a commonly used sieve size mat
is commercially available, (2) it would
define,as:soil-pebbles and smaller
particles, and define as debris cobbles
-14 We note that numerous commentere were
concerned that.the proposed particle size criterion
of 9.5 mm would.inappropriately define most soil as
debris.!(Weinote'further!that the proposed rule
could have been interpreted to define as debris
geologic material that was comprised of only one
particle (B.-g.. -a rack): with -a particle size of 9.5 mm
or greater. Thus",*fine.gram soil containing one 9.5
mmiDr greater-sized rock could have been
considered.debris, .fie.final rule .addresses mixtures
by-defming as debris mixtures of primarily debris
with othermaterials. See discussion in the text in
Section V^.l.d). ...
and boulders " an accord bom rwitb
common understanding rand •vrtih
mateidafeanokt^amenable to?eifectn?e
treafaneat'byrmpEmethodsadopled
today;'ands(a) itaneets Hre Criteria
discussed ai>o»Er(e^.,:smaller particle
sizematerial'can ire raadily sampled *to
document compliance with the
numerical JUR tneatmentBtandards for
the waste contaminating the material);1?
In addition; ibis size abject is normally
readily amenable to effective treatment
by me methods specified in today'B;rule.
' (2) Rationale :for ftpplyhig the Particle
SizeCriterionto AllDebris. The Agency
has broadened the particle «ize test 'to '
apply to^ll'Sebris, ndt just to geologic
debris as proposed. We believe that the
reasons •enumerated above for
increasing the 'particle size to 60 mm
apply equally to-applying the particle
size to all debris (e.g., small particle size
objects—e.g., glass, metal .fragments-
can be readily sampled representatively
to document compliance with the LDRs
for the wa^te contaminating the
material).
(3) Compacted Clumps of Sine
Grained Materials are not Defined as
Debris. The Agencyis basing the size
criterion on the particle size of the solid
material rather than the sieve size to
ensure-that:60 mm (or larger) "compacted
clumps ;of materials with a particle size
less man'60 mm fare not defined as
de'bris.'The most common example is
. ;clayey soil. Clay particles are extremely
cohesive and can form clumps during
normal excavation and handling
operations. The contaminateddebris
treatment methods are not intended to
clean clumps of clay. Clumps of •
agglomerated clay soil are subject to the
treatment standards for the waste
contaminating the soil.
In addition, the Agency is concerned
that generators may'have the incentive
to intentionally agglomerate small
particle size materials (e.g., soil or even
manufactured materials) so that they
would meet the definition of debris'and
so be excluded from regulation under
subtitle C upon treatment by an
extraction or destruction technology. If
such contaminated materials were not
16 SeettheMay 11.1992,.memorandum from Kerry
.Rice, Radian to Mark-Mercer, EPA, entitled
"Particle Size Definitions and Sieve'S(zesM; and the
May IB, 1992,'memorandum from Peter Shields,
Radian, toiMaric Mercer,SPA. entitled '.'Sieves with
Openings Greater than Four Inches". :
18 We-note that the Agency is considering
. proposing Phase II land disposal restrictions-thai
would establish treatment standards for
: contaminated soil. In that proposal.-thc Agency-is
considering requesting, comment in particular on
whether soils with-a particle size between 8.5 mm ;
and 60 mm can be effectively treated under 1hose
• proposed standards.
-------
37224 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday, JAugust 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
regulated as debris, they would be
subject to the LDRs for the waste
contaminating them and would remain
subject to subtitle C regulation after
treatment. Basing the size criterion on
particle size rather than sieve size
precludes the potential for such sham
activities.
(4) Implementation of the Particle Size
Criterion. To make today's rule
workable, equipment operators need to
bo able to determine quickly whether
material being remediated is debris or,
nondebris (e.g., soil, waste). In some
, cases, the determination will vary from
one front end loader bucketfull of
material to another. Accordingly, the
Agency intends for the size criterion to
be implemented by visual observation.
Screening is not required. If screening is"
used, however, the screen may be either
a square grid with openings 60 mm on a
side or a circular grid with circles with a
60 mm diameter.
(d) Waste for Which a Specific
Treatment Standard Has Been
Established is not Debris. There is one
further exception to this definition of
debris. EPA is indicating that debris-like
material for which the Agency has
promulgated a specific treatment
standard is not considered to be debris.
The reason is that the Agency will have
determined that specific treatment
standards are appropriate for the
material, rather than the assortment of
technologies adopted for debris
generally. See 57 FR 983 c.3 (Jan. 9,
1992).
The chief examples of a material
subject to a specific treatment standard
rather than the general debris standards
are lead acid batteries and cadmium
batteries. EPA has promulgated a
treatment standard of metal recovery for
each of these materials. See § 268.42.
Thus, this more specific treatment
standard takes precedence over the
more general debris standard adopted
today.1*
d. Mixtures of Debris with bther
Materials are Subject to Regulation as
Debris if Debris is the Primary Material
Present. A further issue needing to be
addressed is the status of mixtures of
debris and other materials such as soils
or sludge. This situation arises often,
particularly in remedial situations where
debris is rarely present in a pristine
state. Since the. treatment standards for
debris and other materials—sludge or •
contaminated soil—differ, the issue of
classification is an important one. In
developing a means of classification, the
Agency on the one hand [is seeking to
prevent the debris classification from
invariably overriding the1 treatment
standards for other hazardous wastes.
On the other hand, it is important to
have a means of classification that is
easy to apply by equipment operators in
•the field.
The Agency has therefore decided to
classify 18 as debris any ^mixture where
the debris portion comprises the largest
amount of material present by .volume,
to be determined by visual inspection.19
Thus, for example, if upoii examination,.
a mixture of cobbles (i.e.i with.a particle
size of 60 mm or more), spil, and sludge
is comprised mostly of cobbles; the :
mixture is classified as debris. After
, being treated by one of the treatment
methods for debris promulgated in
.today's rule, it could then be land
disposed. (Residues from! applying the
treatment method could be land ,
disposed after being treated to meet the .
treatment standards for the prohibited
waste contaminating the [debris.)
The definition of debris encompasses .
this classification principle by stating
that "A mixture of debris and other •
material such as soil or sludge isralso
debris if the mixture is comprised
primarily of debris by volume, based on
visual inspection." It should be clear
from this discussion that [the rale does
not require debris and nondebris
materials to be separated prior to
treatment (an unintended implication of
the proposed rule). Rather, mixtures are
either classified as debris or some other
type of waste treatabilityj group ,
according to the classification test
discussed above.
We note that the" "primary' material"
test for classifying debris1 does not apply
to intact, nonempty containers. Given
that such containers are not debris -(see
discussion below in section V.B.l.f).and
can be readily separated from debris (or
" A number of commonters questioned the
Juriidictlontl basis for regulating batteiy plates and
groups from lend add batteries as "solid wastes"
subject to subtitlo C regulation. EPA adheres to the
response set out at 57 FR 000-861 In the proposed
rule.
18 We note that although such Imixtures are
classified as debris and are subject to'ihe debris
treatment standards, if the nondebris materials are '
separated from the debris prior to treatment by K
specified technology, the separated material is no •
longer classified as debris. If the separated material
is a hazardous waste (or soil contaminated with a
hazardous waste), it is subject to the waste-specific
treatment standards. When treatment residue (i.e.,
•soil, waste, or other nondebris mkterial) is '
separated from treated.debris as [required
-------
Eaferai fegister / Veil. 57. -Np. ISO.../ Tuesday. Attgnst H'8. .€992 ./ .Rules and Jtegilations
vsndJ the equipment -was used
to treat wastes -or xiraistewaters. The
conmienterB are correct A discarded
pump orfihsr uaedtotoeat a-waste is
debris, but'JhVwaBtepranped or.filtered
is not debris. AltboughfsomE-filtered or
pumped waste Jwillacontanimate >the .
pump ?or filter ((indeed, lhat as >the ijasis
for sabjentiiig4he ;filter:oT;pnmp io -the
treaa±meiit.standards),rthe contaminated
pumpsor filter swill ^virtually always be
comprised primarily of kde'btis .rather
than waste and so would be .classified
as debris.
~ f. Intact Containers Are Not Debris. A
nuntber;of .connnenters lequested
comment on the relationship between
the proposed treatment standards for
debris and She B6-called:empty
container-rule to Ǥ 261*7. Thai-rule states
in essence 'that wilh respect "to
containers holding hazardous waste,
what is regulated is the hazardous
waste in the coirtainer.andnotthe
container itself. Thus, empty containers
are not regulated, and Unhazardous
wastes in nonempty containers are. An
empty container is one from which all
hazardous wastesJhave been removed
using practices rcommonly .utilized for
waste removal, and to which not more
than 2.5 centimeters* of waste remains.
(Slightly different tests apply to
containers holding .acutely .hazardous
wastes.)
Since containers are potentially a
form of idebris, there is;a question
whether either empty or nonempty
containers are subject .to the'treatment
standards, for debris notwithstanding
§ 261.7. EPA is indicating in this rule '.
that the debris treatment standards do
not override the empty container rule, so '
that rule remains in effect. EPA is taking
this step'largelybecauseit did not
propose the issue for comment, and any
fundamental changes to theai).'slf nonempty, the hazardous
waste within fee container is subject -to
the land disposal prohibitions :(as well
as the rest of «ubtitleJC regulations).
EPA also doesinatfconsiderintact tanks
to be debris, so featany-hazardous
wastes in tanles waald be subject to the
standards for those-wastes, not
(rxlteirtiatty) toteatment standards for
debris.
It should-be noted, however, .that ERA
is reading the empty container rule hi
§ 261.7 to apply to intact containers. The
Agency is doing so because theiruie was
clearly intended for devices that
function asjconiaineis, not for crumpled
drums that are not easily emptied by
normal means. .See ,§ 261.7(b){l}(i). .
Nonfunctional containers are more
naturally .classifiable as.debris and the
treatment standards adopted today ace
appropriate lor .such damaged
containers l>eing disposed.
• By "intact•.container", the Agency
means a container that .can still function
as a container. The. Agency ^believes that
a container that is .unbroken and.still
retains at least 75% of its original
holding capacity (i.e., has not been
crushed more .than. 25%) is still intact.
The Agency selected the 75% criterion
because: (1) It is within A reasonable
range of 50% toSD%; (2) selecting an
original volume criterion on the .high end
of the .range (e.g., 90%) .would result in
containers containing large quantities of
waste being considered debris even
though the containers could be readily
separated from debris; and (3) selecting '
an-original volume criterion on the low
end of-the .range (e^., 50%) would
subject the waste in containers that
have ..been severely crushed to the
treatment-standards for the waste. This
would require removal of ;ihe waste irom
the container for treatment .which may
be impracticable for severely crushed
containers.- .
Finally, it should be noted that by
observing the empty container rule, EPA
is creating;a lirnitediexception to the
nonsegsegation .principle discussed
above.-In situations where .intact
containers are mixed with true debris
(Le., materials classified as debris under
today!s rule), the intact-containers thus
would have to-.be removed and managed
separately. •
The following example indicates how
these principles would apply..At a
remediation site, ruptured drums are
discovered still containing.eome
prohibited hazardous waste. Mixed in
with these drums.are other drums some
of which ;are mot significantly damaged
or crumpled and aLLsiill contain
prohibited .hazardous wastes. All of
these drums are going to be disposed of
off site. '
Under today's rule, the ruptured
drums are. debris .'(broken or ruptured
containers are ;always debris >.if
contaminated with prohibited waste)
and cannot^be -land disposed until they •
are treated .by-one of Ihe debris
treatment methods. If hazardous waste
is removediromthe drum during
treatment, the waste, 'like all streatment
residues, :is -subject to the'treatment
standards tfor the prcmibited waste. iWith
respejCttptfee-uncuptured dmnns, those
thatare mtect;fijB.,-!lhpse4hatf:lhe-contained in
principle: That -debris which no 'longer ,,
"contains" listed hazardous waste
-------
F" '
37226 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / [Tuesday, August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
would no longer be subject to subtitle C
regulation, provided that it does not
exhibit any hazardous waste
characteristic. This involves a case-by-
case determination by EPA, made upon
request, that debris does.not contain
hazardous waste at significant levels,
taking into consideration such factors as
site hydrogeology and potential
exposure pathways, but excluding
management practices.21 Debris found
not to contain hazardous waste (and not
exhibiting a hazardous waste
characteristic) would not be subject to
further subtitle C regulation, and so
could be land disposed without further
treatment. In addition, these levels could
be achieved by any form of .treatment
other than impermissible dilution, and
thus need not result from application of
the debris treatment methods adopted
today. Id. at 983-84.
3. Relation of Today's Rule to the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
On May 20.1992, EPA proposed
comprehensive revisions to the
regulatory definition of hazardous
waste, asking for comment on a series of
options for redefining what a hazardous
waste is. See 57 FR 21450. These rules
could affect which debris is considered
to be hazardous when it is generated
: (both through modifications to the
hazardous waste definitions and the
contained in principle), and so could'
affect both the definition of hazardous
debris used in this rule, and possibly the
extent such debris must be treated by
prescribed methods of treatment. EPA
has attempted to note in each of the
sections below the potential overlap of
this proposed rule on the rules adopted
today.
Although the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR) when
promulgated will affect the definition of
hazardous debris subject to today's
treatment standards,'the Agency
believes that it is nonetheless ....
appropriate to make the treatment
standards effective immediately upon
promulgation. The Agency does not
believe that today's rule-will place an
unreasonable burden on generators of
hazardous debris that may subsequently
be determined by. HWIR not to be , • :
hazardous because the Agency has
provided a national, case-by-case
capacity variance for hazardous debris',
that defers the-effective date of today's' -
treatment standards until May 8,1993;'
By that time, the Agency believes that
the final HWIR will be promulgated and
11 We note that consideration of management '
practices for exclusion from subtitle C is being .
evaluated through the proposed Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule discussed below in the text.
the treatment of debris that HWIR
determines is!no longer hazardous will
be precluded.;
C. Treatment,Standards for Hazardous
Debris
1. Overview
In this section, we discuss: (1) The
treatment technologies proposed as
BDAT; (2) the| contaminants subject to
treatment; (3) the debris treatment
standards; (4) alternative LDR standard;
(5) performance standards that must be
met to ensure'effective treatment and to
comply with the BDAT standards; (6)
contaminant restrictions for certain
treatment methods; (7) use of treatment
trains for multiple contaminants and
debris types; (8) treatment of
characteristic'debris;~(9) standards for
debris that is inherently toxic (i.e., it
fails the TC aijid EP for metal
contamination because it is fabricated
from a toxic metal); (10) relationship of
TSCAPCB rules to today's rule; (11)
relationship of existing agency
standards for asbestos to today's rule;
(12) special requirements for radioactive
debris; and (13) implementation of
treatment standards.
2. BDAT Debris Treatment Technologies
a. Identification of BDAT Treatment
Technologies. [The Agency considered ai
treatment technology to be "available"
• if the technolo'gy itself or the services of
the technology are able to be purchased,
and the technology substantially
diminishes the toxicity of the waste or
reduces the likelihood of migration of
the waste's hazardous constituents. The
technologies that the Agency has
identified as blest demonstrated
available technologies (BDAT) have
been used to treat hazardous debris at
Superfund sitep, to remove radioactive
metals from debris, to treat debris-like
material contaminated with compounds
similar to one or more of the compounds
' in the debris contaminant categories or,
based on engineering judgment, are
applicable to debris.
. The Agency [considered a technology
to be demonstrated for a particular
waste if the technology currently is in
commercial operation for treatment of
the waste or constituent of interest or
similar wastesjor constituents of
interest, including wastes not regulated
under RCRA, siich as PCBs and
radioactive waste. The Agency '
identified demonstrated technologies ,
either .through a review of the literature
in which current waste treatment
practices wereldiscussed, or through
information provided by specific
facilities currently treating the waste or
similar wastes.! EPA also considered as
demonstrated technologies those used to
separate or otherwise process chemicals
and other materials which are similar to
the waste or constituent of interest.
The Agency also'reviewed the
properties of debris which may directly
affect the efficiency of treatment
technologies. Debris characteristics
which may affect the performance or
effectiveness of treatment technologies
to' clean various types of debris include:
• Destructibility;
• Hardness and brittleness;
• Moisture content;
• Permeability;
• Size* homogeneity, and location (in
situ versus ex situ);
•. Surface texture; and
• Total organic carbon (TOC).
Under today's rule, the Agency has
identified the following 17 treatment
technologies as BDAT for hazardous
debris:
• Extraction Technologies:
-^-Physical Extraction
—Abrasive blasting
—Scarification, grinding, and planing
—Spelling .
—Vibratory finishing
—High pressure steam and water
sprays
—Chemical Extraction
—Water washing and spraying
—Liquid phase solvent extraction
—Vapor phase solvent extraction
—Thermal Extraction
—High temperature metals recovery
—Thermal desorption
• 'Destruction Technologies
—Biodegradation
—Chemical oxidation
—Chemical reduction
—Thermal destruction !
• Immobilization Technologies
—Macrqencapsulation
—Microencapsulation
—Sealing
Summary descriptions of these,, .
technologies are presented in Appendix
I'of today's preamble and treatment
performance standards for each
technology are prescribed in Table I,
§ 268.45. Further, detailed information
on the various treatment technologies is
presented in the Hazardous Debris Final
Rule Technical Support Document.
b. Changes in Identification of BDAT
Technologies From Proposal. Based on /
public comment and the Agency's
further evaluation, the Agency has "
determined that two debris treatment
technologies proposed as BDAT—
electropolishing and ultraviolet
radiation—are not BDAT, and an
additional technology not proposed as
BDAT-rhigh temperature metal
recovery—is, in fact, BDAT for. ,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37227
hazardous debris. The basis for these ,
determinations is discussed below.
(1) Electropolishing Is Not BDAT. The
Agencjr has determined that . -.
electeopolishing is not BDAT for
hazardous debris because of concerns
that the technology is intended primarily
for smoothing clean metal parts. Painted
or contaminated metal parts might riot
be effectively treated by this method. A
contaminating organic.waste or paint
could electrically insulate the surface
from the solution and prevent surface
removal of contaminants.
(2) Ultraviolet Radiation Is Not BDAT.
The Agency deleted ultraviolet radiation
treatment from the. list of BDAT
technologies for hazardous debris
because of difficulties of specifying
performance standards that would
ensure effective treatment in all cases.
This technology is primarily intended for
liquid waste treatment where the fluid is
passed by a ultraviolet radiation source
in a thin stream. This approach is
designed to ensure that the ultraviolet
light reaches all of the toxic molecules
and detoxifies them. If the technology
were to be applied to hazardous debris,
it would be virtually impossible to
ensure that all toxic molecules
contaminating the. debris were
adequately radiated. Sludge and soil
caked onto debris would preclude
radiation of both inner layers of caked
material and the debris surface. Further,
even for debris that is relatively free of
cakecUon materials, the debris would
have to be systematically turned to
expose all contaminated-surfaces to the,.
radiation. The use of sunlight to provide
the ultraviolet radiation as proposed as •
an alternative to an artificial source
poses even greater problems of ensuring
exposure to ultraviolet radiation at
levels that would ensure effective ,
treatment. The Agency's effort to
provide for innovative debris treatment
at proposal simply went too far.
(3) High Temperature Metal Recovery
Is BDAT. The Agency has added high
temperature metal recovery (HTMR) to
the list of acceptable debris.treatment
technologies. It is a very effective
method for treatment of, recoverable
metal values in both metal debris and
debris that is contaminated with metal-
bearing hazardous waste* The Agency
did not include HTMR as BDAT at
proposal simply because of oversight.
Several commenters suggested that we
include this method, and the Agency
agrees. ,.- . - : '
We note that HTMR can also
effectively treat toxic organic
contaminants. If the debris contains
more than a total of 500 ppm of toxic
organic compounds.listed.in appendix
VIII, part 261, the HTMR facility is
subject to the Boiler and Industrial
Furnace, (BIF) Rule. See § 266.100. The
HTMR would be subject to the same
controls on organic emissions 2? as
other BIFs burning hazardous waste.
When the total concentration of toxic
.organic compounds in the waste is less
than 500 ppm, the Agency believes that
any emissions of organic compounds
attributable to those organic compounds
.will not pose a hazard to human'health
and the environment.
3. Contaminants Subject to Treatment
Today's rule requires hazardous :
debris to be treated by one of the ,
specified technologies 2S for each
"contaminant subject to treatment"
defined as: (1) the BDAT constituents
identified in §§ 268.41 and 268.43 for the
listed waste contaminating the debris
that are present at detectable levels; 24
(2) the constituents for which the debris
exhibits Extraction Procedure toxicity;
arid (3) cyanide or sulfide if debris
exhibits reactivity due to the presence of
those constituents. As discussed in
section V.C.5 below, although debris
may contain several contaminants
subject to treatment, the treatment
standards generally do not require
treatment by multiple technologies (i.e.,
•a treatment train). This is because many
of the specified technologies effectively
treat various types of contaminants (e.g.,
metals, aromatic and aliphatic organic
compounds, halogenated and
nonhalogenated organic compounds).
In the proposed rule, the Agency
proposed a broader definition of
"contaminants subject to treatment"
that would have included constituents
on appendix VHI, part 261, that the
generator could reasonably know may
contaminate the debris at detectable
levels. Further, the Agency requested
comment on whether the rule should
require that debris that is hazardous,
solely because it exhibits a
characteristic (i.e., toxicity, igm'tability,
or reactivity) be treated for all.
constituents on appendix VIII, part 261,
22 Emissions of metals, HC1, Cb, and particulate
matter are also controlled by the BIF rule. ' . '
23 Unless EPA determines the hazardous debris
no longer: contains hazardous waste (see discussion
in section V.B.2 of "the text) or unless the generator
elects to comply with the waste-specific treatment
standards for Ihe waste contaminating the debris
(see discussion in section V.C.4 of the text).
21 We note that the genera tor, may presume that
the BDAT constituents for the listed waste are
present at detectable levels and is not required to
sample and analyze the debris to make that
determination. If, however, the generator elects to
sample and analyze the'debris, the Agency
acknowledges that this may be a difficult task for
many types of debris and debris mixtures. In this
situation, the geheratof must use best engineering
judgement to obtain samples that are as ;
representative as practicable.' ' .
that the generator could reasonably
know may contaminate the debris at
detectable levels. The Agency
addressed these provisions, at proposal
because of concern that all toxic
constituents present be effectively
treated, given that debris -treated by an
extraction .or destruction technology and
that does riot exhibit a characteristic is
excluded from subtitle C regulation.
We have determined, however, that
neither of these provisions is likely to be
necessary to ensure effective treatment
of hazardous debris for a number of
reasons.. Thus, these provisions are not
included in today's rule. First, we
believe that enough contaminants
subject to treatment will be identified
for most debris to ensure effective
treatment of other toxic contaminants
that may be present. Given that most
debris is generated by remediation, the
debris is often associated with a variety
of wastes that will result in a number of
contaminants being designated
contaminants subject to treatment—
either because listed wastes or known
to be present, or more likely, because
the debris fails the EP 2S for one or more
constituents. For example, it is highly
unlikely that debris will exhibit only
ignitability or reactivity and not fail the
TC or be contaminated with a listed
waste (and thus, require only
deactivation of the ignitability or
reactivity characteristic under today's
rule) if, in fact, toxic constituents are
present at significant levels. Given that
most of the debris treatment
technologies specified in today's rule are
not restricted to specific contaminants
other than metal vs. nonmetal
contaminants and that many
technologies (e.g., surface removal,
incineration) have no 'contaminant
restrictions (see section V.C.5 below),
the designation of a few contaminants
subject to treatment should be sufficient
to ensure effective treatment of other
toxic contaminants that may be present.
Further, commenters argued, arid the
Agency agrees, that it would be difficult
to implement and enforce a rule that
required generators to treat toxic ,
constituents that they have reason to
know are present at detectable levels.
First, whether the generator, in fact,
could have reason to know that a toxic
constituent is present is highly
26 We note that the Agency is considering
proposing treatment standards.for TC wastes and
debris contaminated with TC wastes. If that rule is
promulgated; debris will be identified as hazardous
debris if it exhibits' the TC for an additional 26
organic compounds many of whiph are commonly
found at remediation' sites. Thus! over time. ,
additional debris contaminants will become
• designated contaminants subject to treatment.
-------
i : •
37228 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 /.Rules and Regulations
subjective and difficult to enforce.
Second, the Agency upon additional
consideration believes that, if treatment
of such additional toxic constituents
were to be required, treatment should
only be required if the constituent is
present at significant levels, not merely
at detection levels. This raises the issue
of what is a significant level. Possible
criteria include a level of potential
health significance or the F039 treatment
levels. (We note that the Agency, in fact,
requested comment on using these
criteria to determine when these other
fi.e., other than BDAT constituents for
listed waste contaminating the debris
and the constituents for which the
debris fails the EP) toxic constituents
known to be present would be
contaminants subject to treatment. See
57 FR 984, n. 11.) Not only is the Agency
unsure which approach would be more
appropriate, but under either
approach—i.e. health-based levels or
F039 levels—sampling and analysis
would be required if the generator did
not want to presume that a toxic
constituent known to be present was
present at the trigger level. Since it is
particularly difficult to take
representative samples of untreated
debris, EPA considers this approach to
be inadvisable.
4. Debris May Be Treated to the Existing
Waste-Specific LDRs in Lieu of Today's
Debris Treatment Standards
Today's rule gives generators the
option of treating hazardous debris to
the existing waste-specific treatment
standards for the waste contaminating
the debris. The treated debris, however,
must continue to be managed under
subtitle C. If land disposed, the debris
must be disposed in a subtitle C landfill.
However, such debris would be
excluded from subtitle C regulation if
the Agency determined that it no longer
contained hazardous waste (see
discussion above in section VJ3.2) or if
the treater determined that the debris no
longer contained hazardous constituents
at levels that may be established under
a final Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule (see discussion above in section
VJB.3). , •
The Agency is providing this option in
today's rule based on the request of
numerous commenters. For example,
one commenter routinely adds the tyyek
suits and rubber gloves worn by facility
operators to the waste stream leaving
his factory, and wishes to continue
doing so. The proposed rule would have
required the tyvek suits and rubber
gloves (aa debris) to be separated from ,
the waste for treatment by the specified
technology. The commenter preferred to
treat the waste/debris mixture to the
waste-specific standards and the
Agency believes thajt this practice is
appropriate to provide an additional
means of treating debris that
substantially reduces toxicant mobility
or concentration.
The Agency developed special
treatment standards, for hazardous
debris because of cqncern that, in most
cases, the waste-specific standards
would not be practicable for debris
given the difficulty ih obtaining
representative samples of treated debris
to document compliance with the
concentration-base^ waste-specific
standards. The Agency acknowledges,
however, that some types of debris may
be amenable to representative sampling
and therefore compliance with the
waste-specific standards may be
workable.26
Debris that is treated to the waste-
specific treatment standards rather than
today's debris treatment standards
remains subject to subtitle C regulation
because toxic constijtuents may continue
to be present at levels that could pose a
hazard to human health and the
environment. EPA believes that this .
position is appropriate for two reasons.
First, there is no reason to exclude, from
subtitle C regulation [hazardous debris
treated to the waste-'specific standards
when the waste itself is not excluded
when treated to those standards.
Second, and moreover, the Agency
believes that today's! treatment
standards will treat debris to levels
resulting in minimum' threat to human
health and the environment. See
discussion below. Although meeting the
waste-specific standards may result in
some cases in levels of toxic
constituents in the treated debris that do
not pose a hazard to iuman health and
the environment, the,Agency is not
certain that this will be the case in all
situations (and in any case, the issue is
more appropriate for [resolution in the
context of the May 20,1992. proposed
rule, 57 FR 21450). '
5. Treatment Standards . ' .
In this section, we provide the
rationale for the treatment standards for
each technology and bxplain how the
standards work, and we explain how
the final treatment standards differ from
those proposed. , ' .
a. Overview. Today's rule establishes
performance and/or design and
operRHng requirements for 17 treatment
technologies that the Agency has
designated as BDAT for hazardous
debris. See Table I of § 268.45. Although
any technology may be used to treat any
debris, the treatment standards vary for
many technologies according to the type
of debris treated.27 In addition, the rule
prohibits the use of some technologies to
treat specific types of contaminants. For
example, the physical extraction
technologies (e.g., abrasive blasting)
have no contaminant type restrictions,
while thermal desorption may not be
used to treat metals other than mercury.
Generators Jand owners and operators
of treatment facilities) may select any
treatment technology that is not
restricted for the contaminant subject to
treatment.
The Agency has attempted to
establish performance or design and
operating requirements for each of the
extraction and destruction technologies
that will optimize treatment .
. effectiveness Such that hazardous
contaminants would not be present at
residual levels in the debris that could
pose a hazard to human health and the
environment. Thus, the treated debris
could be excluded from subtitle C
regulation. Unfortunately, the Agency
was not able to develop objective
performance or .design and operating
standards for all extraction and
destruction technologies that would
ensure treatment to minimum threat
levels (e.g., thermal desorption,
biodegradation, and chemical
destruction; see discussion below). For
these technologies, the Agency is
concerned that residual levels of
hazardous contaminants may remain hi
the debris at levels that could pose a
hazard to human health and the
environment. Consequently, today's rule
requires for these technologies that the
owner or operator of the treatment unit
must make an "Equivalency '••' . "
Demonstration" to the Agency under .'•
existing § 26S.42(b) that documents that
the technology treats contaminants
subject to treatment to a level
equivalent to that required by the
performance and design and operating
standards for the other technologies in
, " We note that commenters may have requested
this option out of frustration that the proposed rule '
did not effectively address the issue of debris
mixtures. The proposed rule-appeared to require
either separation of debris types prior to treatment
or the extensive use of treatment trains to treat
different debris types. This problem has been
remedied in today's final rule by acknowledging the
ability of the treatment technologies to treat a
greater variety of debris types than proposed. See .
discussion in section V.C.5 of the text.
" In addition, although the rule does not prohibit
treatment of specific debris types by a technology,
the treatment standards cannot be met as a ,
practical matter for certain debris/technology
combinations (e.g., high pressure steam and water
sprays cannot remove 0.6 cm of the surface layer of
brick, concrete, etc). In other situations, the ..
definition of the technology aa a practical matter
precludes the use of some technologies tot same .
debris types (e.g.. the definition of spelling cannot •
be met when applied to treat cloth).
-------
* '
Federal Register. / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37229
Table 1, § 268.45, such that residual
levels of hazardous contaminants will
not pose a hazard to human health arid
the environment absent subtitle C
control.
Today's treatment standards establish
performance standards rather than
design and operating standards where
supporting data were available. The
Agency believes that performance
standards will better ensure effective
treatment given the variability in
contaminant and debris types and
properties that affect treatability.
Further, performance standards give the
owner and operator of the treatment
unit the flexibility to tailor the design
and operation of the unit to the specific
debris/contaminantfs) being treated. An
example of a performance standard is
the standard for physical extraction
technologies (e.g., abrasive blasting)
used to treat a metal object where the
standard requires decontamination to a
"clean metal finish" as defined in the
regulation. An example of a design and
operating standard is the standard for
thermal desorption that limits the
thickness of porous debris to 10 cm (4
inches).
EPA recommends that the generator
Or owner or operator of the treatment
facility consider the thermal, chemical.
and physical properties of the debris
and the contaminants on the debris
before selecting a treatment technology
to ensure that the performance or design
and operating requirements can by
achieved. The Agency plans to develop
a nonregulatory implementation
assistance document to provide
assistance on how to select the most
appropriate technologies for a given
debris/contaminant combination.
Although hazardous debris treatment
operations are generally subject to
regulation under the interim status or
permit standards of parts 270 and 264.
265. or 266,28 today's hazardous debris
performance or design and operating
standards are neither interim status nor
permit standards. The hazardous debris
treatment standards are adopted
pursuant to section 3004(m) of RCRA to
ensure that debris is treated to minimize
the hazardous constituents' toxicity or
mobility during future management,
while the interim status and permit
standards are designed to protect
human health and the environment from
the operation of the storage, treatment.
or disposal facility itself. It is for this
reason that today's treatment standards
do not address control of emissions that
can occur from debris treatment; the
Agency is relying on the applicable
interim status and permit standards to
control treatment emissions. See
discussion below in section V.F.
The Agency has grouped the various
treatment technologies into categories of
like treatment type. Each category is
based on the same (or similar)
performance or design and operating
standards. See Table 1 of § 268.45. We
discuss below for each group of
treatment technologies the basis for the
standards and how the standards will
work. Note that the performance or
design and operating standards must be
met for all debris surfaces that are
contaminated with hazardous waste.
Thus, if a pipe or pump was used to
manage hazardous waste, the
performance standards must be met for
the inside surfaces of the pipe or pump.
Decontamination of the outer surfaces
only does not constitute compliance
with the debris treatment standards.
b.Extraction Technologies. The
Agency has classified the extraction
technologies as physical extraction.
chemical extraction, and thermal.
extraction.
(1) Physical Extraction Technologies.
The physical extraction technologies
are: abrasive blasting; scarification,
grinding, and planing; spalling; vibratory
finishing; and high pressure steam and
water sprays. For these technologies, the
rule establishes performance standards
based on removal of the contaminated
layer of the debris. Any contaminant
subject to treatment may be treated by
these technologies,29 because the
contaminants are removed as residue 30
28 Unless treatment occurs in an on-site
container, tank, or containment building, the
hazardous debris is treated within 90 days of
generation, and the unit complies with the
appropriate standards of part 265, or unless the
treatment occurs within the Area of Containment
(AOC) at a Superfund remediation site and the
generator complying with today's treatment
standards in order to remove the treated debris
from the AOC and manage it as debris excluded
from subtitle C. See discussion in section V.F. of the
text.
28 As discussed below in the text, today's rule
establishes additional requirements for certain
technologies in order to exclude the treated debris
from subtitle C when the debris is contaminated
with waste that is listed for dioxins (EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers F020, F021. F022, F023,
F028, or F027). The Agency did establish such
additional requirements for treatment of debris
contaminated with dioxin-listed waste when treated
by the physical extraction technologies, however.
because the Agency believes that it is highly
unlikely that compliance with the rigorous
performance standards for these physical extraction
technologies will allow significant residual levels of
contaminants such that even highly toxic
contaminants could pose a hazard to human health
and the environment absent subtitle C control.
30 Except that for spalling, the spelled material is
considered untreated debris, not residue, and must
be treated before land disposal. See additional
discussion in the text.
subject to the treatment standards for
the waste contaminating the debris.
In addition, any debris type (e.g.,
metal, concrete, wood, paper, cloth) may
be treated by these technologies. The
Agency reasoned that any debris type
- would be effectively treated provided
that the contaminated layer of the
debris is removed. We note that, .
although the rule allows the use of
physical exfraction technologies on any
debris type, it will be impracticable to
use these technologies on some debris
' types and the performance standards
cannot be met for some technology/
debris combinations. For example, it is
impracticable to spall paper or cloth.
However, we realize that debris often is
comprised of a mixture of debris types,
and physical extraction may be the most
reasonable technology for the
predominate debris type while other
types of debris present would be
removed as residue. An example is large
chunks of concrete that have paper
labels adhered to them. Spalling or
another physical extraction technology
may be practicable for the concrete and
the paper labels will be removed as
residue. An example of where the
•performance standard cannot be met for
a technology/debris combination is high
pressure steam and water spray used to
treat brick or concrete. As discussed
below, because these *debris types are
porous and toxic contaminants may be
adsorbed below the surface of the
debris, the performance standard
requires removal of at least the outer 0,6
centimeter surface layer. This
technology cannot meet that
performance standard for those types of
debris. Rather than explicitly prohibiting
such practices, however, such practices
will be precluded because of the
inability to comply with the standards.
To ensure that the contaminated layer
of debris is removed and to account for
the physical properties of different types
of debris, the rule establishes different
performance standards for different
types of debris,
(a) Metal Objects. Metal objects must
be treated to remove foreign matter
adhering to the metal to produce a
"clean debris surface". The rule defines
a "clean debris surface" as a surface
that, when viewed without
magnification, shall be free of all visible
contaminated soil and hazardous waste,
except that residual staining caused by
soil and waste consisting of light
shadows, slight streaks, or minor
discolorations, and soil and waste in
cracks, crevices, and pits may be '
present provided that such staining and
soil and waste in cracks, crevices, and
-------
37230
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / ji"e8day.Augu8t.18. 1992 /Rules and Regulations
pits shall be limited to no more than 595
of each square inch of surface area.
The rule allows minor residual
staining caused by soil and waste and
soil and waste to remain in cracks.
crevices, and pits of up to 5% of each •
square inch of surface area 3J because
of the impracticability of cleaning metal
debris to a "white metal finish" as
proposed. The Agency selected the 5%
surface area criterion because: (1) it is
within the range of reasonable levels—
196 to 10%—that pould have been
selected: (2) it is generally equivalent to
the Steel Structures Painting Council's
specification for "Near-White Blast
Cleaning" for cleaning steel surfaces by
the use of abrasives;32 and (3) it should
not allow toxic contaminants to remain
at levels that could pose a hazard to
human health and the environment
absent subtitle C regulation, and should
remove contaminants so that threats
posed by disposal of the debris are,
minimized.
(b) Bride, Cloth, Concrete, Paper,
Rock. Pavement, and Wood. The
performance standard for these types of
debris requires: (1) Removal of at least
0.6 centimeters of the surface layer: and
(2) treatment to a "clean debris surface."
Removal of 0.6 centimeters of the
surface layer is required for these types
of debris because they may be porous
and toxic contaminants may by
absorbed within the debris. (The Agency
rejcognizes that, as a practical matter,
the 0.6 cm surface removal requirement
precludes the use of this technology for
most porous debris.) To ensure removal
of contaminants that may be absorbed
to depths beyond 0.6 centimeters, the
rule requires removal of virtually all
staining that could be indicative of the
presence of toxic contaminants. The rule
allows minor residual staining and
foreign matter in cracks and crevices on
up to 5% of the surface area (on a square
inch basis) as a reasonable and
practicable method to help ensure that
the standards do not require treatment
to a level beyond that necessary to
ensure that the treated debris does not
pose a hazard to human health and the
environment absent subtitle C
regulation. We note that staining that is
not indicative of the potential presence
of hazardous waste or contaminated soil
" Note thai the 5% surface area criterion is
applied to cnch square Inch of the debris surface
that has been contaminated with hazardous waste.
The area covered by large stains cannot be '
averaged against large unstained areas. Only 5% of
Iho area within any square inch can contain a '
residual stain.
,.,",^cc lhB Mny 1B-19S2- memorandum from Peter
Shields. Radian, to Mark Mercer. EPA, entitled
"Industry Standards for Cleanliness of Metal
Surfaces".
(e.g., rust stains on concrete adjacent to
steel reinforcing bars) need not be
removed and is not considered in
determining compliance with the
maximum 5% surface area limit on
residual staining. The basis for the 5%
surface area limit (on a square inch
basis) on residual staining and foreign
matter in crack's and crevices is the
same as the basis discussed above for
the definition of clean metal finish.
(c) Glass, Rubber, Plastic. The
physical extraction performance
standards for these types of debris are
the same as for! brick, concrete, etc.,
except that removal of at least 0.6
centimeters of the surface layer is not
required. Removal of the surface layer
for glass, rubbejr, or plastic is not
required because glass is nonporous and
will not absorb [contaminants below the
surface, and rubber and plastic,
although permejable, are not likely to
leach absorbed'contaminants at
substantial rates.
(2) Chemical Extraction.JThe
technologies classified as chemical
extraction are vjrater washing and
spraying; iiquidiphase solvent
extraction: and jvapor phase solvent
extraction. The berformance standards
for these technologies are based on
dissolution of the contaminants into the
cleaning solution. Removal of the outer
debris layer is not intended.
• (a) Water Wajshing and Spraying.
Water sprays or water baths will
effectively treatldebris when sufficient
temperature, pressure, residence time,
agitation, surfactants, acids, bases, and/
or detergents are used to meet the
performance standards in accord with
the contaminant restrictions. The rule
requires that the| debris must be treated
to a "clean debris surface" (see
discussion above) to ensure effective
treatment to levels of hazardous
contaminants that are not likely to pose
a hazard to humkn health and the
environment absent subtitle C control.
For porous detris—brick, cloth,
concrete, paper, jpavement, rock, and
. wood—the rule provides two other
requirements. The thickness (i.e., one
dimension) of ea|ch piece of porous
debris may not be more than 1.2 cm (i.e.,
Vz inch), and the contaminants must be
soluble to at leas 15% by weight in the
water solution or 5% by weight in the
. emulsion, as applicable. The Agency is
applying these standards for porous
debris to ensure effective extraction of
toxic contaminants,that may be
absorbed below Ihe surface layer of the
debris. i .. •
If reducing the [thickness of debris to
1.2 cm to meet th<3 treatment standards
results in debris that no longer meets the
60 mm minimum particle size limit for
debris, such material is subject to the
waste-specific treatment standards for
the waste contaminating the material,
unless the debris has been cleaned and
separated from contaminated soil and
hazardous waste before size reduction.
This is consistent with the Agency's
position that material with a particle
sjze less than 60 mm is amenable to
conventional treatment for process
waste and small particle-sized material
(i.e., as opposed to large debris objects)
and that such material can be
reasonably sampled for analysis to
document compliance with the
concentration-based treatment
standards for the waste contaminating
the material.
If the debris has been cleaned and
separated from contaminated soil and
hazardous waste before size reduction,
the' material remains classified as debris
subject to today's treatment standards
even if it no longer has a 60 mm particle
. size. The Agency believes that cleaning
and separation of contaminated soil and
hazardous waste will substantially
reduce the concentration of toxic
constituents such that the debris should
contain minimum threat levels'
subsequent to treatment by an '
extraction or destruction technology.
The level of cleaning and separation
that is required is the same as required
for separation of treatment residue from
treated debris. See Note 9 to Table 1,
§ 268.45. At a minimum, simple physical
or mechanical methods must be used
such as vibratory or trommel screening
or water washing. The debris surface
need not be cleaned to a "clean debris
surface" as defined in Table 1; rather, •
the surface must be free of caked soil,
waste, or other nondebris material.
Nondebris materials so separated are
subject to the waste-specific treatment
standards for the waste contaminating
the material.
Porous debris (i.e., brick, cloth,
concrete,'paper, pavement, rock, or
wood) that is contaminated with a
waste listed for dioxin-—EPA Hazardous
Waste Numbers F020, F021, F022, F023,
F026, or F027—is subject to additional
controls. Because of the potential
toxicity of the constituents in these
wastes, the Agency believes that it is
prudent to require additional controls to
ensure that the .potentially highly toxic
constituents in these wastes are
extracted from below the debris surface
and that the treated debris poses
minimum threat to human health and the
environment absent subtitle C control.
Accordingly, the rule requires the treater
to make an "Equivalency . ' "
Demonstration" to the Agency under
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37231
existing § 268.42(b) that documents that
the technology treats contaminants
subject to treatment in these dioxin-
listed wastes to a level equivalent to
that required for these contaminants by
the performance and design and
operating standards for other
teqhnologies in Table 1, § -268.45, such
that residual levels of hazardous
contaminants will not pose a hazard to
human health and the environment
absent subtitle C control.
(b) Liquid Phase Solvent Extraction.
This technology decontaminateg.debris
surfaces by applying a nonaqueous
" liquid or liquid solution which causes
the toxic contaminants to enter the
liquid phase and be flushed away from
the debris along with the liquid or liquid
solution using agitation, temperature,
and residence time sufficient to meet the
performance standards. The treatment
standards for this technology are the
same as for water washing and spraying
because the technologies use the same
principles to extract toxic contaminants
from debris.
' (c) Vapor Phase Solvent Extraction.
This technology decontaminates debris
surfaces by applying an organic vapor
which causes the toxic contaminants to
enter the vapor phase using sufficient
agitation, residence time, and
temperature and to be Hushed away
with the organic vapor such that the
•performance standards are achieved.
The treatment (standards for this
technology are the same as for water
washing and spraying, except'that
porous debris surfaces must be in
contact with the organic vapor for more
than 60 minutes. This treatment time is
consistent with state-of-the-art practices
and is necessary to ensure effective
extraction of contaminants.
(3) Thermal Extraction. The Agency
has classified two technologies as
thermal extraction: High temperature
metals recovery and thermal desorption.
[a) High Temperature Metals
Recovery (HTMR). HTMR furnaces are
smeltingt melting, or refining furnaces
(including pyrometallurgical devices
such as cupolas, reverberator furnaces,
sintering machines, roasters, and
foundry furnaces (see § 260.10 definition
of "industrial furnace"):) that use
sufficient heat,, residence time, mixing,
fluxing agents, and/or carbon to extract
metals from debris. HTMR furnaces are
potentially subject to regulation under
the Boiler and Industrial Furnace (BIFj
Rule (subpart H, part 286} when they
burn hazardous debris.33
33 See 5 266.100{c) that states generally that a
smelting, melting, or refining furnace that burns a
hazardous waste with a heating value of 5,000 Btu/
!b or more or that contains a total concentration of
Today's rule requires that, for
nonslagging furnaces (e.g., refining
furnaces), treatment residuals must be
separated from the debris. In addition,
such separated residue must meet the
waste-specific treatment standards for
organic compounds in the waste
contaminating the debris prior to further
treatment. Further, these residues must
meet- the waste-specific treatment
standards for all BDAT constituents in
the waste contaminating the debris prior
to land disposal. Finally, if debris is
contaminated with a dioxin-listed
waste, HTMR is not BDAT and the
treated debris is not excluded from
subtitle C unless the treater makes an
"Equivalent Technology" demonstration
to the Agency under § 268.42(b) that
documents that the technology treats
contaminants subject to treatment to a
level equivalent to that required by the
performance and design and operating
standards for other technologies in
Table 1, § 268.45, such that residual
levels of hazardous contaminants will
not pose a hazard to human health and
the environment absent subtitle C
control
Today's rule does not establish
performance or design and operating
standards for slagging HTMR furnaces
(other than the requirements inherent in
the definition—a melting or smelting
furnace must melt metals and extract
the metals from debris) because a
slagging furnace is likely to provide
effective treatment for all contaminants,
•except perhaps for chlorinated dioxins
as discussed below, and for all debris
types.
For nonslagging (i.e., refining furnaces
such as roasters) HTMR furnaces, the
rule ensures treatment of both metal and
organic contaminants. First, the
definition of HTMR furnaces requires
that metals must be separated from the
debris. Thus, not only will metals be
removed, but temperatures hot enough
to separate metals from debris should
also remove organic contaminants from
the debris (with perhaps the exception
of dioxins, as discussed below). Second,
to help ensure that the HTMR unit has
effectively removed organic
contaminants hi the debris the rule
requires that the residue be separated
from the treated debris and that the '
separated residue must meet the waste-
specific treatment standards for the
BDAT organic contaminants in the
waste contaminating the debris prior to
further treatment.
In addition, the Agency is concerned
that potentially extremely toxic
contaminants may not be. destroyed (or
removed with the residue) to-levels that
would not pose a hazard to human
health and the environment absent
subtitle C control. Consequently, if
debris is contaminated with a dioxin-
listed waste, HTMR is not BDAT for the
debris and the debris is not excluded
from subtitle C after treatment unless
the treater obtains approval from the
Director under an equivalent technology
demonstration provided by § 268.42(b)
for the design and opera ting conditions
of the HTMR unit. The rule provides this
restriction for dioxin-listed waste
because of concern that if1 such
contaminants remained undestroyed
even at low concentrations in the
residue and were not completely
removed from the treated debris, that
the debris could pose a health or
environmental hazard absent subtitle C
control.
(b) Thermal Desorption. Thermal
desorption is heating in an enclosed
chamber under either oxidizing or
nonoxidizihg atmospheres at sufficient
operating temperature and residence
time such that the contaminants subject
to treatment are vaporized and removed
from the heating chamber in a gaseous
exhaust streams.34 The rule establishes
operating and performance standards
and contaminant restrictions, and
requires the treater to make a
demonstration of "Equivalent
Technology" under § 268.42(fa) to
document that the technology treats
contaminants subject to treatment to a
level equivalent to that required by the
performance and design and operating
standards for other technologies in
Table 1, § 268.45, such that residual
levels of hazardous contaminants will
not pose a hazard to human health and
the environment absent subtitle C
control.
The Agency attempted to develop
objective treatment standards that
would obviate the need for an
equivalency demonstration (see
discussion above). The Agency
determined, however, that it was very
difficult to establish universal operating
toxic organic compounds exceeding 500 ppm by
weight is subject to the B1F Rule.
34 We note that a thermal desorber is regulated
either as an incinerator (if the device is direct-fired .
or if the off-gas is burned in an afterburner) under
isubpart O of part 264 or 285, or as a thermal -
treatment unit under subpart X, part 264 or subpart
P, part 265. To distinguish between thermal
deaorption and thermal destruction (for which
separate debris treatment standards are provided)
for purposes of complying with this rule, the primary
purpose of thermal desorption-is to volatilize
contaminants and to remove them from the
treatment chamber for subsequent destruction or
treatment. We note that the treatment standards in
Table 1, 5 268.45 for thermal destruction specifically
excludes thermal desorbers.
-------
37232 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
limits for the key operating parameters
that affect treatment efficiency—
temperature, residence time, size of
porous debris, bed depth, and volatility
of the contaminant—that would strike a
balance between ensuring treatment to
minimum threat levels and establishing
requirements that could grossly over-
regulate in many situations. Rather, the
Agency believes that operating
requirements can best be determined on
a case-by-case basis (i.e., under an
equivalent technology demonstration
under § 268.42{b}) considering the
parameters listed above. In addition, the
Agency believes that the performance
standard used for physical and chemical
extraction—treatment to a clean debris
aurface—is not practicable for thermal
dosorption because treated debris
surfaces will continue to have a dusting
of residue after separation of the debris
from the residue by simple, physical or
mechanical means (unless water
washing is used). See discussion below
regarding the requirement for separation
of debris from residue.
The treatment standards for thermal
desorption require, in addition to the
cnse-by-case Agency approval of design
and operating conditions, that
hazardous contaminants be vaporized
(by virtue of the definition of thermal
desorption), and restricts the use of the
technology for metal contaminants other
than mercury (i.e., thermal desorption is
not BOAT for metals other than
mercury). In addition, to help ensure
extraction of contaminants from below
the surface of porous debris, the rule
establishes a maximum thickness (in
one dimension) for porous debris of 10
cm (4 inches).38 The 4 inch maximum
thickness limit is consistent with state-
of-the-art practices. The restriction on
metals other than mercury is provided
because they are not likely to be
extracted from below the debris surface
at normal desorption temperatures and
residence times.
We note that we considered
restricting the use of thermal desorption
for only porous debris that is
contaminated with a metal other than
mercury. We reasoned that metal
contaminants in soil or waste on the
surface of nonporous debris will be
physically separated from the debris
along with the soil or waste during or
after desorption, and thus a restriction
would not be necessary. However, we
are also concerned about metal
contaminants that may remain on the
surface of nonporous (and porous)
debris after'desorption and after
separation of the treated debris from the
residue. An example is a piece of steel
contaminated with a metal-bearing paint
that causes the steel tb fail the TC. The
metal may not be desojrbed and the
paint would not be separated from the
steel during the simple physical or
mechanical separation of residue from
debris. Although the s|eel would
continue to fail the TQ, it would have
been treated to meet BDAT and could
be land disposed in a subtitle C facility.
This is inconsistent wi,th the Agency's
view that BDAT for a TC waste must
' cause the waste to no longer exhibit the
TC.
The treatment standard for thermal
desorption also requires separation of
the treated debris from treatment
residuals and soil, waste, or other
nondebris material (collectively referred
to as residuals) because residuals are
subject to the treatment standards for
the waste contaminating the debris. See
discussion in Section y.E. Not only will
these residuals contain unvolatilized
metals that require furjther treatment,
but the Agency is using the residue
separated from debris [as a surrogate
means to ensure effective debris
treatment. The rule achieves this
objective by requiring (that the residue
separated from the treated debris must
meet the waste-specific treatment
standards for organic compounds in the
waste contaminating the debris. If the
residue (prior to further treatment) does
not meet applicable treatment standards
for organic compounds, it is an
indication that the desjorption process
did not effectively extract the organic
contaminants subject to treatment.
Thus, the treatment is pot BDAT, the
treated debris is not excluded from
subtitle C, and both the residues and the
debris cannot be land disposed without
further treatment. -.-[". " '
Separation of the dejsorbed debris
from treatment residuals (i.e., soil,
waste, or other nondebris materials)
must be accomplished [using simple
physical or mechanical means such- as
vibratory or trommel screens or water
washing. The separation process need
not produce a "clean debris surface" ss
" See previous discussion In the text that, if size
reduction of debris to meet the treatment standards
reduces tha particle size to below the minimum 60
mm llzo limit for the definition of debris, such
nondcbrli material Is subject to the waste-specific
treatment standards for the waste contaminating .
tiio material, unless the debris has been cleaned and
icpirated from contaminated soil and waste prior
to slzo reduction.
38 "Clean debris surface" means the surface,
when viewed without magnification, shall be free of'
all visible soil. Waste, paint, or other foreign (i.e.,'
nondebris) matter, except that residual staining
consisting of light shadows, slight streaks, or minor
discolorations, and foreign matter in cracks and
crevices may be present provided that such staining
and foreign matter in cracks and crevices shall be
as discussed above, however; rather the
debris surface must be free of caked
residuals or nondebris materials such as
soil or waste. For example, debris need
not be water washed after trommel
screening to remove dust from residuals
or nondebris material. (Note that the use
of water washing to separate thermally
desorbed debris from residuals and
nondebris materials need not comgly
with the treatment standards for water
washing (e.g., treatment to. a '.'clean
debris surface") because the debris has '
already been treated by an alternative
technology.)
c. Destruction Technologies. The
Agency has identified two
- classifications of destruction
technologies: chemical destruction and
thermal destruction. These technologies
are designed and operated to destroy
hazardous contaminants on debris
surfaces and in surface pores.
(1) Biodegradation. Biodegradation is
the removal of hazardous contaminants
from debris surfaces and surface pores
in an aqueous solution and
biodegradation of organic or nonmetallic
inorganic compounds (i.e., inorganics
that contain phosphorus, nitrogen, or
sulfur) in units operated under either
aerobic or anaerobic conditions. The
rule establishes operating and
performance standards and contaminant
restrictions, and requires the treater to
make a demonstration of "Equivalent
Technology" under § 268.42(b) to
document that the technology treats
contaminants subject to treatment to a
level equivalent to that required by the
performance and design and operating
standards for other technologies in
Table 1, § 268.45, such that residual
levels of hazardous contaminants will
not pose a hazard to human health and
the environment absent subtitle C
control..
The Agency attempted to develop
objective treatment standards that
would obviate the need for an
equivalency demonstration (see "
discussion above). The Agency
determined, however, that it was very •
difficult to establish universal operating
limits for the key operating parameters
that affect treatment efficiency—type of
matrix contaminating the debris,,
biological proprieties of the ' '"
contaminant,- temperature, pH, treatment
time, biomass concentration,'moisture
level, and for aerobic biodegradation,'
oxygen concentration—.that would
strike a balance between ensuring
treatment to minimum threat levels and
establishing requirements that could
limited to no more than '5% of each square inch of
surface area. ' ' •.
-------
Fadatal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday. August-18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37233
grossly over-regulate in many situations.
Rather, the Agency believes that
operating requirements can best be
determined on a case-by-case basis (Le.,
• under an equivalent technology
demonstration under § 268.42(b))
considering the parameters listed above.
In addition, the Agency believes that
the performance standard used for
physical and chemical extraction—
treatment to a clean debris surface—is
not practicable for biodegradation
because treated debris surfaces are
likely to fail that standard even though
organic contaminants* may have been
destroyed and metal contaminants may
have been extracted. Further, the
Agency could not identify a generic
standard that would ensure effective
treatment of organic contaminants that
may be beneath the surface of porous
debris. •
In addition to the requirement to make
an equivalency demonstration, the
treatment standards establish a
maximum thickness (in one dimension)
for porous debris of 1.2 cm (V2 inch.37
These requirements will help ensure
extraction of contaminants from below
the surface of porous debris.
The rule also restricts the use of
biodegradation for metal contaminarits
because metals are not destroyed by the
biomass (i.e., biodegradation is not
BDAT for metals). Further, the
performance and design and operating
standards would not ensure that
undestroyed metal would partition to
the biomass for treatment to the numeric
standards for the waste contaminating
the debris. This is because the
performance standard does not require
treatment to a "clean debris surface" as
discussed above, so that neither the
performance standard nor the
requirement to separate treated debris
from residuals (see discussion below)
would ensure that metal contaminants
would partition to the residue.
The treatment standard for
biodegradation requires separation of
the treated debris.from treatment
residuals (i.e., soil/waste, or other
nondebris material) because'residuals
are subject to the numerical treatment
standards for the waste contaminating
the debris. See discussion in section V.E.
Not only will these residuals contain
metal contaminants that require further
treatment, but the Agency is using the
37 See previous discussion in the text that, if size
reduction of debris to meet the treatment standards
reduces the particle size to below the minimum 60
mm size limit for the definition of.debris, such
nondebris material is subject to the waste-specific
treatment standards for the waste contaminating
the material, unless the debris has been cleaned and
separated from contaminated soil and waste prior
to size reduction.
residue separated from debris as a
surrogate means to ensure effective •
debris treatment. Accordingly, the
debris treatment standard also requires
that the residue separated from'the
treated debris must meet the waste-.
specific treatment standards for organic
compounds in the waste contaminating
the debris prior to further treatment. If
the residue (prior to further treatment)
does not meet applicable treatment
standards for organic compounds; it is
an indication that the biodegradation,
process did not effectively destroy the
organic contaminants subject to
treatment Thus, the treatment is not
BDAT, treated debris is not excluded
from subtitle C, and both the residues
and the debris cannot be land disposed
without further treatment.
Separation of the biodegraded' debris
from treatment residuals, soil, waste, or
.other nondebris materials (collectively
referred to as residuals and subject to
the treatment standards for residuals)
must be accomplished using simple
physical or mechanical means such as
vibratory or trommel screens or water
washing. The separation process need
not produce a "clean debris surface" as
discussed above, however; rather the
debris surface must be free of caked
biomass or nondebris materials such as
soil or waste.vFor example, the use of
water to wash off the biomass or other
foreign matter from the debris after
removal from the treatment process
does not subject the debris to the
treatment standards for water washing
(e.g., treatment to a "clean debris
surface"). This is because the debris has
already been-treated by an alternative
. technology.
(2) Chemical Destruction, The rule
establishes two chemical destruction
technologies as BDAT: Chemical
oxidation and chemical reduction.
(a) Chemical Oxidation. Chemical
oxidation is chemical or electolytic
oxidation utilizing the following
oxidation reagents (or waste reagents).
or combination of reagents:
Hypochlorite (e.g., bleach); chlorine;
chlorine dioxide; ozone or UV
(ultraviolet light) assisted ozone;
peroxides; persulfates; perchlorates;
permanganates; and/or other oxidizing
reagents of equivalent destruction
efficiency. Chemical oxidation
specifically includes what is referred to
as alkaline chlorination.
The Agency was not able to develop
objective performance or design and
operation standards because of the
variety of oxidation reagents that could
be used and the variety of chemical and
physical properties of debris and
hazardous contaminants. In addition,
the Agency believes that the
' performance standard used for physical
and chemical extraction—treatment to a
dean debris surface—is not practicable
for chemical oxidation because treated
debris surfaces are likely to fail that
standard even though organic
contaminants may-have been destroyed
and metal contaminants may have been
extracted. Further, the Agency could not
identify a generic standard that would
•ensure effective treatment of organic
contaminants that may be beneath the
surface of porous debris. Consequently,
the primary treanrient standard for
chemical oxidation requires the treater
to make a demonstration of "Equivalent
Technology" under § 268.42(b) to
document that the technology treats
contaminants subject to treatment to a
level equivalent to that required by the
performance and design and operating
standards for other technologies in
Table 1, § 268.45, such that residual
levels of hazardous contaminants will
not pose a hazard to human health and
the environment absent subtitle C
. control. See discussion above.
The rule also restricts the use of
chemical oxidation for metal
contaminants because metals are not -
destroyed by the chemical reagents (i.e.,
chemical oxidation is not BDAT for
metals). Further, the performance and
design and operating standards would
not ensure that.undestroyed metal
would partition to the residue for
treatment to the numeric standards 'for
the waste contaminating the debris. This
is because the performance standard
does not require treatment to a "clean
debris surface" as discussed above, so
that neither the performance standard
nor the requirement to separate treated
debris from residuals (see discussion
below) would ensure mat metal
contaminants would partition to the
residue.
In addition, to help ensure effective-
treatment, the treatment standard
requires that porous debris-r-brick,
cloth, concrete, paper, pavement, rock,
and wood—dannot have a thickness
exceeding 1.2 cm (M> inch) 38 prior to
treatment to ensure effective treatment
of contaminants absorbed beyond the
debris surface.
Finally, the rule requires that the
treated debris must be separated from
38 See previous discussion in the text that, if size
reduction of debris to meet the treatment standards
reduces the particle size to below the minimum 60
mm size limit for the definition of debris, such
nondebris material is subject to the waste-specific
treatment standards for the waste contaminating
the material, unless the debris has been cleaned and
separated from contaminated soil and waste prior
to size reduction.
-------
37234 Federal Register / Vol. tNo. 160 / Tuesday, August 18.
and Regulations
treatment residues, and that such
separated residue must meet the waste-
specific treatment standards for organic
compounds for the waste contaminating
the debris. See discussion above for
rationale and information on how this
provision works.
(b) Chemical Reduction. Chemical
reduction is a chemical reaction utilizing
the following reducing reagents (or
waste reagents) or a combination of
reagents: Sulfur dioxide; sodium,
potassium, or alkali salts of sulfites,
bisulfites, and metabisulfites, and
polyethylene glycols (e.g., NaPEG and
KPEG); sodium hydrosulfidej ferrous
salts; and/or other reducing reagents of
equivalent efficiency. The treatment
standards for chemical reduction are
identical to those for chemical oxidation
because the technologies are based on
similar chemical reactions.
(3) Thermal Destruction. Thermal
destruction is treatment in an
incinerator operating in accordance with
aubpart O of part 264 or 265, a boiler or
industrial furnace operating in
accordance with subpart H of part 266,
or other thermal treatment unit operated
in accordance with subpart X, part 264
(permit standards) or subpart P, part 265
(interim status standards).
As noted above in. the discussion of
treatment standards for thermal
desorption, a thermal desorber is
regulated either as an incinerator (if the
device is direct-fired or if the off-gas is
burned in an afterburner) under subpart
O of part 264 or 265, or as a thermal
treatment unit under subpart X, part 264
or subpart P, part 265. To distinguish
between thermal desorption and thermal
destruction (for which separate debris
treatment standards are provided) for
purposes of complying with this rule, the
primary purpose of thermal desorption
is to volatilize contaminants and to
remove them from the treatment
chamber for subsequent destruction or
treatment. The definition of thermal
destruction in Table 1, § 268.45,
specifically excludes thermal desorbers.
Today's rule requires that treatment
residuals be separated from the debris
and restricts the use of thermal
destruction (i.e., thermal treatment is not
BDAT) for inorganic debris
contaminated with a metal other than
mercury., In addition, if debris is
contaminated with a dioxin-listed
waste, thermal destruction is not BDAT
and the treated debris is not excluded
from subtitle C unless the treater makes
an "Equivalent Technology" "
demonstration to the Agency under •
§ 268.42(b) that documents that .the
technology treats contaminants subject
to treatment to a level equivalent to that
required by the performance and design
and operating [standards for other
technologies in Table 1, § 268.45, such
that residual levels of hazardous
contaminants will not pose a hazard to
human health knd the environment
absent subtitle C control. (Note as
discussed below that these restrictions
do not apply to vitrification.)
Given that thermal destruction uses
substantially Higher temperatures and
often longer residence-times than
thermal desorption, the Agency believes
that thermal destruction will destroy all
but the most toxic hazardous nonmetal
contaminants io minimum threat levels.
Although metal contaminants will not be
destroyed, metal contaminants in
organic debris [(e.g., wood, paper) will be
removed from the treated debris. Metals
in organic debris will partition to the
residue (i.e., the material resulting from
treatment that [remains subject to
numerical treatment standards) because
the organic debris will be destroyed. .•
Given that the [treatment standards
require separation of treated debris from
the residue, the metals from the organic
debris will partition to the residue for
subsequent treatment to the waste-
specific treatment standards for the
waste contaminating the debris.39 Thus,
only metals contaminating inorganic
debris (e.g., concrete, bricks) may
remain untreated if they are .not
volatilized. To ^nsure treatment of such
metals, the rule restricts the use of
'thermal destruction (i.e., thermal
treatment is not-BDAT) for inorganic
debris contaminated with a metal other
than the highly! volatile mercury.
The treatment standards also require
that the residue separated from the
treated debris must meet the waste-
specific treatment standards for the
BDAT organic contaminants in the
waste contaminating the debris prior to
further treatment. This will help ensure
that the thermal destruction unit has
effectively destroyed organic
contaminants u> fee debris.
In addition, the Agency is concerned
that extremely jtoxic contaminants may
not be destroye'd (or removed with the
residue) to levels that would not pose a
hazard to human health and the
environment absent subtitle C control:
Consequently, if debris is contaminated
with a dioxin-listed waste, incineration
is not BDAT for the debris and the
debris is not excluded from subtitle C
'after treatment [unless the treater
obtains approval from the Director of
38 Although metals in soil or waste contaminating
the debris may be removed by separation of the
treated debris from these materials as the rule
requires, metals in metal-bearing, heat resistant
coatings on inorganic debris may neither be
volatilized nor separated from the treated debris.
the design and operating conditions of
the thermal destruction unit. We
considered applying this restriction only
to porous, inorganic debris under the
reasoning that the contaminants in
dioxin-listed waste would partition to
the residue.for nonporous debris (e.g.,
metal) and organic, porous debris (e.g.,
wood). We were concerned, however,
that if such contaminants remained
undestroyed even at low concentrations
in the residue and were not completely
removed from the treated debris, that
the debris could pose a health or
environmental hazard absent subtitle C
control. Given that the requirements for
separation of residue and treated debris
do not require a "clean debris surface"
but, rather allow a dusting of residue to
remain on the debris, we believe that it
is prudent to establish this restriction on
dioxin-listed waste. •
Finally, we note that vitrification is a
type of thermal destruction and that the
. rule establishes special (i.e., reduced)
requirements for vitrification. Although
the Agency classified vitrification as
both thermal destruction and an
immobilization technology at proposal
(57 FR1036), the Agency believes that
the regulation is more easily understood
if vitrification is classified only as
thermal destruction with appropriate
consideration given to the fact that
vitrification heats the debris to
extremely high temperatures resulting in
the formation of nonasbestiform glass.
The fact that vitrification transforms
debris into a glass-like residue is the
basis for the special requirements
established for vitrification: (1) The
restriction on metal contaminants for
porous, inorganic debris does not apply;
and (2) the requirement for Agency
approval of design and operating
conditions to treat debris contaminated
with dioxin-listed waste does not apply.
Nonetheless, the vitrified residue, like
all debris treatment residue, is subject to
the waste-specific treatment, standards
for the waste contaminating the debris.
d. Immobilization. Technologies. The
Agency has identified three
immobilization technologies as BDAT
for hazardous debris: , ' .
macroencapsulation,
microencapsulation, and sealing.
Immobilized debris must be land
disposed in a subtitle C facility;40 it is
not excluded from subtitle C regulation
because the contaminants have not been
destroyed or removed but rather
contained indefinitely. Today's rule
40 In the Phase II land disposal restrictions rule,
the Agency will reopen and request comment on the
issue of whether immobilized debris should be
excluded from subtitle C regulation.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
37235
establishes only general, nonobjective
performance standards for these
technologies rather than the more
prescriptive standards that were
proposed (57 FR JQ35-1036) because,
• based on public comment and the
Agency's re-evaluation, .the Agency is-
concerned that the proposed :
prescriptive,.standards may be overly
restrictive (i.e., by requiring conditions
. that are. more than necessary to ensure
immobilization prior to subtitle'C
management) *1 in some cases .and
ineffective in others. Nonetheless, the
Agency believes that the performance
standards promulgated wifl
- substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the debris as required by RCRA
section 3004(m)(l).
•(a) Macroencapsulation.
Macroencapsulation is the application
of surface coating materials such as
polymeric organies-(e.g., resins and
plastics) or the use of a jacket of inert
inorganic materials to substantially
reduce surface exposure to potential
; leaching media. The treatment standard
requires that the encapsulating material
• must completely encapsulate the debris
(i.e., the encapsulant must completely
surround the'debtis and be unbroken).
Further, the encapsulating material must
be resistant to degradation by the debris
and its contaminants and materials into
which it may come into contact after
placement (leachate, other waste,
microbes) to ensure that the likelihood
of migration of toxic contaminants has
been substantially reduced.
(b) Mteroencapsulation.
Microencapsulation is stabilization of
the debris with the following reagents
(or waste reagents) such that the
teachability of the hazardous
contaminants is reduced: Portland
cement; or lime/pozzolans (e.g., fly ash
and cement kiln dust). Reagents (e.g.,
iron salts, silicates, and clays) may be
added to enhance the set/cure time •
and/or compressive strength, or to
reduce the leachability of the hazardous
constituents. The performance standard
for microencapsulation requires that the
leachability of the hazardous
contaminants must be reduced.
We note that the proposed rule would
have prohibited the presence of free
liquids in the microencapsulated debris.
Today's rule does not provide this
explicit prohibition because free liquids
are prohibited from land disposal
facilities under existing requirements—
§ 264.314 or 265.314.
If the treater reduces the particle size
of debris to make it amenable to
microencapsulation so that the debris no
longer meets the 60 mm minimum
particle size limit for debris, such
material is subject to the waste-specific
treatment standards for the waste
contaminating the material, unless the
debris has been cleaned and separated
from contaminated soil and waste
before size reduction. This is consistent
wjth the Agency's position that material
with a particle size less than 60 mm is
amenable to conventional treatment for
process waste and small particle-sized
material (i.e., as opposed to large debris
objects) and. that such material can be
reasonably sampled for analysis to
document compliance with the
concentration-based treatment
standards for the waste contaminating
the material.
If the debris has been cleaned and
separated from contaminated soil and
hazardous waste 42 before size -
reduction, the material remains
classified as debris subject to today's
treatment standards even if it no longer
has a 60 mm particle size. The Agency
believes that cleaning and separation of
contaminated soil and hazardous waste
will substantially reduce the
concentration of toxic constituents such
that, upon microencapsulation and
placement in a subtitle C unit, the toxic
constituents should not pose a hazard to
. human health and the environment.
The level of cleaning and separation
that is required is the same as required
for separation of treatment residue from
treated debris. See Note 9 to Table 1,
§ 268.45. At a minimum, simple physical
or mechanical methods must be used
such as vibratory or trommel screening
or water washing. The debris surface
need not be cleaned to a "clean debris
surface" as defined in Table 1; rather,
the surface must be free of caked soil,
waste, or other nondebris material.
Nondebris materials so separated are
subject to the waste-specific treatment
standards for the waste contaminating
the material.
(c) Sealing. Sealing is the application
of an appropriate material which
adheres tightly to the debris surface to
avoid exposure of the surface to
potential leaching media,. When
necessary to effectively seal the surface,
sealing entails pretreatment of the
debris surface to remove foreign matter
and to clean and roughen the surface.
Sealing materials include epoxy,
41 For example, by requiring a minimum 7 day
cure time for microencapsulation when some
reagents can adequately stabilize some debris types
in much less time.
42 We note thatmixturss of contaminated soil,
waste, and debris are regulated as debris if the
mixture is at least 50% debris by volume. Thus,
materials regulated as debris may contain high
concentrations of toxic constituents.
silicone, and urethane compounds; paint.
may not be used as a sealant.
The performance standard requires
that the sealing must be performed to
avoid exposure of the debris surface to
potential leaching media—that is, the
sealant must completely enclose the
debris. Further, the sealant must be
resistant to degradation by the debris
and its contaminants and materials into
which it may come into contact after
placement (leachate, other waste,
microbes) to ensure that the likelihood
of migration of toxic contaminants has.
been substantially reduced.
e. Changes to the Proposed Rule. In
addition to the changes from proposal
discussed above, today's final rule
greatly simplifies presentation of the
treatment standards. Proposed Table 1
(indicating by YES or NO which
technologies would be BDAT for which
debris types when specific contaminant
categories were present) and Table 2
(classifying contaminants by category)
are not promulgated. Nonetheless, the
final rule will operate essentially as the
Agency had intended for the proposal
rule. Rather than explicitly identifying
acceptable technology/debris/
contaminant combinations in two tables
and providing the performance or design
and operating standards in a third table
as proposed, the final rule establishes
the treatment standards in a single
table—Table 1 of § 268.45. Not only was
the proposed approach confusing, but
proposed Table 1 forced unintended
consequences.
Proposed Table 1 would have
prohibited the use of particular
technologies to treat certain debris types
contaminated with certain hazardous
constituents. In most cases, the
proposed prohibition was based on the
impracticability of applying the
. technology to the debris type rather than
a determination as to whether the
technology would effectively treat the
debris if it was (or could be) applied. An
example is the proposed prohibition on
using abrasive blasting for paper, cloth,
rubber, and plastic. The Agency has
determined that abrasive blasting
should be allowed for these types of
debris because they may be mixed with
debris that is amenable to the
technology and would be converted to a
treatment residue. An example is a steel
I-beam that has paper labels on it. If
abrasive blasting was used to treat the I--
beam, the performance standards would
ensure that the paper labels became part
of the treatment residual subject to the
treatment standard for the waste
contaminating the debris.
We note, however, that depending on
the type of contaminants subject to
-------
r
37236 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
treatment and the technology selected to
treat the debris, more than one
treatment technology may be required to
meet the standards. For example, if
water washing was used as an
extraction technology for a porous
debris (e.g., concrete) with a
contaminant subject to treatment that
was not soluble to at least 5% by weight
In the water solution, another
technology (e.g., thermal desorption)
must be used to treat that contaminant.
In summary, today's final rule uses the
definition of the technology, the
performance or design and operating
standards, and the contaminant
restrictions provided by Table 1 of
§ 268.45 to ensure effective treatment of
hazardous debris.
6. Treatment of Characteristic Debris
EPA proposed that debris that
exhibits a characteristic of ignitability or
reactivity, or that is contaminated with
wastes that are ignitable, reactive, or
corrosive, be treated to deactivate the
waste. See 57 FR1021. The Agency
solicited comment on the question of
whether such debris should also be
treated for all Appendix VIII
constituents that could reasonably be
expected to be contaminating the debris
(see 57 FR 984-85), and whether simple
dilution should be allowed as a means
of achieving deactivation, id. at 990.
In the third third final rule, EPA
established deactivation as a treatment
standard for certain ignitable, corrosive,
and reactive wastes, and allowed
dilution as a means of acliieving this
standard. In large part, this was due to
the enormous diversity of wastes
exhibiting these characteristics and the
difficulty of ascertaining the existence
or extent of contamination not
attributable to the characteristic
property itself for this enormously
disparate group of wastes. See 55 FR
22654. These concerns are less apparent
for debris exhibiting ignitability or
reactivity, or contaminated with
ignitable, corrosive or reactive wastes,
because there appears to be much less
of it (almost no debris could be
ignitable, given that most ignitable
wastes must be liquids (see § 261.2l(a)'
(1) and (2)), none is corrosive (only
liquids can be corrosive wastes), and
also because a large proportion of debris
would likely be contaminated with
hazardous constituents because most
hazardous debris comes from ,
remediation sites. Id. at 985.
Most commenters opposed requiring
treatment for specific hazardous
contaminants. They also urged that all
dilution be allowed as a form of
treatment Some commenters argued
that this result was compelled by the
statute. (This issue is presently awaiting
decision by a panel pf the District of
Columbia Circuit Go(urt of Appeals.)
Others expressed cpncern with the
practical difficulties inherent in
sampling for hazardous constituents, or
otherwise, ascertaining their presence.
After considering jthe record, the
Agency has decided to adopt the same
treatment standards for ignitable,
corrosive, or reactive (ICR) debris as for
other hazardous debris because ICR
debris is just as likely to be
contaminated with hazardous
constituents. See 55 ^R 22654. (EPA will
subcategorize ICR wastes and develop
specific treatment standards, rather than
allowing all types of[ dilution as
treatment when a specific toxicity threat
is apparent.) We are| adopting a
treatment standard of deactivation for
these wastes but are requiring that the
standard be achieveq! by use of the
treatment methods adopted for other
debris, unless the generator or treater
demonstrates to the Agency that the
debris does not contain toxic '
constituents. See discussion on
codification of the cbntained-in principle
above in Section V.B.2.b. (If necessary,
petitioners could also make an
equivalency demonstration under
§ 268.42(b) if they wi|sh to treat by some
means other than one of the methods set
out in the rule.) This iwill result in some
treatment of hazardous constituents that
are present, rather than allowing simple
dilution to be used. (Many treatment
methods for debris involve some type of
dilution, and are permissible under
today's rule. The effect of'today's rule is
to prohibit dilution oiher than that
occurring as a result jof a designated
treatment method. An example of
impermissible dilution could be packing
ignitable, corrosive, or reactive debris in
sand.) In addition, this types of concerns
voiced by the Agency in the third third
rule against adopting^ this type of
standard for all ignitable, corrosive, and
reactive wastes are riot present for
debris. The Agency is not requiring
identification of hazardous
contaminants that may be present, as
proposed, in part due1 to the practical
concerns voiced by cpmmenters, in part
because the Agency is not adopting this
approach for other debris, and because
most of the treatment methods will
provide some treatment of most if not all
hazardous contaminants, '
EPA is not providing the option of
treating by existing treatment standards
for these wastes. This is because the
existing treatment standard for most
ignitable, corrosive, or reactive wastes
can be achieved by deactivation
involving any type of dilution. Since this
is the very result that the Agency is
seeking to avoid, EPA is indicating in
the rule that this option is not available
for this one class of debris.
EPA noted at proposal that special
rules would be needed for debris that is
reactive due to presence of cyanide in
order that cyanide by treated
adequately. See 57 FR 990. We are
adopting this approach in the final rule.
Any such debris must therefore be •
treated by one of the specified
technologies for which the treatment
standards can be achieved for cyanide.
In addition, any residues of such
treatment may not be disposed until
cyanide is treated to levels established
in existing Table CCW of § 268.43 (the
treatment standard for waste that is
reactive because of cyanide). This
approach is consistent with that adopted
for reactive cyanide wastes in the third
third rule and should ensure that the
cyanide known to be present is treated
adequately before land disposal.
7. Special Requirements for Inherently
Hazardous Debris
The proposed rule also considered the
regulatory status of debris that is-itself
hazardous because it is fabricated with
toxic constituents. Because such debris
will continue to exhibit'the toxicity
characteristic after treatment by an
extraction or destruction technology,
today's rule requires treatment by an
immobilization technology to reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous
contaminants. See § 268.45(b)(4).
Examples are lead pipe, or refractory
brick containing chromium. See 57 FR
990. (This debris is referred to in this
preamble discussion as "inherently
hazardous debris".) Such debris can
also be contaminated with listed wastes.
In the proposed rule, the Agency •
discussed how the land disposal
restrictions would apply if such debris
were disposed of, and also indicated
that an alternative for much of this
debris would be to recycle it as scrap
metal, in which, case an existing
regulatory exemption could apply./
-------
JFederal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37237
practicable and it is to be disposed,
today's rule requires treatment by an
immobilization technology to reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous
contaminants, followed by disposal in a
subtitle C facility. In response to
commenters' concerns about the need
for size reduction for immobilization, we
note that the treatment standards for
macroencapsulatioh and sealing may be
achieved in some-cases without size • •
reductions.43 . . , . ,
A number of commenters questioned
whether any treatment was needed to
be performed on inherently hazardous
debris or whether it could simply be
disposed directly. The statute forecloses
that option. Section 3004(m)(l) indicates
that the Agency is to establish "levels or
methods of treatment, if any" which
substantially reduce waste toxicity and
mobility and minimize threats. If there
are not such methods, the situation EPA
believes contemplated by the clause "if
any" in section 3004(m), the waste
cannot be land disposed. See section
3004 (d), (e), and (g); see also API v.
EPA, 906 F. 2d 729, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1990J
(use of comparative risk assessment to
compare safety of treatment methods
versus land disposal of untreated
wastes is unnecesary given that the
statute forecloses land disposal as an
option). Thus, some treatment of
inherently hazardous debris is needed in
order for it to be land disposed. As
indicated above, the Agency believes
that such methods exist (i.e..
immobilization). • - -
If inherently hazardous debris is also
contaminated with listed wastes, then
that waste also must be treated by one
of the prescribed treatment methods, the
same approach adopted for all other
debris. Note that the contaminants in
the waste contaminating the debris need
not be treated prior to immobilization of
the debris if the performance standards
for the immobilization technology can
be achieved without ;such prior
treatment. , . .
Residues from treating inherently
hazardous debris would not require
further treatment unless the residues
also exhibited a prohibited hazardous
waste characteristic. However, if the
inherently hazardous debris is
contaminated with a listed waste,
residues from treating the debris would °
remain subject to the; numerical
standards applicable to that listed
waste. Furthermore, if the debris were
treated first to. remove or destroy the
listed waste (i.e., treated by an
extraction or destruction technology
4a Certainly, size reduction to that normally
achieved prior to microencapsulation is not
necessary. , .:,:•. ' r-
prescribed in today's rule) and
subsequently treated again by
immobilization due to its inherent
content, the Agency would not consider
the debris to be contaminated any •
longer with a listed waste, since the
initial treatment would have removed or
destroyed it. Thus, any residues from
subsequent immobilization would not be
subject to treatment standards unless
those residues exhibited a
characteristic. For example, if lead pipe
contaminated, with listed solvents was
first treated to remove the solvent and
then treated to immobilize the lead, only
residues from removing the solvent
would have to meet the numerical
solvent treatment standards. This
approach mirrors that adopted for all
other hazardous debris.
b. Inherently Hazardous Debris that
Is Scrap Metal and Is Recycled. EPA's
rules provide for an exemption from
regulation for scrap metal that is
recycled. See § 261.6(a)(3)(iv); scrap
metal is defined at § 261.1{c)(6). EPA
consequently indicated at proposal that
the land disposal prohibitions would not
apply to inherently hazardous debris
that was also scrap metal being
recycled. EPA adheres to that approach,
which simply restates current rules (and
was not reopened for reconsideration).
The only obligation for generators
handling such scrap metal is to keep a
record of the scrap and its subsequent
disposition or recycling by metal
reclamation. See § 268.7(a)(6). If the
scrap metal is also contaminated with
listed waste, the exemption continues to
apply since the material would still meet
the regulatory definition of scrap metal.
However, any residues from processing
the waste would remain hazardous by
the derived from rule, and would require
treatment to meet the standard for that
listed waste before it could be land
disposed. Thus, persons treating such
scrap metal would become hazardous
waste generators, and would also incur
responsibilities under the land disposal
restriction rules (see § 268.7(a) (1) and
(2)). As explained in the previous
section, however, if the scrap metal
were to be treated first by a prescribed
removal or destruction technology, it
would no longer be considered.to be
contaminated with a listed waste, and
any residues generated subsequently'
would not be hazardous wastes unless
they exhibited a hazardous waste
characteristic. Thus, it may be
advantageous to arrange for
pretreatment of contaminants before
this type of scrap metal is recycled. '
c. Status of Stainless Steel Debris.
The Agency provided an example in the
proposed rule of demolition of.a building
containing stainless steel fixtures and -
indicated that if a representative sample
of the demolition debris exhibited a
characteristic debris would be
hazardous waste. The Agency noted
that'stainless steel couldfal.so be
removed before demolition and
•managed separately, perhaps by
recycling it as scrap metal. See 57 FR
990. . -
In providing this example, the Agency
was not stating that discarded stainless
steel artifacts are hazardous wastes,
and in fact has no information indicating
'that such materials, much less
demolition debris containing small bits
of stainless steel, would exhibit a
characteristic. Although it may be
worthwhile (for environmental and
economic reasons) to remove metal
artifacts for recycling rather than
destroying them when demolition
occurs, today's rule does not mandate
any such conduct. .
8. Relationship of the TSCA PCS Rules
to Today's Rule
As proposed, the final rule requires
that hazardous debris that is also a
waste PCB under 40 CFR part 761 must
comply with both the applicable PCB '
requirements and today's debris
treatment standards, by satisfying the
more stringent applicable requirements.
The treatment standards for
hazardous debris also apply to debris
contaminated with both PGBs and
RCRA hazardous wastes. See •
§ 268.45(a)(5). This is consistent with the
approach taken in the'third third final
rule. See 55 FR 22678 (June 1,'1990).
Debris treated to today's performance
standards by an extraction or
destruction technology (and that does
not exhibit a hazardous characteristic)
remains subject only to TSCA rules
because it is excluded from subtitle C
regulation, whereas debris treated by an
immobilization technology remains
subject to applicable requirements
under both statutes. '
Under the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA), disposal of debris
contaminated with PCBs is regulated
under 40 CFR 761.60. In addition, <
disposal of debris and materials
resulting from the cleanup of certain
PCB spills is subject to the PCB Spill
Cleanup Policy, as'provided under 40
CFR 761.125.
9. Relationship of Existing Agency •
Standards for Asbestos to Today's Rule
As proposed, the Agency is today
requiring that the treatment standards
for hazardous debris also .apply to .'-,..
debris subject to standards'for asbestos
-------
37238 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / [Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
under OSHA, TSCA. and NESHAPs.44
EPA acknowledges that many of the
treatment technologies specified in
today's rule for hazardous debris would
not be practicable for asbestos debris
because of the potential for occupational
exposure or environmental release of
asbestos. However, the Agency believes
that several technologies could be used
to treat hazardous debris in compliance
with the applicable OSHA, NESHAPs,.
and TSCA by using filtration devices on
air and water emissions to control
asbestos—water.washing and spraying;
liquid phase solvent extraction; vapor
phase solvent extraction;
biodegradation; chemical oxidation:
chemical reduction; and
macroencapsulation.
The Agency considered the argument
made by several commenters that
asbestos-contaminated hazardous
debris and hazardous debris
contaminated with asbestos should be
managed according to existing EPA and
OSHA regulations (i.e., bagging) and
placing the bagged material in a subtitle
C facility. The Agency agrees with the
commenters that, if bagging meets the
performance standard for
macroencapsulation, such debris, may
then be disposed of in a subtitle C
facility. , .
10. Special Requirements for
Radioactive Debris
The Agency is today requiring tha'l
hazardous debris that is subject to
regulations under the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA) because of its radioactivity (i.e.,
mixed waste) is also subject to today's
debris treatment standards.48 This is
consistent with the Agency's regulation
of the waste that is contaminating the
debris—if a prohibited waste is also a
mixed waste, it is nonetheless subject to
the treatment standards forthe waste.
Commenters expressed concern that
the treatment of certain radioactive
mixed waste debris may pose an
unreasonable risk to human health and .
the environment due to the radiological
nature of the waste. The Agency
understands commenters' concerns but
believes that there is sufficient "
flexibility in the debris treatment
standards to enable generatorsibr .
treaters to select a technology that will .
«« For *-summary of OSHA, TSCA. and NESHAP
control* on oabcsto*, se
-------
Federal Register / Afol; >S7, \ No.. 160 /Tuesday, August 18, 1092 /Rules and: Regulations 37239
(i.e;, debris not excluded as a result of a
contained-in determination), the treater
must document and certify compliance
with the treatment standards specified
in Table 1. The rule requires the treater
to record in the facility's files all
inspections, evaluations, and analyses
(e.g., determinatipns that a physical
extraction technology has removed at
least 0.8 cm of the debris surface and
that, the debris is treated to a "clean
debris surface") of the treated debris
that the treater made to determine
compliance with the standards, as well
as any data or information pertaining to
key operating parameters the treater
• may have generated during treatment of
the debris {e.g., exit gas temperature and
feed rate, of a thermal desorber). The
rule also requires the treater to place a
certification in the facility's files for
each shipment of excluded debris that
the debris has been treated in
accordance with the standards specified
in Table 1. These requirements will
enable the Agency to enforce the debris
treatment standards.
D. Exclusion of Hazardous Debris From
Subtitle C Regulation
Under today's rule, hazardous debris
may be excluded from subtitle C
regulation either'by: (1) the Agency's
determination that the debris no longer
contains hazardous waste (i.e., the
contained-in policy discussed hi section
V.B.2) as provided by new § 261.3(e) (2);
or (2) by compliance with the debris
treatment standards for extraction or
destruction technologies for exclusion
from subtitle C provided in Table 1 of
§ 268.45 [and provided the debris does
not exhibit a hazardous characteristic
after treatment). The basis for excluding
debris determined to no longer contain
hazardous waste is discussed above in
section V.B.2. We discuss here the basis
for excluding from subtitle C regulation
debris that is treated to meet today's
performance standards requisite to such
exclusion.
1. Basis for Excluding Debris Treated by
Extraction of Destruction Technologies
and That Is Not Characteristic
Debris treated by a prescribed
extraction or destruction technology and
that does not exhibit a hazardous
characteristic is excluded from subtitle
C regulation. As discussed in section
V.C.5 above,'the Agency has given
careful consideration as to whether each
debris/contaminant type would be .
effectively treated by each BOAT
technology to levels that present
minimum risk (i.e., would no longer pose
a hazard to human health or the
environment). The Agency believes that
debris treated to those standards would
pose minimum risk for a number of
reasons. First, the Agency has deleted
two technologies (i.e., electropplishing
and ultraviolet radiation) from the
proposed list of BOAT technologies
because they are not likely to provide
effective treatment. Second, the final
rule requires separation of nonempty
intact containers of hazardous waste
from debris for treatment to the waste-
specific treatment standards. Thus,
containerized waste that is readily
amenable to separation from debris by
equipment operators in the field and
that may have high concentrations of
toxic constituents will be subject to
concentration-based, waste-specific
treatment standards rather than to the
debris standards. Third, fee final rule
raises the particle size used to define
debris from 9.5 mm to 60 mm and
applies the size limit to all debris, not
just geologic matter. Thus, materials that
should be amenable to treatment
methods for process waste are subject
to the waste-specific treatment
standards rather than to the debris
standards. Fourth, the final rule
specifically excludes process waste of
any particle size (e.g., .slag) from the
definition of debris. Thus, process
wastes with potentially high
Concentrations of hazardous
constituents will be subject to the
waste-specific treatment standards
rather than to the debris standards.
Most important, the performance and
design and operating standards that the
rule establishes for exclusion of treated
debris from subtitle C are rigorous
standards. Examples are the
requirements that physical extraction
technologies treat metal to a "clean
metal.finish" and other debris surfaces
to a "clean debris surface". A minimum
of 0.6 cm of the surface layer of porous
debris must be removed as well.
Another example is the maximum
thickness standard for porous debris
that is to be treated by chemical
extraction.
For several technologies, the Agency
was concerned that the performance
and design and operating standards may
not ensure treatment to minimum risk
levels. Consequently for these
technologies—thermal desorption,
biodegradation, chemical oxidation and
reduction and thermal destruction of
debris contaminated with dioxin-listed
wasted 48—treated debris would be
excluded only after the treater
successfully makes an equivalent
technology demonstration to the Agency
under § 268.42(b) documenting that the
46 JNote that the standards provide other
restrictions for debris contaminated with dioxin-
listed waste. '
technology treats a particular type of
debris/contaminant combination as
effectively as the other BDAT
technologies to residual levels of
hazardous contaminants that would not
pose a hazard to human health and the
environment absent management
controls/
Finally, the rule requires separation of
the treated debris from all treatment
residues, including soil, waste, or other
nondebris material that could remain
adhered to the debris surface. This will
ensure that metal contaminants in the
residue will not continue to contaminate
the treated debris and that any waste or
contaminated soil in a primarily debris
mixture as it was generated is separated
from the treated debris prior to
exclusion from subtitle C.
The philosophy underlying this
approach is similar to that contained in
principle: It is not normally the debris
itself that is hazardous, but rather
hazardous waste that is contaminating
the debris. Thus, the goal of treatment
should be to destroy or remove the
contamination (if possible) and if this is
achieved, to dispose of the cleaned
debris as a nonhazardous waste. The
removed residues from this treatment
contain the contamination, and must
meet numerical concentration levels
before they can be land disposed.
Not only are the treatment methods
developed to achieve this objective, but
the various separation requirements
(both before and after treatment) forcing
removal of all nondebris materials such
as soil and other wastes, and the
definition of debris itself (which limits
the debris classification to materials
most amenable to the treatment,
methods, and classifies materials most
amenable to meaningful sampling as
nondebris subject to numerical
.treatment standards) are intended to
achieve 'the same goal. As discussed
above, the debris treatment standards
are written wherever possible as
performance standards to ensure that
contamination is in fact removed from
the debris. In addition, the rule specifies
which contaminants are. unsuitable for '
certain of the treatment methods. In
short, the Agency believes that
treatment of contaminated debris by the
methods established here will result in
clean debris which may then be land
disposed, and should also no longer be
regulated as a hazardous waste.
EPA notes, however, that the notion of
excluding wastes from subtitle C
regulation without sampling for
hazardous constituent concentration
levels is potentially at odds with many
of the approaches recently proposed for
public comment in the Hazardous Waste,
-------
37240 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
Idcnlification Rule (HWIR). See 57 FR
(May 20,1992). In that rule, the Agency
asked for comment on means of
Identifying and excluding hazardous
wastes from subtitle C regulation that
potentially take into account presence of
a majority of the hazardous constituents
listed in appendix VIII of part 261. If
these approaches are adopted, they
could provide a principled means of
evaluating wastes heretofore excluded
from subtitle C regulation without
requiring analysis of hazardous
constituent concentrations, such as the
debris being excluded in today's rule, or
residues- from "empty containers"
discussed above in Section V.B.2. EPA
expects that hazardous constituent
levels in debris treated by the methods
adopted today will be consistent with
levels resulting from the May 20
proposal, and in addition, for many
types of treated debris there remain
difficulties in obtaining representative
samples necessary to make hazardous
waste Identification and listing
determinations, and for this reason is
finalizing the rule today rather than
delaying action pending the results of
the May 20 rulemaking. Nevertheless,
the Agency believes it an appropriate
issue for comment In the HWIR
rulemaking the extent to which those
standards should be used to replace
exclusions from the definition of
hazardous waste that are established
without requiring analysis of hazardous
constituent levels in the excluded waste.
2. Rationale for Continued Subtitle C
Regulation of Debris Treated by
Immobilization
Debris treated by an immobilization
technology would remain subject to
subtitle C regulation. EPA currently has
insufficient data to demonstrate'
generically that debris which can be
contaminated with both organic'and
inorganic constituents would be
nonhazardous when treated by any of
the Immobilization technologies. Until
the Agency gathers further data, EPA is
concerned that, absent subsequent
subtitle C management, hazardous
contaminants may migrate from certain
immobilized debris at levels that could
pose a hazard to human health and the
environment. Thus; EPA believes it
Inappropriate to promulgate a self-
implementing exclusion at this time.
Nonetheless, in the Phase n land
disposal restrictions rule, the Agency
will reopen and request comment on the
issue of whether immobilized debris
should be excluded from subtitle C
regulation. The Agencj plans to
investigate this fssue further and will
publish in the Phase n proposed rule any
information or data that are available.
In addition, the Agency will specifically
.explore the potential of using the TCLP.
and if so, under what circumstances, in
determining whether, immobilized
hazardous debris should be excluded
from subtitle C control. To assist the
Agency in this effort, we ask for data on
the performance of 'specific
immobilization technologies and short-
er- long-term leachibility studies. Based
on past experiences, the Agency has
found that uncertainty over the technical
performance of immobilization
precludes a general! exemption from
subtitle C for all types of immobilized
hazardous debris. However, the Agency
will continue to evaluate all available
and new information about the
performance of immobilization
technologies which {could limit the '
technical uncertainty. To the extent that
sufficient information that meets proper
quality assurance/quality control
procedures is available, the Agency
plans to propose in the Phase IILDR rule
an exclusion from subtitle C for those
immobilized hazardous debris.
E. Regulation of Treatment Residuals
1. Overview
In this section, we discuss: (1) The
rationale for subjecting treatment
• residues to the waste-specific treatment
standards for the waste contaminating
the debris; (2) separation of treated
debris from treatment residue; (3)
special requirements for debris treated
by spelling; (4) special requirements for
residue from the treatment of debris
contaminated with cyanide reactive
waste; and (5) special requirements for
ignitable wastewater residue.
2. Treatment Residues Are Subject to
the Waste-Specific Treatment Standards
for the Waste Contaminating the Debris
Residuals from the treatment of
hazardous debris are subject to the
waste-specific treatment standards for
the waste contaminating the debris. The
residual must be treated to those
standards for all BDAT constituents
specified in § § 268.41, 268.42 and 268.43
for the waste. ' | . :
The Agency/had proposed to require
treatment of nonsoil [residuals to the
multi-source leachatfe F039 levels and
soil residuals to the Waste-specific
treatment standards [for the waste
contaminating'the debris. Based on
public comment and 'the Agency's re- *•
evaluation of this issue, the Agency had
determined that it is more appropriate to
" subject all treatmentjresidues—soil;
wastewater, and nonwastewater—to the
waste-specific treatment standards for
.the waste contanuWting the debris for a
number of reasons. First, the waste-
specific treatment standards currently
apply to treatment residuals,, and the
Agency does not know of a compelling
reason to change that position. Second,
requiring compliance with the waste-
specific treatment standards rather than
the F039 standards may be somewhat
easier to understand and implement
because the treatment standards for .the
BDAT constituents in the residue can be
determined at the same time that the
BDAT constituents are identified as
contaminants subject to treatment (i.e.,
the contaminants subject to treatment in
the contaminated debris are the same.
contaminants that must be treated in
treatment residuals). Third, the Agency
is considering simplifying and revising
the treatment standards for all
prohibited Waste to "universal
standards" in the Phase II proposed land
disposal restrictions rule.
Several commenters suggested that
the thermal destruction process of
vitrification should be considered
immobilization of debris.- Thus,
commenters argued that such vitrified
debris could be land disposed under
subtitle C without being subject to the
waste-specific treatment standards for
the waste contaminating the debris. The
Agency disagrees with this view,,,
Vitrification is a type of thermal
destruction that produces a residue that
is vitrified. Thus,-the. vitrified residue is
subject to the same treatment standards
as any debris treatment residue—the
. waste-specific standards for the waste
contaminating.the.debris. This is
consistent with the Agency's position
that slag from high temperature metals
recovery is residue, not debris, subject
to the waste-specific treatment
standards.
3. Treated Debris Mixed With Treatment
Residue Is Subject to Regulation as
Residue •'•'•'.-
As discussed above in section V.C.5,
treatment residues generally contain
high levels of toxic contaminants '-.-.'.':
removed from the debris. Examples are .;.
residue from thermal desorption.or • .; .'•
incineration of debris contaminated .,
with metal-bearing waste, and residue'.
from water washing of debris. As ; . -
discussed; below,, treatment residuafo ., -
are subject to the waste-specific
treatment standards for the waste
contaminating'the debrjs. Thus, to
ensure that treatment residuals are .••'.
treated effectively before land disposal,
and to ensure that treated debris is not
contaminated with the treatment
residue, the treatment standardu require
that the treated debris must be ,;,,..„.'./. .
separated from the treatment residue. If -
the debris is not separated from the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August, 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37241
treatment residue, it remains a
prohibited waste and may not be land
disposed. It also remains subject to all
other subtitle C standards.
The Agency defines treatment
residuals as residuals such as biomass
from biodegradation and ash from
incineration as well as soil, waste, or
other nondebris material that may
remain adhered to the treated debris.
We note further that slag from a high
temperature metals recovery furnace
and vitrified residue from a thermal
destruction unit are treatment residues
rather than debris. In both eases, the
original debris no longer exists and the
residuals from soil or waste
contaminating the debris are integral
components of the slag and vitrified
residue.
Separation of the treated debris from
treatment residuals must be
accomplished using simple physical or
mechanical means such as vibratory or
trommel screens or water washing. The
separation process need not produce a
"clean debris surface" *7 as discussed
above, however; rather the debris
surface must be free of caked residuals
or nondebris materials such as soil or
waste. For example, thermal desorption
debris need not be water washed after
trommel screening to remove dust from
residuals or nondebris material. (Note
that the use of water washing to
separate thermally desorbed debris from
residuals and nondebris materials need
not comply with the treatment standards
for water washing (e.g.. treatment to a
"clean debris surface") because the
debris has already been treated by an
alternative technology.)
4. Special Requirements for Debris
Treated by Spalling
As proposed and as discussed in
Section V.C.5, debris removed by
spelling remains debris subject to the
debris treatment standards. Debris
surfaces removed by spalling are, fay
definition of the technology, large pieces
of debris. The Agency believes that such
pieces of spalled debris are more debris-
like than waste or residual-like and are
more amenable to treatment by the
debris treatment standards than the •
waste-specific treatment standards.
" "Clean debris surface" means the surface,
whan viewed without magnification, shell be free of
all visible contaminated soil and hazardous waste,
except that residual staining consisting of light
shadows, siigh.t streaks, or minor discolorations,
and soil and waste in cracks, crevices, and pits may
be present provided that such staining and soil and
waste in cracks, crevices, and pits shall be limited
to no more than 5% of each square inch of surface
5. Special Requirements for Residue
From the Treatment of Debris That Is
Cyanide-Reactive
As proposed, the final rule requites
that residues from the treatment of
debris that is reactive because.of
cyanide is subject to the waste-specific
treatment standards for cyanide under
§ 268.43. As with cyanide-reactive
waste, EPA believes that BDAT for
cyanide-reactive debris requires
treatment of cyanide because of its
toxicity.
6. Special Requirements for Ignitable
Nonwastewater Residue
As proposed, the final rule requires
that ignitable nonwastewater residue
containing greater than or equal to 10%
total organic carbon be subject to the
technology-based standards for D001:
"Ignitable Liquids based on 261.21(a)(l)"
under § 268.42. This residue must be
treated by fuel substitution {i.e., burning
as fuel in a boiler or industrial furnace),
recovery of organic constituents (e.g.,.
distillation, carbon adsorption), or
incineration. EPA has established these
technologies as BDAT for high total
organic carbon ignitable liquids because
they will effectively remove or destroy
the toxic organic constituents.
F: Permit Requirements for Treatment
Facilities
Treatment of hazardous debris
(except as discussed below for 90-day
on-site treatment in a container, tank, or
containment building) is currently
subject to the applicable interim status1
and permit standards of parts 264, 265,
266, and 270 that ensure protection of
human health and the environment from
the operation of the treatment unit. (We
note that, for containment buildings,
interim status and permit standards and
requirements for 90-day on-site
treatment are promulgated in today's
rule as discussed elsewhere in this
notice.) Today's debris treatment
standards to implement the land
disposal restrictions of section 3004(m)
of the statute do not affect those existing
facility standards. For example, today's
treatment standards do not reopen
interim status eligibility for debris
treatment facilities. (We note, however,
that today's rule does establish the
interim status eligibility date for
containment buildings given that these
units are newly regulated by this rule,
assuming that such buildings are located
at facilities containing no other
regulated units.) Rather, today's debris
treatment standards subject generators
and treaters to additional requirements
to ensure.effective treatment of
hazardous debris prior to exclusion from
subtitle G (for debris treated by an .
extraction or destruction technology and
that does not exhibit a hazardous
characteristic) or land disposal in a
subtitle C,facility (for debris treated by
an Immobilization technology).
•As information for the reader, we note
that the existing facility standards for
the following common debris treatment
operations (other than for 90-day on-site
treatment in a container, tank, or
containment building) are:
• Debris treatment technologies j
conducted in tanks such as high
pressure steam 'and water spraying,
chemical extraction, and biodegradation
are subject to the standards for tank
facilities in subpart J of part 264 (permit
standards) and part 265 (interim status
standards). • -
• Storage or treatment in containment
buildings is subject to the subpart DD,
parts 264 artd 265, standards also
promulgated today (see discussion j
elsewhere in today's notice). 1
• Physical extraction technologies '
such as abrasive blasting or spalling !
used to treat debris in place but that is
intended for discard (e.g., treatment of a
contaminated building prior to
demolition) are subject to the permit •
standards of subpart X, part 264 for
miscellaneous units or the interim status
standards for chemical, physical, or
biological treatment in subpart Q, part
265. -• .
• Incinerators are subject to subpart
O, part- 264 (permit standards) and part
265 (interim status standards).
• High temperature metal recovery
furnaces are conditionally exempt from
the rales-for boilers and industrial
furnaces burning hazardous waste in
subpart H, part 266.
• Thermal desorbers are subject
either to the incinerator or thermal
treatment standards, depending on
whether the unit meets the incinerator
definition. Thermal treatment units are
subject to subpart X, part 264 (permit
standards for miscellaneous units) and
subpart P, part 265 (interim status
standards).
1. Adding Capacity for. Debris Treatment
to Existing Facilities
Today's rule amends the permit and
interim status standards of part 270, as
proposed, to facilitate the expansion of
existing.debris treatment capacity and .
the addition of new debris treatment
capacity at existing facilities currently
subject either to permit or interim status
standards for managing hazardous
waste. However, if an owner or operator
of a facility that is not currently
managing hazardous waste under the
permit or interim status standards wants
-------
37242 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
to construct a debris treatment facility,
he must first obtain a RCRA permit.
a. Facilities With a RCA Permit..
Facilities with a RCRA permit may add
new treatment processes and additional
capacity by applying for a permit
modification under § 270.42. See 53 FR
37912 (Sept. 28,1988). Although
regulations at § 270.42 were
promulgated under pre-HSWA
authority, EPA may use these
regulations in authorized States when
necessary to implement HSWA
provisions such as the land disposal
restrictions. See 53 FR 37933.
The types of modifications needed to
add new capacity or processes would
likely require submittal of a Class 2 or 3
modification. The Class 2 modification
process requires Agency action on the
request within 120 days. This action
\vould consist of approval or denial.
reclassification as a Class 3
modification, or .authorization- to
conduct activities (in containers, tanks,
and containment buildings, as discussed
below) for up to 180 days pending,
Agency action. Further, for Class 2
modifications, construction to
implement the requested facility change
may commence 60 days after submission
of the request. There is no deadline for
Agency action for Class 3 modifications,
which apply to more substantial
changes.
Permitted facilities may apply under
existing § 270.42(e)(3)(ii)(B) for a
temporary authorization to initiate
necessary activities to treat or store
restricted wastes (e.g., hazardous
debris) in tanks or containers while a
Class 2 or 3 permit modification is
undergoing review, or to undertake a
treatment or storage activity which will
be of short duration (e.g.,
decontamination of a building intended
for demolition). Today's ruleTevises that
section to enable the Agency also to
grant a temporary authorization for
containment buildings meeting the
requirements promulgated today in -
subpart DD of parts 264 and 265.
Any request for a temporary
authorization must demonstrate
compliance with the part 264 .standards
and also meet the criteria of § 270.42(e)
for approval. Interested members of the
public (i.e., those that have previously
expressed interest in any permitting
action for the facility) will receive notice
by mail of a facility's request for a
temporary authorization. The temporary
authorization may be renewed once if •"
the additional procedures of § 270.42(e)
are followed; including submission of
appropriate permit modification '
information and the initiation of public
meetings and public comment period.
See 53 FR 37919.
b. Facilities Operating Under Interim
Status. Facilities managing hazardous
waste under interim status may add new
treatment processes or additional
treatment or storage capacity by using
the existing procedures for changes
during interim status in § 270.72. Under
these procedures, a facility must submit
to EPA a revised Part A permit
application andjustification explaining
the need for the change. The change
must then be approved by EPA.
Such changes must meet one of
several criteria specified in § 270.72,
such as being necessary to comply with
a Federal, State, or local requirement
However, changes generally may not be
made if they amount to reconstruction of
the facility. Thej Agency considers the
facility to be "reconstructed" if the
[capital investment for the changes to the
facility exceed 50% of the capital cost of
a comparable entirely new facility.
Existing § 27p.72(b)(6) lifted the
reconstruction limit for changes to treat
or store in,tanks and containers
hazardous waste subject tbjand
disposal restrictions imposed by part
268, provided that such changes are
made solely forjthe purpose of
complying with part 268 land disposal
restrictions. Today's rule revises that
paragraph to lift the reconstruction limit
for containment buildings as well. See
the the new subpart DD, part 264 and
265, standards for containment buildings
that are also promulgated today.
2. On-Site Treatment of Debris in
Containers, Tanks, and Containment
Buildings |
Existing § 262.34 exempts from permit
requirements generators who store or
treat hazardous [debris ,on-site in tanks
or containers for a period not exceeding
90 days provided that the tank or
container is designed and operated in
compliance with subpart I (for '
containers) and Jsubpart J (for tanks) of
part 265. Today's rule revises § 262.34,
as proposed, to ilso provide this
exemption to containment buildings
designed and operated in compliance
with the subparl; DD, part 265, standards
also promulgated today.
G, Capacity Variance for Hazardous,
Debris •. ' . •
In the May 15,; 1992, Notice to
Approve Hazardous Debris Case-By-
Case Capacity Variance, the Agency
approved a generic, one year extension
of the LDR effective date applicable to
all persons managing hazardous debris
(57 FR. 20766). For the purpose of the
extension, the teim "debris" was '
defined as set out in the preamble to the
June.l, 1990 Third Third final rule. See
55 FR 22650 and '§ 268.2(g). Furthermore,
the Agency indicated that it will explain
in the debris rule how a change in
definition will affect the case-by-case
extensions.
Although in general, both definitions
will identify the same materials as
debris, there are differences that may
result in situations where either
definition could include debris not
included by the other. Of concern is the.
situation where someone has entered
into contracts for, or actually initiated
the process of, removing for disposal
debris which met the old definition but
does not meet the current definition. To
avoid possible disruption of on-going
activities, which have relied on the
previous definition of debris, the Agency
will allow the extension to apply to
materials meeting either definition
through May 8,1993.
H. Other Issues
1. Applicability ,of Standards to. •
Contaminated Structures and Equipment
a. Structures and Equipment
'Contaminated With Hazardous Waste
and Intended for Discard Are Regulated
Debris. As discussed above in section
V.B.l.a of the preamble, structures and
equipment contaminated with •
hazardous waste and that are intended
for discard are hazardous debris subject
to today's treatment standards. Thus, if
a contaminated tank or building is
decontaminated before demolition, the
debris may not be land disposed unless
the tank or building was
decontaminated in compliance with
today's treatment standards. (We note
that as discussed above in section F.2,
such treatment is subject to the permit
standards unless conducted in a tank,
container, or containment building.)
If the contaminated structure or
equipment is being decontaminated for
subsequent use, however, the structure
or equipment is not debris' and the
decontamination is neither subject to
today's debris treatment standards nor '
the permit'standards for hazardous
waste management facilities. Thus,
cleaning a building that is in use is not
treatment of debris." .
b. Treatment Standards for Concrete
Pads and Walls Intended for Discard.
The Agency believes that concrete pads
and walls are typically decontaminated
using "water washing" techniques.
These techniques include the following
technologies specified in today's rule:
Abrasive blasting using water tq'propel -
abrasive media, high pressure steam or
water sprays, and water washing and
spraying. .
We note that the performance
standards for abrasive blasting and high
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 /Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37243
pressure water sprays require removal
of 0.6 cm of the surface because these
are physical extraction technologies
designed to remove the surface layer of
the debris. The performance standards
for water washing and spraying limits
the thickness of the concrete to 3/8 inch
because this technology relies on
chemical extraction (i.e., dissolving or
removing with surfactants) of
contaminants below the concrete
surface. If the treater believes that
treatment to these performance
standards is not necessary to ensure
effective treatment to residual levels of
hazardous constituents that will not
pose a hazard to human health and the
environment absent management
controls, the treater may: (1) Obtain a
waiver of the standards (e.g., the
thickness limit for water washing) under
an equivalent technology demonstration
under § 268.42(b); or (2) demonstrate to
the Agency that the debris upon
alternative treatment does not contain
•toxic constituents under the contained-
in principle codified in today's rule. See
discussion in section V.B.2.b above.
c. Relation of Debris Standards to
Closure Rules. Existing closure
standards for hazardous waste
management facilities require
"decontamination" of contaminated
structures and equipment.' See, e.g.,
§ § 264.114 and 265.114. The precise
meaning of decontamination presently is
determined on a case-by-case basis
through review "of the facility's closure
plan. However, if such structures or
equipment is also debris which is going
to be land disposed, which could often
be the case, an issue arises regarding
the relationship of the
"decontamination" standard in the
closure rule and the treatment methods
adopted in today's rule.
The Agency believes that the
treatment methods in today's rule would
always satisfy the decontamination
standard in the closure provisions. After
all, the purpose of these treatment .
methods is to decontaminate. EPA also
interprets the land disposal and closure
rules to require that all hazardous debris
be treated to meet the debris treatment
standards, even if the debris is
generated during closure. (Put another
way, the debris standards normally
would be appropriate for any debris
generated as a result of closure.)
If the debris treatment standards
appear to be inappropriate for debris
(such as contaminated structures or
equipment) generated during closure, a
site-specific treatability variance
pursuant to § 268.44{h) may be
available. The Agency believes that
such a variance could be processed
administratively as part of the closure
procedures.
2. Mixing of Hazardous Waste or
Contaminated Soil With Debris To
Avoid the Waste-Specific Treatment
Standards Is Prohibited
Today's rule prohibits the intentional
mixing of hazardous waste or
contaminated soil with debris to avoid
the concentration-based treatment
standards for the waste or soil. The
Agency is prohibiting such sham mixing
, to ensure that hazardous waste and
contaminated soil are treated to the
existing treatment standards given that
the waste 48 is amenable to treatment to
those levels and that the waste and soil
are likely to be much more heavily
contaminated with hazardous
constituents than debris and, thus,
should be subject to such concentration-
based treatment levels.
The prohibition on mixing applies to
debris treated by any technology:
Immobilization as well as extraction or
destruction. Although the debris
treatment standards require separation
of the Waste or contaminated soil from
debris treated by an extraction or
destruction technology and that the .
residue must meet the waste-specific
treatment standards for the waste
contaminating the debris, the treatment
process itself could enable the residue to
meet the concentration-based waste .
treatment standards by virtue of dilution
during treatment. An example is water
washing of debris intentionally mixed
with a prohibited listed Waste. The
water residue may easily meet the
waste-specific treatment standard by
virtue of dilution rather than treatment.
We note that this prohibition on sham
mixing does not affect implementation
of the .principle discussed above in '
section V.B.I to classifying mixtures of
debris with contaminated soil or waste
as debris. That principle says that if
debris is the primary material in a
mixture by volume based on visual
observation, the mixture is subject to
regulation as debris. Thus, for example, .
when debris is initially excavated in a
mixture of debris and nondebris
materials, and debris is the primary
material present, the mixture is
appropriately regulated as debris, and
sham mixing has not occurred.
However, if debris is intentionally
mixed with contaminated soil or ,
hazardous waste, (e.g., after excavation),
and the mixture is regulated as debris '.
48 We note that the Agency is concerned that the
waste treatment standards may not be appropriate
for soil contaminated with the waste and,
consequently is considering proposing in summer
1992 treatment standards for contaminated soil.
by the application of the mixture
principle and subsequently immobilized,
prohibited sham mixing has occurred.
3. Procedures for Demonstrating
Equivalency of Alternative Technologies
As discussed at proposal, existing
, § 268.43(b) provides the generator or
treater an opportunity to demonstrate to
the Agency than an alternative
technology can achieve the equivalent
level of performance as that of the
specified treatment method. We note
that this variance procedure can also be
used to demonstrate that one of the
technologies specified in today's rule
can be designed or operated under
conditions other than those established
in Table 1, § 268.45, to provide
equivalent treatment (i.e., meet the
performance standard for the
technology) or that a specified .
technology can treat hazardous .
contaminants to levels that do not pose
a hazard to human health and the
environment absent subtitle C control
without achieving the performance and
design and operating standards
established in Table 1. • ,
In addition, the Agency is requiring in
the treatment standards of Table 1,
§ 268.45, that treaters must make an
Equivalency Demonstration under
§ 268.43(b) in order for certain
technologies to be considered BDAT.
See discussion aboye for thermal
desorption, biodegradation; and
chemical destruction.
VL Capacity Determinations
This section presents the data
sources, methodology, and results of
EPA's capacity analysis for today's • \
newly listed wastes. Specifically,
section VI summarizes the results of the
capacity analysis for petroleum" refining
wastes and other organic wastes;
wastes mixed with radioactive
contaminants; and debris contaminated .
with the newly listed wastes.. Soil and
debris contaminated with newly listed
wastes for which standards are finalized
today" will be addressed in future . •
proposals. . •
The capacity analysis for the newly :
listed wastes for which the Agency is
today promulgating treatment standards
relied onrinformation obtained from ,.-
several sources. Primary 'data sources
include the National Survey^of .... •
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, .
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities (the ' .':.
TSDR Survey), the National Survey of. ,
Hazardous Waste penerators (the '
Generator; Survey), data received in
response to the proposed rule (57 FR
957), data received'in response to the
ANPRM for the Newly Identified and
-------
372j* Federal Register / Vol. 57, No; 160 / JTuesday. Aagust 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
Listed Wastes. £58 ER 24444J; data-
received fat voluntary data submissions-,
and information: requests authorized
under section 3007 of RCRA.
EPA conducted! tha TSDR Survey.
during 1987 and 1988 to obtain
comprenensive-dateion-the nation'*
capacity for managing hazardous-waste
and' on- the quantities of hazardous
waste being-land disposed. For the
capacity analysis, EPA used the TSDR
Survey information on- the quantities, of
waste streams managed1 in land-disposal
units and requiring alternative
treatment/recovery, due to the land
disposal" restrictions and on available , :
capacity oChazardous waste
management technologies.
EPA conducted tfie Generator Survey
in 1987. This survey requested.
information on waste quantities and
waste characteristics of. hazardous
waste-generated; and provided capacity
information fans facilities not included hi
the TSDR Survey.
A. Capacity Analysis Results-Summary
Table VI.A 1 lists each waste code for
which EPAislfinalizing LDR standards.
today. For each code, this table
indicates whether EPA is granting a
national capacity variance for surface-
disposed or deepwell disposed wastes.
As indicated in this table, the Agency is
granting two-year national1 capacity
variances only for petroleum refining
wastes generated as-a result of
cleanouts or closures-of surface-
impoundments, debris contaminated
with newly listed wastes, and mixed
radioactive wastes-. EPA is granting a
one-year natipnal capacity variance for
routinely-generated petroleum refining
wastes. EPA is also granting a 3-month
national capacity variance-, extending
the effective date to November 9,1992,
for compliance with the treatment
standards for fell newly regulated waste
codes, F001-F005 revised treatment
standards, converted wastewater
standards that had been based on
scrubber water,, and the HTMR generic
exclusion standards. This extension
would not apply to wastes with a
specified longer national capacity
variance. EPA is delaying the effective
date for all newly regulated waste codes
because the Agency realizes that even
where data indicate that sufficient
treatment capacity exists, it is not
immediately available. Additional time
may be required to determine what
compliance entails,, redesign tracking
documents, possibly adjust facility
operations, and possibly segregate
wastestreams which heretofore had
been centrally treated.. EPA believes
these legitimate delays are
encompassable within a short-term
capacity variance because part of the
notion of. available capacity is the
ability to get wastes to the treatment
capacity in a lawful manner. The
Agency is. dating this capacity extension
.from November 9,1992, rather than date
of signature due to unanticipated delays
in the publication of this rule in the
Federal Register.
TABLE VI.A.1.—SUMMARY OFCAPACITJ' VARIANCE DECISIONS FOR NEWLY LISTED WASTES
Waste code
F037 — removed from S.I.*
F037— managed In S.l> : ' ' "
F038-nisnagecl>kvai.b • ""
F038— Routine, i
K108 _... '
K109 ";
K1 10 ~ " "
K111 '
1/449 " ' f"
K1 17 i
K'JJB ' ""f •
Ki2a""™"~""' '•' t
KU4 ._., ' '"' '
K125™. „ t "
K126«,.._ _. '
K131 ., _. ' "" j
KJ32 " '
1/328™ _1 " i
U353 „
U359>. ' ' " '
MtxodRacfc Wasto,
Hazardous Doixis..... " ' "
Variance for surface-
disposed wastes?
2-year
2-year
2-year
1-year
1-year
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No ,
No
No
No
2-year
Variance for deepwell-
disposed wastes?
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
2-year.
2-year.
2-year.
2-year.
No.
No.
No.
•F037 and F038 wastes from cleanout and closure of surface impoundments
• F037"and F038 managed in surface impoundments.
8. A vailable Capacity
The analysis of commercial capacity
for newly listed wastes is based
primarily on data from the TSDR Survey.
capacity data set, data received in
response to previous LDR notices and
regulations, and data received in
^voluntary data submissions. Analysis of
'data from these sources indicates that
sufficient commercial capacity is-
currently available for newly identified
wastes requiring wastewater treatment,
stabilization, and combustion of liquids
with exceptionj of deepwell injected
Kll'7, Kll8i K131 and K132. However,
commercial capacity for combustion of
sludges, solids; and debris is limited for
some newly identified wastes. The
analysis of commercial combustion
capacity discussed in this section
focuses on F037 and F038 sludges and
solids because these wastes represent
the majority of the waste volumes
affected by today's rale. Specific
capacity issues for the newly listed K
and U wastes being regulated today are
discussed in section VI.C.2 of this
preamble. Debris is amenable to some,
but not all types of sludge and solid
combustion capacity, and is discussed in
greater detail in section VI.E. Table
VI.B.l summarizes available commercial
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 /.Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37245
treatment capacity for newly listed
wastes.
EPA's analysis of commercial
combustion capacity for sludges and
solids has historically focused on the
broad capacity categories of liquids,
sludges, and solids. Several commenters
felt that these capacity categories do not
adequately represent the diversity of
combustion systems included in each
category. Therefore, to improve the
precision of its combustion Capacity
analysis, EPA lias divided sludge/solid
combustion capacity into seven
categories. EPA's capacity analysis for
fixed-site commercial hazardous waste
incinerators separately addresses
capacity from pumpable sludge,
nonpumpable sludge, containerized
solid, and bulk solid feed systems.
EPA's capacity analysis for cement kilns
that burn hazardous wastes as fuel
separately addresses capacity from
sludge, containerized solid, and dry
solid feed systems.
EPA recognizes that this type of
categorization is increasingly important
as the commercial combustion industry
matures and firms employ different
combustion and fuel substitution
technologies (i.e., cement kilns) to
accommodate different types of wastes
entering the commercial market. EPA
also recognizes that individual feed
system capacity constraints must also
be consistent with overall system
capacity-constraints, such as heat
release from a kiln. The relationship
. between overall system constraints and
individual feed system constraints is
complicated by the fact that, within the
overall system limits, limits for one type
of feed system, (e.g., containerized
solids) may be raised by reducing the
amount of another type of feed (e.g.,
bulk solids). EPA emphasizes that its
capacity analysis is conducted on a
national level, and that though the
Agency speaks generally about which
systems are more likely to be used for
newly identified petroleum refining
wastes, this rule does not preclude these
wastes from going through other
systems.
TABLE VI.B.1.—AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL
TREATMENT CAPACITY FOR NEVVLY
LISTED WASTES
Technology
Biological Treatment
Chemical Precipitation
Combustion of Liquids
Combustion of Sludges and Solids
Cement Kilns: Sludges.;
Cement Kilns: Containerized Solids.
Cement Kilns: Dry Solids
Available
capacity
(Tons/year)
TABLE VI.B.1.—AVAILABLE COMMERCIAL
TREATMENT CAPACITY FOR NEVVLY
LISTED WASTES—Continued :
Technology •
Incineration: Pumpable Sludges
Incineration: Nonpumpable Sludges...
Incineration: Containerized Solids .„...
Incineration: Bulk Solids :
Stabilization
Available
'capacity
- (Tons/year)
51 000
1,000
41,000
23 000
1 204 000 •
188,000
813,000
526,000
14,000
83,000
, 24,000
This section discusses EPA's
assessment of capacity in each of the
seven categories, the'waste
characteristics that affect whether a .
waste is generally amenable to the
category, and pretreatment processing
that is generally required. A comparison
of available and required capacity for
F037 and F038 sludges and solids can be
, found in section VI.C.
I. Incineration Capacity
In response to the proposed rule, EPA
received comments relating to the high
demand for incineration capacity and a
general shortage of incineration
capacity. However, EPA's analysis of
detailed data from specific incinerators
revealed that there is some commercial
incineration capacity available. One
commenter remarked that incinerators
have less capacity for high BTU wastes.
EPA recognizes that the heating value of
a waste affects an incinerator's
.throughput capacity for the waste when
the incinerator is constrained by its heat
input to the unit (e.g., if an incinerator is
limited to 10 million BTU/hr, it could
either feed 10,000 Ib/hr of waste with a
heating value of 1,000 BTU per pound or
5,000 pounds per hour of a waste with a
heating value of 2,000 BTU per pound).
EPA believes that wastes with heating
values above about 5,000 BTU per pound
will increasingly be sent to cement kilns
for use as fuel. This issue is particularly
important for bulk solid systems that are
designed for soils, which have very low
heating values. To the extent that mass
throughput limits are based on the
incinerators heat release limits, using
mass throughput estimates (e.g., for bulk
solids) based on large amounts of soil in
the feed mix, could overestimate the
mass throughput capacity for wastes
with higher heating values than soil,
such as F037 and F038. For this reason,
EPA has revised its capacity estimate
for certain incinerators whose estimates
in the proposed rule were based on a
waste feed blend with a very low
heating value. EPA believes that a
significant portion of routinely
generated F037 and F038, and an even
larger portion of F037. and F038 from
surface impoundment cleariouts, will
require incineration (as opposed to
cement kiln) capacity.
EPA has identified 51,000 tons pei-
year of pumpable sludge capacity
available at incinerators. Pumpable
sludge systems rely on wastes with
sufficient liquid content to facilitate the
flow of materials. Pumpable sludge • .'
systems use direct injection, sludge
lances, positive displacement pumps
• and cement pumps to feed sludges to the
incinerator. EPA is aware of at least one
facility processing K048-K052 in this
manner. In general, F037 and F038 would
have to be reslurried, or would have to
bypass dewatering at the point of
generation to be handled through
pumpable sludge systems. The primary
constraints on use of this capacity for
F037 and F038 are the viscosity, particle
size, ash content, and abrasiyeness of
the sludges.-Therefore, EPA does not
believe that pumpable sludge systems
will receive a large portion of the
nation's F037 and F038 waste streams,
because of the problems discussed
above. Additional technical
developments and operational
experience are needed to allow these
systems to routinely handle F037 and- .
F038 wastes. Based on EPA's experience
observing the progress at commercial
combustion facilities, EPA believes
obtaining permit modifications and
developing the technical arid operational
experience to routinely handle new
wastes will take six to twelve months.
EPA has identified 1,000 tons per year '
of nonpumpable sludge capacity
available at incinerators. Nonpumpable
sludge systems use ram feed systems to
feed sludges to the incinerator. Wastes
fed in this manner are limited by
extremely high or low BTU, tramp object
size, and the presence of free liquids.
The primary constraints are overall
availability, aggravated by generally
high maintenance requirements. Again,
EPA does not believe that nonpumpable
sludge systems will receive a large
portion of the nation's F037 and F038
waste streams because there are few of
them and they will require time to
develop the technical and operational
experience needed to handle routinely-
generated F037 and F038 petroleum •
refining wastes. '-
EPA has identified 34,000 tons per
year of containerized solids capacity
available at incinerators. Containerized
solids systems use ram, elevator or drop
feed systems to feed metal drums and
fiber packs to incinerators. Metal drum
systems generally require shredders.
Wastes appropriate for this capacity are
limited by water content and high or low
BTU extremes. Utilization of this
-------
372gg Federal Register / Vol 57. Kb. 160 / Tuesday. August Iff. 1992. / Rules and Regulations
capacity depends on wastes being
packaged into drums, which is
technically feasible, but systems for
packaging petroleum, refining wastes for
incinerators are- not widely.- available-.
Containerizatiarr capacity could be
. added at generators, incinerators or
intermediate-processorsv EPA,believea-
obtaining storage and operating permits,
as well as construction and- startup- of
packaging. units- wilt take six months to
one year. Therefore,, EPA.believes that
containerized solida systems will not
receive a larg&portion, of the-nation's
F037 and F03S waste streams because of
the time needed to bring, these-'systems
on line and operate them- routinely on
petroleum refining, wastes F037 and
F03B.
EPA: has: identified 23,000 tons per
year of bulk solids, capacity available at
incinerators. Hulk solida systems;
generally uaecTamjihell cranes or drop
feed systems (possibly writkshredderaj'
to feed built solids into incinerators*
EPA is aware of four incinerators .
currently burning petroleum refining
wastes as bulksolidk Toe primacy,
constraints on: the- bulk solids system
areextrmewof-high.and*lDw-BTir, I
object size* abrasLvenessi me-presence
of'free liqnxdsv high system: maintenance
and limited; number ofrinstalled: systems.
F037 and- F088 wouH'bave ta be
dewatersdirn order tehe amenable to
this type o£ capacity;. The ability. forbulk
solids feed: systems* to- process! large
quantities of wastes directly from roll-
offcbins, makes, bulk solids, capacity the
most siiitabfefxnrpetralfiumrefining'
wastes witklowta-moderate BTJJ
values.
Mucfcofthe nation's bulk solids-
incineration capacity has come on; line
fairly recently and continues, to; face-
some technical and regulatory, obstacles*
Two o£tna incinerators, that provide
bulk soEd& capacity have entered that
marketin. the past year, and anotheris.
still modifying its. system to. bring; its- •'
actual throughput capacity closer to: its.
design capacity. Historical experience
wltis new commercial' incineration
capacityandr tfie unique techrrieat
chaUengssjposed by bulk solida feed-
systems make commissioning- and;'
maintaining- new; ccnnnercial bulk solids
incineration capacity highly uncertain.
Ba sed' oo tte uncertainty; of firrai permit
estimates taexduldeaiifaciiierator:
wntckhaetnot yet EeEEi-ttrf; final • ;
approval: In continue £u& operation: mid
needs a permit randifrca±km foirFOST"
and F03awaatES.E?A.estima±e«it-wi31;
take six ta twebrfcrmai^si for thus
facility to he &rfly operational- for
also considered the uncertainty iaitst
estimates of current capacity in- ita-
variance decisWr for F037 and F038
wastes. S .
2. Cement Bain Capacity
Several- comlmenters were concerned
about EPA's intention to consider
cement kiln combustion capacity; citing
the low BTU content of F037 and E038.
Cement kilns generally require that their
solid wastes, contain more than. 5,000 or
6,008-BTU per pound. Based on
available information, EPA estimates
that roughly half of the routinely
generated F037 and F038 sent off site
will have a Bltl valne sufficient for
combustion in | cement kilns. On the
other hand, EPA1 believes-that F037 and
FOBS'generated from the removal of
hazardous* wastes- from surface
impoundments will have a-lowerBTU
value- and are more likely to be- treated
in incinerators'.
'EPAhas identified 14,000.tons-of
sludge capacity available per year at
two-cement kilns. One commenter
reported matncr cement kilns-'are .
accepting* sludges, but EPA is aware of
these two. Cement Mln sludge systems
rely on slurrying-wastes- and feeding .
them through-primary firel ports. F037'
and F03»woulii have to-be'reslurried, or
bypass dewatering. The primary-
constraint on the use- of this capacity for
petroleum refining wastes is the1
difficulty- of "suspending large amounts-- of
solids in liquid while memtainmg'mgh'
STEP. However!, EPA recognizes the
limitations, of titis= capacity for petroleum
refining1 sludges, and believes that
cement kiln sMdge capacity will not
receive slargetportion of the national'
F037 and>FD38tjwa«te streams^
AdtiitioHai tedinieal' developments and
operational experience ass needed to-
allow these systems to- routinely handle
F037 and FOSS-jwastes; EPA believes-
these changes will take six to> twelve
monthsv '
EPA ha* identified: 83,000. tons of
containerize A solids capacity, primariljc
at four eementlkilicrs. (Element kiln
containerized solids, systems use drop
feed systems to feed: pails and bags
contamfegi hazardous wastes- into tire
"add?> midsection: of the kito fthe
calcining zone};. .Wasteapackaged iiita
•bags musfegeneralLybe-mermadlst: dried
to a water coutent.pf 5 to 25 percent As;
isjgeneraMyrtru'efar cement kilns,
wastes ace limited by BTU vadnE.. The
primary cimstrainta on the: usa of this
capacity-appeea* ta be diewatoiingjand-
packaging capicrty. One coinmeitlHris-
concerned that the facilitiies Meritifisdi
by EPA as having enntanierizadi
capacity/ are close- to 1QQ- pereeritt .
utilized;, AftteE fiirtiaar ana%siBv EPA
stands by the estimates' prepared for the
proposed rule. Three of the facilities
included in this estimate routinely
acceptpetrolKuntrefining.-wastes, and
as of September 1991, one was. pursuing.
a permit modification to be afele to burn.
K04S-K052 andF037andF038. EPA
believes that containerized solids
systems at cement kilns will be the
preferred route for most routinely
generated petroleum- refining wastes,
and has relied'heavily on these systems
in its capacity analysis-for F037 and
F038.
Cement kilns are continuing to
increase their capacity to burn
hazardous wastes, and technical:
advancements, in feed systems are-
producing especially significant
increases in capacity for solids.-
Estimated containerized solids capacity
has roughly doubled since the Third'
Third rule. Because much of'the
available capacity for F037 andFOSS
wastes is new capacity, EPA. is.
concerned that additional', technical.
developments, andoperational .
experience are. needed to allow these
systems to .handle routinely generated
F037 and. F038i wastes. Additionally,
there is- considerable uncertainty
whether cement kilns will continue to
provide the same capacity as-they
modify their equipment and operations.
to meet interim, status requirements of
the BIF rul&(58.-FR 7134, February 21,.
1991). To comply, with BIF- rule-interim
status requirements,, cement kilns must
meet a. 20 ppm hydrocarbon, emission:
limit or establish an alternative limit
based! oo> baseline hydrocarbon. '
emission rates, when the: facility isiimt
burning hazardous- wastes; Based on
information: from- the cement indkistry,.
EPA belteves that, stone cement kilns
will have trouble -meeting the. 20' ppirt; • .
limit or establishing a; baseline, due-ta
variable hydiocaisbon levels, in- their raw
materials. If one of the ma|or. cement
facilities, providing containerized solids
capacity, is- forced to cease operations, it
would cause a. major-disruption ta the
commercial hazardous waste .
combustion system, by removing as
much as 35J000 tons per year'of capacity,
leaving-the net available eapateity close
to the amount of routinely geneiatfid!
F037 and F038- that are amenable to
cement kilns. As discussed in Section
VLC.,, nearly half the routinely generated
F037 and F038- wastestream- is not
amenable to cement kilns* and there is-
insufficient bulk, solids, capacity ta
handle this quantity-. Due* to-these1
potential problems, EPA i'a reluctanrto
set the LDR! effective dates, suck that
large quantities, of new, wastes; would: be
-------
federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37247
introduced into the combustion systems
immediately.
EPA has identified 24,000 tons of dry
solids capacity available primarily, at
two cement kilns. Dry solids systems
use pneumatic systems that convey
dried materials to the "hot" end of the
kiln. Wastes going through this feed
mechanism are.generally,limited by
their BTtl value, moisture content, and,
ability to form freeflowing solid-
particles. The primary constraint on the
use of this capacity for combustion of
F037 and F038 is the availability of
thermal drying capacity, which is
necessary to reduce the moisture
content to between 5 and 25 percent
water. Commenters on the proposed rule
noted that petroleum refining sludges,
even If dried, may be too "tacky" for this
type of feed system. EPA agrees that
some F037 and F038 wastes may not be
amenable to dry solids systems, and
believes that dry solids systems will not
receive a large portion of the nation's
F037 and F038 waste streams. EPA is
aware of several refineries that are
using or planning to use thermal
. desorption and solvent extraction to
meet BDAT standards for F037 and F038
wastes, and has accounted for existing
on-site units by decreasing its estimates
of demand for commercial treatment
technologies. While these technologies
are not currently commercially
available, EPA;is aware of other
refineries exploring the possibility of
building them on-site. The one-year
national capacity variance will allow
time for on-site development of these
technologies. .
C. Petroleum Refining Wastes and
Other Organic Wastes
This section presents the capacity
analysis for today's newly listed
'petroleum refining wastes and other
organic wastes.
1. Required Capacity for Petroleum
Refining Wastes (F037 and F038)
EPA is promulgating concentration
levels as the treatment standards for
wastewater and nonwastewat'er forms
of F037 and F038. F037 and F038
nonwastewater standards are based on
a transfer of the existing performance
data for K048-K052 (55 FR 22520, June 1,
1990). Nonwastewater treatment
standards for F037 and F038 wastes are
based on solvent extraction and
incineration for organic constituents,
and stabilization for metals. EPA is also
promulgating standards for wastewater
forms of F037 and F038 based on the
standards for multi-source leachate
(F039). That is. for F037 and F038
wastewaters. the standards are based
on biological treatment; or, wet air or
chemical oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption for organics; and chemical-
precipitation for metals.
The capacity analysis for the F037 and
F038 petroleum refining wastes was
conducted using information collected
from a number of data sources. The
primary data sources include data
submitted voluntarily from refineries.
the F037 and F038 Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) for the listing of the F037
and F038 wastes, the Petroleum Refinery
Data Base. (PRDB), the TSDR Survey, the
Generator Survey, and the public
comments submitted in response to the
proposed rule (57 FR 958, January 9,
1992). - .
The RIA was prepared by EPA in 1990
in support of the listing rule for F037 and
F038 wastes (55 FR 46354). The RIA
includes an industry overview and
profile of facilities affected by the
listings, an analysis of baseline waste
management practices, and regulatory
compliance scenarios. The PRDB is
based on a mail survey conducted by
EPA in 1983 and has been updated to
contain 1985 refining information.The
TSDR Survey and Generator Survey
were discussed previously (in the
introduction to Section VI). Public
comments submitted in response to the
proposed rule present an overview of
how industries would be affected by the
land disposal restriction of newly listed
F037 and F038 wastes.
EPA also used several supplemental
data sources: two reports prepared by
Midwest Research Institute (MRI),
which support the F037 and F038 listing
and the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule
and which summarize sampling and
analysis data collected by EPA for 16
petroleum refining facilities; no-
migration petitions submitted by
petroleum refineries for land treatment
units; and the California Hazardous
Petroleum Waste Data Base, which
contains information on wastes that fit
the F037 and F038 definition.
Using the available data and the
Agency's best engineering judgment,
EPA estimated F037 and F038 waste
quantities based on current management
practices and identified options for
alternative management due to the LDR
requirements. EPA derived demand
estimates for two sources of F037 and
F038 wastes: (1) Quantities from routine
generation of F037 and F038 wastes,
and; (2) quantities from the cleanout or
closure of remaining surface
impoundments. The Agency also
developed estimates of available on-site
treatment/recovery capacity and
evaluated information submitted by
refineries and treatment technology
vendors on the viability of constructing
on-site treatment/recovery capacity and
the tune that would be required to make
such additions.
In the proposed rule (57 FR 958,
January 9,1992), EPA assumed that all
F037 and F038 wastes would be
removed.from surface impoundments
prior to May 1992. Wastes that remain in
surface impoundments after May 8,1992
would not be removed, but would be
disposed of in place—that is, the surface
impoundment would close as a landfill.
Commenters on the proposed rule
agreed with estimates of routine
generation. However, many Commenters
provided data that surface
impoundments would not be cleaned out
by May 1992. Additionally, many
comments indicated that many surface
impoundments would not close as
landfills after May 8,1992, but would be
cleaned out. Upon reassessment, EPA
agrees with the commenters that F037
and F038 wastes are still being
generated from surface impoundment
cleanouts and closures. For today's final
rule, therefore, EPA conducted separate
capacity analyses for F037 and F038
generated routinely and F037 and F038
wastes from surface impoundments.
a. Routine Generation. For the
purpose of the F037 and F038 capacity
analysis, routinely generated F037 and
F038 wastes are wastes generated from
tanks, including wastes from
equalization tanks and oil/water/solids
separators (such as CPI separators and
IAF units) that are not API separators or
DAF units. EPA estimates that
approximately 69,000 tons per year of
dewatered F037 and F038 wastes
(nonwastewaters) from routine
treatment of petroleum refinery
wastewaters will require alternative
treatment due to the LDRs. Based on
information from public comments and
engineering judgement, EPA estimates
that 41,000 tons of per year of this 69,000
tons will be high heat content wastes
(i.e., equal to or greater than 5,000 Btu/
Ib) and would likely be managed at
cement kilns as containerized solids,
and 28,000 tons per year of low heat
content wastes (i.e., less than 5,000 Btu/
Ib) would be managed in the form of
bulk solids at incinerators. For the
reasons described in section VLB., EPA
believes that cement kilns and
incinerators will not have sufficient
capacity to treat the quantity of
routinely generated F037 and F038
wastes; therefore, the Agency is granting
a one-year national capacity variance to
all routinely generated F037 and F038
waste. This variance allows time for
cement kilns to comply with interim
status requirements of the BIF rule, and
for additional bulk solids incineration
-------
i . •
37248 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
capacity and capacity of other treatment
and recycling technologies (e.g., solvent
extraction and thermal desorption) to
come online to meet the demand for
treatment from routinely generated F037
and F03B.
b. Generation from Surface
Impoundment Cleanouts and Closures.
The Agency also considered the
accumulated sludge quantities in surface
impoundments. Many of these wastes
nro generated in unretrofitted ,—
impoundments (i.e., impoundments not
satisfying the minimum technology
requirements specified in sections
3004(o) and 3005(j)(ll)), and would thus
be land disposed in a prohibited
manner. These impoundments can be
retrofitted or replaced with tank
systems, but according to many
commenters, petroleum refineries may
not be able to do so by the effective date
of this rule, or for some time thereafter.
See RCRA section 3005{j)(6), which
allows four years from promulgation
date of the rule identifying or listing the
wastes to retrofit or close
impoundments receiving newly
identified or listed wastes (and no other
hazardous wastes). Since most of these
surface impoundments also accumulate
organic toxicity characteristic (TC)
wastes, identified as hazardous in
March 1990, the refineries have to <
retrofit or close the impoundments by
March 1994. Some impoundments may
be granted a delay of closure (see 40
CFR 205.113 and 40 CFR 284.113) and
thus will be allowed to remain in
operation, providing that hazardous
wastes (e.g., F037 and F038 wastes) are
removed and the impoundment is used
for non-hazardous wastes. For surface •
impoundments that do not close by May
1992, EPA estimates that 173,000 tons of
downteredF037and F038 wastes will be
generated from impoundment closure or
cleanout between June 1992 and June
1993, and 99,000 tons between June 1993
and June 1994. These quantities will
require alternative treatment to meet the
LDR treatment standards.
Commenters indicated that F037 and
F038 wastes generated from surface
impoundment closures are generally of
lower heat content thaft routinely
generated F037 and F038 wastes. EPA'
agrees with this comment; therefore, a
larger proportion of surface
impoundment generated wastes would
require incineration. Based oh a'follow-
up analysis of public comments and
engineering judgement, EPA estimates .
that of the total 173,000 tons generated
between 1992 and 1993,112,000 tons will
bo low heat content waste requiring
incineration for n'onpumpable sludge or
bulk solids. Of the 90.000 tons generated
between 1993 and 1994, 64,000 tons will
be low heat content wastes requiring
incineration for bulk solids. Because
incineration capacity for bulk solids that
could accommodate these wastes before
they are land disposed is not adequate,
EPA is granting a two-year national
capacity variance for F037 and F038
wastes from surface impoundments.
The lack of alternative storage/
treatment capacity raises two issues.
The first is that during the period of a
national capacity [variance, restricted
wastes disposed in surface
impoundments can only be placed in
impoundments meeting the minimum
technology requirements of section
3004(o). See § 268.5(h), RCRA section
3004(h)(4) and Mqbil Oil v. EPA, 871F.
2d 149 (D.C. Cir. 1989). The second issue
is that section 3005(j){6) states that
impoundments receiving newly
identified or listed hazardous wastes .
have up to four years from the date of
promulgation of the rule to retrofit or' .
close the impoundment. As was
described in sectibn IV.H. of today's
preamble, EPA believes that these"
provisions are in irreconcilable conflict',
• and, accordingly, EPA has significant
discretion in determining how best to
interpret them. The Agency is
promulgating that in the case of wastes
subject to a national capacity variance,
that impoundments managing such
wastes {and no other wastes subject to
an earlier prohibition) have four years
from the date of the identification or
listing (i.e., the date identifying or listing
of the wastes Is promulgated, not the
effective date of the rule, see section
3005(j)(ll)) to retrofit or close.
Although land disposal in •
impoundments remains necessary
during the four-year period allowed by
statute for retrofitting, the Agency
.proposed that these surface
impoundment wastes be removed and
sent for the mandated treatment if •
adequate treatment capacity existed
(section 3005(j}(5)). Some comments'
received in response to this proposal
indicate that some refineries may not be
able to remove waste,from.surface'
impoundments without first removing
the impoundment from service, which
would interrupt refinery operations and
possibly affect oil and solids loading on
the wastewater treatment system,
potentially exceeding NPDES permit
limits. EPA agrees with these comments
and is therefore nbt requiring such
annual cleaning of surface
impoundments; • j
In 'addition, EPA proposed that
impoundments must be clean closed.
EPA's intent was jto mandate removal of
prohibited wastes, at closure to be
consistent with the statutory intent to
treat wastes where capacity is available
and not to dispose of untreated wastes
in surface impoundments. (Where there
is available treatment capacity, the
strong statutory policy is to treat
hazardous wastes rather than allow
them to be land disposed. See RCRA
sections 1002(7) and 1003 (4), (5), and
(6)0
EPA received comments opposing the
requirement of clean closure, citing
acceptable alternative to clean closure,
such as closure in place (40 CFR
265.228(a)(2) and 40 CFR 264.228(a) (2)),
delay of closure (40 CFR 265.113(d)(e)
and 40 CFR 264.113(d)(e)), and other
closure options. EPA has considered •
these alternative closure practices and
is allowing owners and operators of.
petroleum refineries the same, flexibility
available to other surface impoundment
owners and operators. Therefore, EPA is
not requiring that owners and operators
of surface impoundments remove
wastes when they close. If owners or .
operators remove wastes from surface'
impoundments after the expiration of
the two-year national capacity variance,
and they are unable to identify adequate
treatment capacity, they may seek a
case-by-case extension to the effective
date of the LDR prohibition as stipulated
under 40 CFR 268.5. •
One commenter disagreed with EPA's
proposal to allow owners and operators
to generate F037 and F038 in
unretrofitted impoundments; This '" • <.•
commenter mentioned ihat their member
companies had received a large number
of inquiries concerning the closure and
replacement of leaking surface
impoundments, but that this interest
declined as it'became clearer that EPA
was likely to allow them the maximum
amount of time to retrofit. The
commenter believes that owners and
operators will take as much time as they
are given to comply with the minimum •••'
technology requirements. The;'
commenter therefore believes that no
capacity shortfall exists, just ii •
perceived "difficult" burden exists for
closing surface impoundments. EPA
•disagrees with this comment*As'
indicated in today's preamble, ,EPA
believes that four years from the date of
promulgation of the listmg or ;":' •
.characteristic is a reasonable period . •
within which owners and operators qari
come intb compliance with the minimum.
technology requirements. ,.. . . •.'.''."
c.- Capacity Analysis Summary for";.
F037andF038 Pastes. As stated earlier
in this section, the.capacity analysis, ,.".. ;
was conducted separately for FQ37 and.
F038 wastes routinely generated and. for
F037 and F038 wastes frbrirsurface ''
-------
Federal
impoundments. The estimate for
routinely generated F037 and F038 waste
generation requiring alternative
treatment is 69,000 tons per year
(nonwastewaters). EPA has no data
indicating that any land-disposed
wastewaters will require alternative
treatment, and therefore EPA assumed
this quantity to be zero. Based on the -.
estimate that 69,000 tons per year of
dewatered routinely generated F037 and
F038 wastes will require alternative
treatment, and the determination that
insufficient capacity exists to treat these
wastes in the next year, EPA is granting
routinely generated F037 and F038
wastes a one-year national capacity
variance. This variance expires on June
30,1993, one year from promulgation of
the LDR prohibition for these wastes
(RCRA 3004(h) (1) and (2)). (EPA notes
that it is dating the national capacity
variance for these wastes from the date
the prohibition took effect, rather than
the date of publication, since the record
does not support any longer extension).
EPA has estimated that cleanouts and
closures of surface impoundments will
generate 100,000 tons of low heat
content wastes generated between 1992
and 1993 and 91,000 tons generated
between 1993 and 1994. Because existing
capacity at bulk solid incineration
systems is insufficient to treat F037 and
F038 wastes from surface
impoundments, EPA is granting a two-
year national capacity variance for
these wastes. This variance expires on
June 30,1994, two years from
promulgation of the LDR prohibition, the
maximum extent allowed by law (RCRA
3004(h}(2)).
2. Required Capacity for Other Newly
Listed Organic Wastes
This section presents EPA's analysis
of required capacity for other newly
listed organic wastes (surface disposed)
including organic U waste,
unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine
(UDMH) wastes, toluene diisocyanate
(TDI) wastes, ethylene dibromide (EDB)
was tes, ethylenebisdithiocarbamic
(EBDC) wastes, and methyl bromide
wastes.
a. Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine
{UDMH) Production Wastes (K107,
K108, K109, K110J.
KW7—Column bottoms from product
separation from the production of 1,1-
dimethylhydrazine from carboxylic acid
hydrazides
K108—Condensed column overheads from
product separation and condensed reactor
vent gases from the production of UDMH
from carboxylic acid hydrazines
K109—Spent filter cartridges from product-
purification from the production of UDMH
from carboxylic acid hydrazines
KllO—Condensed column overheads from
intermediate separation from product
purification from the production of UDMH
for carboxylic acid hydrazines •
For UDMH wastes, EPA is
promulgating incineration as the method
of treatment for nonwastewaters, and
incineration, or chemical oxidation or •
biodegradation followed by carbon
adsorption as methods of treatment for
the wastewaters.
EPA listed four UDMH wastes (K107,
K108, K109, KllO) that are generated
from the production of UDMH
(unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, or '
1,1-dimethylhydrazine) from carboxylic
acid hydrazides. Also, some of these
wastes are ignitable or corrosive and as
such are currently subject to LDR
standards.
Generation and management
information concerning the UDMH
wastes was collected by EPA during
1990 and early 1991 under the authority
of section 3007 in RCRA. This capacity
analysis incorporates data from that
section 3007 information request.
The response to the section 3007
request noted that the only
manufacturer who used the proprietary
process generating UDMH wastes has
ceased UDMH production. Therefore,
the Agency assumes that no UDMH will
require treatment prior to land disposal.
Based on available data, EPA believes
that sufficient capacity exists for
treatment of the UDMH wastes;
therefore, EPA is not granting a national
capacity variance for K107, K108, K109,
and KllO wastewaters and
nonwastewaters.
. b. 2-Ethoxyethanol (U359). For U359,
EPA is promulgating incineration or fuel
substitution .as methods of treatment
standards for the nonwastewsters, and
incineration, or chemical oxidation
followed by biological treatment, carbon
absorption, or biodegradation followed
by carbon adsorption for the
wastewaters.
Generation and management
information concerning the U359 wastes
was collected by EPA during 1990 and
early 1991 under the authority of section
3007 in RCRA. This capacity analysis
incorporates data from that section 3007
information request.
The Agency estimates that less than
500 tons of U359 wastewaters are being
land disposed and will require further
treatment as a result of the LDRs. Most
of the U359 waste generated in 1989 was
incinerated on-site, and the remainder
(less than one percent) was incinerated
off-site. In addition, unspecified and
variable quantities of untreated
wastewater contaminated with U359 are
reportedly generated on occasion at one
generator's facility; however, this
wastewater undergoes biological
treatment on site. Because these wastes
are rejected products, and the product
has a market value, the Agency believes
these wastes would be generated in
small quantities.
Based on the available data (see
Section VLB), EPA believes that
sufficient capacity exists for treatment
of U359 wastes; therefore, EPA Is not
granting a national capacity variance for
U359 wastewaters or nonwastewaters.
c. Dinitrotoluene and Toluenediamine
Production Wastes (K111-K112, U328
and U353).
Kill—Product washwaters from the
production of dinitrotoluene via nitration of
toluene
K112—Reaction by-product water from the
drying column in the production of
tbiuenediamine via hydrogenation of
dinitrotoluene
U328—Ortho-toluidine
U353—Para-toluidine
For Kill wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, EPA is promulgating
concentration-based standards based on
a transfer of the standards for F039
wastes. EPA is promulgating
incineration as the method of treatment
for K112 nonwastewaters; and
incineration, or chemical oxidation
followed by carbon adsorption, or
biodegradation followed by carbon
adsorption as methods of treatment for
K112 wastewaters. For U328 and TJ353 .
wastes, EPA is promulgating
incineration as the method of treatment
for nonwastewaters; and incineration, or
chemical oxidation followed by carbon
adsorption, or biodegradation followed
by carbon adsorption as methods of
treatment for wastewaters.
During 1990 and early 1991, EPA
collected generation and management
information concerning these wastes
under the authority of section 3007 in
RCRA. This capacity analysis
incorporates data from that section 3007
information request. In addition, the
Agency has contacted other facilities in
order to obtain further information
concerning Kill and K112 waste
generation, management practices, and
residuals. Finally, the" Agency reviewed
information provided in response to the
proposed rule (57 FR 957, January 9,
1992).
The Agency has identified
approximately 3,500 tons of Kill
nonwastewaters and no K112
nonwastewaters and no Kill or K112
wastewaters requiring alternative
treatment. The majority of the Kill and
K112 wastes generated are currently
treated using a variety of alternative
treatment or recovery methods and
discharged through NPDES. The data
-------
372501 Federal Register' /
Tugsday, August 16, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
indicate that the residuals from
treatment of Kill and K112 were further
treated before being land disposed.
The Agency estimates that less than
500 tons of U328 and U353
nonwastewalers are being land
disposed and will require further
treatment as a result of the LDRs. EPA
identified no U328 and U353
wastewaters requiring alternative
treatment.
Based on the available data (see
section VLB), EPA believes that
sufficient capacity exists for treatment
of those wastes. Therefore. EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance for
Kill. K112, U328, and U353 wastewaters
or nonwastewaters,
d. Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)
Production Wastes (K117-K118, K136)
and Methyl Bromide Production Wastes
(K131 andKl32).
K117—Wastewaters from the reactor vent
gas scrubber In the production of ethylene
dibromide via the bromination of ethylene
KH8—Spent adsorbent solids from the
purification of EDB produced by
bromination of ethylene
K130—Still bottoms from the purification of
EDB
K131—Wastewater from the reactor and acid
dryer from the production of methyl
bromide
K132—Spent adsorbent-and wastewater
separator solids from the production of
methyl bromide
For K117, K118. K138. K131. and K132
wastes, EPA is promulgating
concentration-based standards based on
a transfer of data used to calculate the
U029 (bromomethane), U030 (4-
bromophenyl phenyl ether), U068 (1,2-
dibromo-3-chloropropane), U067
(ethylene dibromide, EDB), U068
(dibromomethane) and U225
(bromoform) Third Rule standards for
nonwastewaters; and multisource
Icachate (F039) performance for
wastewaters. EPA is promulgating
standards based on incineration for
nonwastewaters; and incineration, of
chemical or wet air oxidation followed
by carbon adsorption, or biological
treatment, or steam or air stripping for
wastewaters. -•.
During 1990 and early 1991, EPA
collected generation and management
information concerning these wastes
under the authority of section 3007 in
RCRA. This capacity analysis
Incorporates data from that section 3007
information request. In addition, the
Agency reviewed information provided
in response to the ANPRM (56 FR 24444)
and the proposed rule.
Based on new information received in
response to the proposed rule, EPA
estimates that less than 100 tons of
currently land-disposed K118
nonwastewaters; will require alternative
treatment. EPA has identified no K117 or
K136 waste generation and no K118
wastewaters currently being surface
disposed. i
EPA has identified'no K131 or K132
wastes currently! being land disposed
and requiring alternative treatment or
recovery. All identified K131 wastes
currently generated are sent off site for
acid reclamation^
Based on available data and using
incineration as the treatment technology
(See Section VLB), the Agency believes
that sufficient treatment capacity exists
for treatment of these wastes; therefore,
EPA is not granting a national capacity
variance for K117, K118, K136, K131 and
K132 wastewaters or nonwastewaters.
EPA is granting a' two-year national
capacity variance to underground
injected K117, K118, K131, and K132
wastes (see Section VLF).
e. Ethylenebisclithiocarbamic (EBDC)
Production Wastes (K123, K124. K125,
andKlZBj. \ /
K123—Process wastewater (including
supernates, filtrates, and washwaters) from
the production of
ethylenebisdittuocarbamic acid (EBDC)
and its salts | .
K124—Reactor \en\ scrubber water from the
production 'of EBDC and its salts
K125—Purification solids (including filtration.
evaporation, andjcentrifugation solids)
from the production of EBDC and its salts
K126—Baghouse diist and floor sweepings in
milling and packaging operations from the
production or formulation of EBDC and its
salts ;
For EBDC wastes, EPA is
promulgating incineration as the method
of treatment for nonwastewaters; and
incineration, or chemical oxidation
followed by biological treatment or
carbon absorption as methods of
treatment for wastewaters.
During 1990 an^ early 1991, EPA
collected generation and management
information concerning the EBDC
wastes under the [authority of section
3007 in RCRA. This capacity analysis
incorporates datai from that section 3007
information request.
' The Agency has identified less than
100 .tons of K125 nonwastewaters that
are currently land disposed and will
require alternative treatment,, and has
identified no quantities of K123, K124, or
K126 wastes thatjare currently being
land disposed. No generation of K125
wastewaters, K124 wastes, or K126
wastes has" been ^dentified.
Based on available data, EPA believes
sufficient capacity exists for treatment
of the EBDC wastes; therefore, EPA is
not granting a national capacity
variance for K123, K124, K125, and K126
wastewaters or nonwastewaters.
D, Required and Available Capacity for
Newly Listed Wastes Mixed With
Radioactive Contaminants
EPA has defined a mixed RCRA/
radioactive waste as any matrix
containing a RCRA hazardous waste
and a radioactive waste subject to the
Atomic Energy Act (53 FR 37045, 37046,
September 23,1988). Regardless of the
type of radioactive constituents that
these wastes contain (e.g., high-level,
low-level, or transuranic), they are
subject to the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations, including the land disposal
restrictions.
Radioactive wastes that are mixed
with spent'solvents, dioxins, California
list wastes, or First Third, Second Third,
and Third wastes are subject to the land
disposal restrictions already
. promulgated for those hazardous
wastes. EPA granted two-year.national
capacity variances for all of these
wastes because of a lack of national
• treatment capacity. Today's rule
addresses the radioactive wastes that
contain newly listed hazardous wastes
being restricted in today's rulemakihg.
The Department of Energy (DOE) is
the primary generator of mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes. A variety of non-
DOE facilities, also generate mixed
RCRA/radioactive wastes, including
nuclear power plants, academic and
medical institutions, and industrial
facilities. Based upon a review of the
available data; including data submitted
by DOE under several rulemakings, the
quantities of mixed RCRA/radioactive
wastes containing newly listed wastes ,
regulated by this rulemaking appear to
be small.
Although DOE is in the process of
increasing its capacity to manage mixed
RCRA/radioactive wastes, information
supplied by DOE under other
rulemakings indicates that a significant
capacity shortfall currently exists for the
treatment of mixed RCRA/radioactive
wastes, much of which is in storage
facilities awaiting treatment. EPA's
review of non-DOE data sources also
showed a significant lack of commercial
treatment capacity as well.
Any new commercial capacity for
mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes that
becomes available will be needed for
mixed wastes that were regulated in
previous land disposal restriction
rulemakings and'whose variances have
already expired (i.e., radioactive wastes
mixed with solvents, dioxins, California
list wastes, or First Third, Second Third,
or Third wastes). In addition, DOE has
indicated that it will generally give
treatment priority to mixed wastes that
are already restricted under previous
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37251
LDR rules. Thus* EPA has determined
that sufficient alternative treatment
capacity is not available and is granting
a two-year national capacity variance
for mixed RCRA/radibactive
wastewaters and.nohwastewaters
contaminated with newly listed wastes
, whose standards are being promulgated
today/ . - '
One commenter on the proposed rule
suggested that EPA not rely on DOE to
develop the capacity needed to manage
the largest quantities of mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes because of DOE's
reportedly poor record of handling
. radioactive materials. EPA disagrees
with this comment. DOE is-responsible
for managing many radioactive wastes
and has a Federal statutory obligation to
develop needed capacity. In addition,
DOE is subject to regulations designed
to ensure that its mixed RCRA/
radioactive, wastes are properly
managed. EPA and authorized states
regulate the hazardous components of
these wastes under RCRA and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
and agreement states regulate the
. radioactive components under the .
Atomic Energy Act and other statutes.
DOE is generally self-regulating with
respect to the radioactive component
and is generally exempt from NRC
regulations, except for DOE facilities
that accept •commercial high level
wastes which are to be licensed bv
NRC. .
The same commenter also suggested
that EPA require that all non-DOE
mixed RCRA/radioactive wastes be
stored and managed under "emergency
permits" at known commercial and on-
site facilities, rather than allowing them
to be generated, managed, and disposed
"at an unknown number of unidentified
generator sites." This commenter
appears to be confused about the RCRA
regulatory program. Mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes are not generated,
managed, and disposed at "unidentified
generator sites." All generators of more
than 100 kilograms/month of RCRA
hazardous wastes, including mixed
wastes, must obtain an EPA
identification number. Mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes, like other RCRA
wastes, can be stored at the site of
generation for greater than 90 days only
if the generator has a permitted or
interim status storage facility that is
specifically allowed to handle mixed
wastes. (In the case of generators of
iOO-1000 kilograms per month, the limit
is 180 days, or 270 days in certain
cases.) Furthermore, treatment or
disposal of mixed RCRA/radioactive
wastes is allowed only at permitted or
interim status treatment or disposal
facilities specifically authorized to
handle mixed wastes. EPA believes that
the current RCRA regulatory program is
adequate to ensure proper management
of the hazardous component of mixed
waste and .that "emergency permits" are
unnecessary. .
E. Required and Available-Capacity for
Debris Contaminated With Newly
Listed Wastes .
This capacity analysis focuses on.
debris contaminated with wastes whose
treatment standards are being
promulgated in this rule.49 An estimated
80 percent of all debris'contaminated
with previously regulated wastes is
presently disposed in hazardous waste
landfills without prior treatment.50 In
today's rule, EPA is specifying that
hazardous debris be treated prior to
land disposal using one or more of the
following families of debris treatment:
extraction, .destruction, or
immobilization. (The availability of each
of these treatments is discussed in
greater detail in another section of this
preamble.)
EPA used several data sources to
estimate the total quantity of land-
disposed hazardous debris. These
sources include: comments received in
response to the proposed rule (57 FR
958); responses to the ANPRM for the
newly listed and identified wastes (56
FR 24444); information provided during a
series of roundtable meetings held by
the Agency in May and June of 1991
with representatives of companies
involved in the management and
disposal of hazardous debris; Records of
Decision (RODs) of Superfund sites; the
National Survey of Treatment, Storage,
Disposal and Recycling Facilities (TSDR
Survey); and the National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Generators
(Generator Survey).51
48 UDMH (K107-K110), dinitrotoluene (Kill).
toluene diamine (K112), ortho and para toluidine.
ethylene dibromide, methyl bromide, 2-ethoxy
ethanol (U359), ethylene bis-dithiocarbamic acid,
and F037 and F038 petroleum refining wastes.
00 Previously regulated wastes include solvents
and dioxin wastes, California list wastes, and First
Third, Second Third, and Third Third wastes. EPA
has granted national capacity variances to soil and
debris contaminated with First Third, Second Third,
and Third Third wastes. The national capacity
variances for debris contaminated with Third Third
wastes expired on May 8,1992. However, the
Agency has extended this variance for one year (see
section VI. of the preamble).
61 EPA conducted the surveys during 1987 and
1988 to obtain comprehensive data on the nation's
capacity for managing hazardous waste and the
volumes of hazardous waste being land disposed as
well as data on waste generation, waste
characterization, and hazardous waste treatment
capacity in units exempt from RCRA permitting.
In general, EPA found severe
limitations in estimating the total
quantity of hazardous debris because
die available data are incomplete and
poorly defined. The reason for this lack
of comprehensive data is several-fold:
First, the regulated community reported
that their data generally are not
classified by debris but rather by waste
code and waste description; second, the
data from the TSDR and Generator
Surveys were not collected and
categorized specifically for debris; and
debris were often mixed with soils,58
and were frequently contaminated with
more than one waste, thereby making
the hazardous debris matrix and
quantity determinations difficult; third,
TSDR and Generator Surveys do not
include data on debris contaminated
with newly listed and identified wastes
because they were not considered
hazardous wastes in 1986; and fourth.
debris that have been cleaned
[decontaminated] are generally not
reported as hazardous wastes because
they are no longer considered hazardous
debris. Commenters to the proposed rule
agreed with the Agency's assessment of
data limitations.
1. Waste Generation
The capacity analysis in today's rule
is based on the data sources described
above. For the total of currently land-
disposed debris contaminated with
RCRA hazardous wastes, EPA estimates
that approximately one million tons are
generated per year based on the
reported percentage of the total of all
hazardous waste land disposed. EPA
also has estimated lower and upper
bounds of 700,000 to 2.8 million tons per
year, respectively, based on adjustment
factors to the TSDR survey data. Some
commenters to the proposed rule
suggested that the Agency's estimate of
the quantities of debris requiring""
treatment is low. However, no
commenter provided national estimates
of land-disposed hazardous debris.
The largest quantity of routinely
generated debris contaminated with
newly listed wastes is debris
contaminated with F037 and F038
petroleum refining wastes. EPA's
estimate for this quantity is 8,000 tons
per year. In addition, EPA received
information indicating that additional
quantities of debris contaminated with
F037 and F038 wastes may be generated
from modernization of petroleum
52 Data submitted by TSDFs in roundtable
meetings sometimes combine hazardous debris with
soil. Furthermore, TSDFs have stated that historical
waste data are generally not kept by debris
classifications.
-------
37252 Federal Register / Vol 57, No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
refinery sewer and wastewater systems.
EPA's estimate for debris contaminated
with the remainder of wastes covered
by today's rulemaking is less than 2,000
tons per year.
One commenter indicated that EPA's
estimate of the quantity of debris
contaminated with F037 and F038
wastes was low. However, this
commenter provided no data that could
serve as a basis for updating EPA's
estimate. In the proposed rule, EPA
acknowledged that decommissioning of
large chemical plants and increasing
remediation activities can significantly
Increase the estimated quantity of
hazardous debris.
2. Current Management Practices
Waste generators and TSDFs report
that most hazardous debris is currently
landfilled without prior treatment.
Stabilization or incineration are the
reported treatment technologies for the
small amounts of hazardous debris that
are treated prior to landfilling. However,
EPA has received information that
materials-handling problems may limit
the quantity of hazardous debris that
currently can bo treated by stabilization
and incineration. Specifically, the size of
many types of debris must be reduced
before they can be treated (e.g.. by
shredding or grinding). Heavy duty
equipment such as shredders and
grinders are generally not part of the
treatment process at hazardous waste
treatment facilities and are not generally
available. Consequently, the available ,
capacity to treat hazardous debris is
currently limited. In addition, large
quantities of materials that are currently
cleaned (decontaminated} and then
managed as nonhazardous wastes may
require additional management as
hazardous debris. Commenters to the
proposed rule agreed with EPA's
assessment that there are materials-
handling limitations in managing
hazardous debris.
3. Available Capacity and Capacity
Implications
EPA is promulgating that hazardous
debris be treated prior to land disposal
using one or more of the following
families of debris treatment: Extraction,
destruction, or immobilization. While
materials-handling problems may limit
the available destruction (e.g.,
incineration) and immobilization (e.g.,
stabilization) capacities, inadequate
capacity exists for many of the
promulgated technologies hi the
extraction family. Much of the capacity
of extraction technologies currently used
to decontaminate hazardous debris,
such as water washing and steam
cleaning, is not currently permitted,
although EPA is proposing to expedite
the permitting of these technologies. In
conclusion, EPA believes that the
current capacity available to treat
hazardous debris is limited.
Therefore. EPA is today granting a •
two-year national capacity variance for
debris contaminated with newly listed
wastes covered in this: rule. This
variance would allow sufficient time for
the installation and permitting of the
treatment systems necessary, to handle
the quantities of hazardous debris
affected by this rule. Existing
commercial capacity and any new
commercial capacity for debris that
becomes available will be needed for
debris contaminated vyith wastes listed
in previous land disposal restriction
rulemakings and not granted a capacity
variance (i.e., debris contaminated with
'solvents, dioxins, or California list
wastes). Commenters to the proposed
rule generally agreed with EPA's
analysis and the .need for a national
capacity variance for debris .
contaminated with newly listed wastes
covered in this rule. [
F. Capacity Determination for
Underground Injected ^Wastes :
As explained in previous rules
concerning land disposal restrictions
(see, e.g. 52 FR 32450, August 27,1987; 53
FR 30912. August 16,1988; 55 FR 22520,
June 1.1990), EPA is allocating available
capacity first to those wastes disposed
in surface units, next tp wastes resulting
from CERCLA and RCRA clean ups, and
finally to underground! injected wastes.
Based on the continued application of
this approach, the Agepcy is
promulgating the following effective
dates for injected wastes.
1. Newly Listed Wastes With Treatment
Standards Which Current Data Indicate
Are Not Being Underground Injected
The wastes K107, K108,K109, K110,
K123, K124, K125, K126, K136, U328,
U353, and U359 are the newly listed
wastes for which numerical standards
or specified methods ate bemg
promulgated, and which current data
indicate are not being underground
injected. Therefore, EPA is prohibiting
these wastes from underground injection
upon the effective date of this rule.
2. Newly Osted Wastes With Treatment
Standards Which Currfent Data Indicate
Are Being. Underground Injected
The wastes FQ37, F03& Kill, K112,
K117. K118, K131. and K132 are the
newly listed wastes for which current
data indicate are being; underground
injected by Class I hazardous waste
injectioa wells. • \ .•'.,'-•
For Kill and K112 waste from the
production of dinitrotoluene or
toluenediamine, pretreatment includes
neutralization and filtration. Only a
small amount of this waste is being
disposed of in a Class I hazardous waste
injection well which has received a no-
migration petition.
The treatment standards for F037 and
F038, petroleum refining .wastes, are
based upon transfer of the performance
of technologies previously established
for K048-K052 wastes. Based on the
Hazardous Waste Injection Well
Inventory data base, EPA believes that a
small volume of F037 and F038 wastes
are being underground injected annually
by permitted injection wells. No new
data, indicating that larger injected
volumes of these wastes, were received
by the Agency during the comment
period for the proposed rule. Therefore,
as adequate alternative treatment
capacity appears to be available, the
Agency is not granting a two-year
national capacity variance for any
injected F037, F038, Kill, and K112
waste; and is prohibiting these wastes
from underground injection upon the
effective date of this rule.
The treatment standards for K117,
K118, Kiai, and K132 wastes are based
upon liquid incineration. One comment
received front the proposed rule
indicated that a large volume of these
wastes, which are in a mixed non-
segregable waste stream exceeding 300
million gallons annually, were being
underground injected. The Agency'9
current data indicate that there is
inadequate available commercial
treatment capacity for these wastes.
Therefore, EPA is granting a twe-year
national capacity variance for injected •
K117, K118, K131, aiad K132 wastes in
today's rule. ' . ••
G. Revisions tp Treatment Standards for
K061, F008, andK062
In today's rule, the Agency is ,
removing the-low and high zinc
subcategories for K061 and establishing
the same numeric treatment standards
based on HTMR for all K081
nonwastewaters. EPA also is
estabh'shing alternative treatment
standards based OR HTMR for K062 and
T006. Today's rule does not preclude the
use of any treatment technology that can
meet these standards nor does it
preclude the use of any technology that
can meet the previously promulgated
treatment ttandardfi for K062 and FOQ6,
The Agency received severail comments
questioning the availability of HTMR
capacity to treat these wastes. Although
commentert also questioned whether
stabilizatiojfcouki meet the teeatoaeat
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37253
standards, one commenter submitted
information that their stabilization
process does meet the numeric .
treatment standards for K061. Since any
technology that can meet the numeric
standards for K06J1 can be used to treat
those wastes, the Agency believes that
there is sufficient treatment capacity for
K061. Similarly, since the treatment
standards based on HTMR for K062 and
F006 are alternative standards and any
technology currently used to treat K082
and F006 to the previously promulgated
standards may continue to be used, the
Agency believes that there is sufficient
treatment capacity for K062 and F006.
VII. Implementation •
As described in section VIII. of this
preamble, State Authority, today's rule
is being promulgated under HSWA
authority. Therefore, until states receive
authorization to implement today's rule,
the Federal procedures and standards
will be used for its implementation. The
following sections describe some of the
relevant generator and permitting
procedures that apply to waste handlers
as they comply with today's rule.
A. Facilities Qualifying for Interim
.Status Due to Storage of Prohibited
Wastes
As discussed elsewhere in today's
preamble, EPA has determined that
adequate treatment capacity for •
hazardous debris .will not be available
following the expiration of the national
capacity variance for these wastes on
May 8,1992, and has therefore granted a
one-year national case-by-case
extension to the LDR effective date for .
hazardous debris, provided certain
recordkeeping and other requirements
are met. However, even by May 1993
there will likely be generators who will
still have difficulty obtaining treatment
for these wastes. To a lesser degree,
there may also be situations where
generators of the newly listed wastes—
for which treatment standards are
. prescribed in today's rule—are unable to
initially arrange for appropriate
treatment. Therefore, EPA believes that
some generators without permits or
interim status will need to accumulate
wastes restricted from land disposal by
today's rule for more than 90 days in.
order to acquire treatment required by
part 268. Although 90 days is the
maximum period allowed for
accumulation storage at generator sites,
if the wastes must remain on-site longer
due to unforeseen, temporary, or
uncontrollable circumstances,-an
extension of up to 30 days may be
granted at the Regional Administrator's
discretion. (See 40 CFR 262.34.) If,
despite the best efforts of the generator,
waste accumulation will exceed the 90 .
day limit (or 120 day limit, if an
extension is granted), then the generator
must obtain interim status for continued
storage. '
Section 3005(e) of RCRA establishes
the criteria for obtaining interim status,
and 40 CFR 270.70{a) codifies that
provision. This section provides that
facilities "in existence on the effective
date of statutory or regulatory changes '
* * * that render the facility subject to
the requirement to have a permit"- may
qualify for interim status if they make
the appropriate application. A generator
who is accumulating hazardous wastes
in tanks or containers before the
effective date of today's rule is "in
existence" and may qualify for interim
status provided that the continued
storage is necessary to comply with the
land disposal restrictions. Section
3005(e)(l) allows interim status only
where new regulatory requirements
subject an existing facility to permitting
requirements. It is not intended to
provide an opportunity for a facility to
newly engage in hazardous waste
management.
Generators who need to obtain
interim status .should submit a part A
permit application to the Agency as
provided in part 270. (Part A application
instructions can be found at § 270.'13.) In
• the part A application, the generator
must demonstrate that the additional
accumulation time is necessary as a
result of the land disposal restrictions.of
part 268.
The part A must be submitted to the
Agency by the deadline specified in
§'270.10(e). Note that the § 270.10(e)
deadline is the earlier of the following
two alternative dates: (1) Six months
after publication of regulations which
first require the facility to comply with
part 265, or (2) thirty days after the date
they first become subject to the
standards in part 265. It is expected that
the deadline for most, if not all, of the
large quantity generators will be
established by the second alternative.
By operation of 40 CFR 270.10(e)(ii), the
generator first becomes subject to the
permitting requirements when he
exceeds the generator accumulation
time limit. For example, after the 90-day
accumulation period ends, the generator
would be required to submit the part A
within 30 days. Therefore, it is critical
that any generator who will be newly
subject to the interim status
requirements become familiar with the
part 270 requirements and submit the
part A application on time.
Generators applying for interim status
must comply with the applicable
requirements of part 265. These new
• interim status facilities are also subject
to corrective action orders under section
3008(h) of RGRA. Furthermore, if
requested by the Administrator, the
. facility will be required to submit its
part B permit application.
••EPA anticipates'that some of these
new interim status facilities managing
debris may find containment buildings
more suitable for the storage or-
treatment of their restricted wastes than
their existing tanks or containers. These
facilities may request certain changes
during interim, status by following the
procedures described below.
B. Containment Buildings at Generator
Sites
As explained in section IV.G.3. of this
preamble, generators who want to add a
containment building for accumulation
(including treatment) of waste for less
than 90 days, can do so without
obtaining a RCRA permit, provided the
conditions in § 262.34 are met. These
conditions include compliance with the
containment building standards in
subpart DD of part 265 and certain
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. Such containment
buildings can be used indefinitely, '
provided the generator ensures that
each volume of waste remains in the
unit for 90 days or less. When the
generator has no further need to manage
hazardous waste in the unit, then the
building must be closed in accordance
with § 265.1102.
C, Addition of Waste Management
Capacity at Permitted and Interim
Status Facilities
1. Permitted Facilities
Permitted treatment, .storage, and
disposal facilities may add new
treatment processes and additional
capacity pursuant to. today's rule by
applying for a permit modification under
the Federal regulations at § 270,42 (see.
53 FR 37912, September 28,1988, for a
full explanation of the permit
modification procedures). Although the
regulations at § 270.42 were
promulgated under pre-HSWA
authority, EPA may use these
regulations in authorized States when
necessary to implement HSWA
provisions such as the land disposal
restrictions (see 53 FR 37933).
The types of modifications needed to
add new capacity or processes would
likely require the submittal of a Class 2
or 3 modification. For containment
buildings the permit modification type
can be determined'by consulting new
section M in appendix I of § 270.42. The
Class 2 modification process requires
-------
I
37254 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
Agency action on the request within 120
days. This action would consist of
approval or denial, reclassification as a
Class 3 modification, or authorization to
conduct the activities for up to 180 days
pending Agency action. Furthermore, for
Class 2 modifications, construction to
implement the requested facility change
may commence 60 days after submission
of the request. There is no deadline for
Agency action for Class 3 modifications.
which apply to more substantial facility
changes.
Permitted facilities may also apply for
a temporary authorization to initiate
necessary activities while a Class 2 or 3
permit modification request is
undergoing review, or to undertake a
treatment or storage activity which will
be of short duration. EPA may grant a
temporary authorization for a term of up
to 180 days. Any request for a temporary
authorization must demonstrate
compliance with the part 264 standards
and also meet the criteria of § 270.42(e)
for approval. Today's rule amends
§ 270.42(e)(3)(ii)(B) to allow temporary
authorizations for containment buildings
where necessary to treat or store
restricted waste, including hazardous
debris, in accordance with part 268.
Interested members of the .public (i.e.,
those that have previously expressed
interest in any permitting action for the '
facility) will receive notice by mail of a
facility's request for a temporary
authorization, and another mail notice if
EPA approves the request. The
temporary authorization may be
renewed once if the additional
procedures of § 270.42(e) are followed,
including the submission of appropriate
permit modification information and the
initiation of public meetings and public
comment period. (See 53'FR 37919.
September 28,1988 for additional
discussion of temporary authorizations.)
2. Interim Status Facilities
Treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities managing hazardous waste'
under interim status may addnew
treatment processes or additional
treatment or storage capacity by using
the existing procedures for'changes
during interim status in § 270,72. JJhder
these procedures, a facility must submit
to EPA a revised part A permit"
application and justification explaining
the need for the. change. The change
may then be approved by EPA.
In order, f or the change to be Approved
by EPA, it must meet one of several "•
criteria, such as being necessary to
comply with a Eederal, State, or local '
requirement. Note that changes may not
be made if they amount to
reconstruction of the facility. This
occurs when the capital investment for
the changes to|facility exceed 50 percent
of the capital cost of a comparable
entirely new facility. However,
§ 270.72(b)(6) in today's rule lifts the
reconstruction [limit for changes to treat
or store in containment buildings
hazardous waste subject to land
disposal restrictions imposed by part
268, provided that the changes are made
solely for the purpose of complying with
part 268. '
D. Conversion 'of Enclosed Waste Piles
to Containment'Buildings at Permitted.
and Interim Status Facilities
EPA expects!that many permitted and
interim status facilities will make
changes to existing enclosed waste piles
to meet the technical standards for
containment buildings. These facilities
may either continue the operation of the
containment building under its permit or
interim status, Or may wish to operate
the containment building in accordance
with the 90-day generator accumulation
provision in § 262.34.
I. Conversion of Enclosed Waste Piles to
Interim Status or Permitted Containment
Buildings . j
Permitted facilities may convert their
enclosed waste; piles to containment '
buildings by submitting a Class 2 permit
modification, as provided in Item 1.6. in
appendix I to § 1270.42. Facilities under
interim status may amend their part A
permit applications to convert an
enclosed wasteipile to a containment
building under § 270.72(a)(3) as a change
in process. Interim status facilities must
submit a reviseci part.A permit
application and| a justification
explaining the need for the change to the
Agency. The Agency must then approve
the change before it can be
implemented. After the conversion, the
containment building standards of part
265 subpart DD [would apply to the unit
instead of the waste pile standards of
.subpart L. Closure of the enclosed waste
pile is not triggered .by the conversion
process since hazardous waste will '
continue to.be managed in the unit and
the unit remains^ fully subject to the
requirements of [the permit or interim
status. •• • .' •
2. Conversion of Permitted or Interim
Status Enclosed | Waste Piles to
Accumulation Units Under Section
262.34
Section 262.34[allows generators to
accumulate wastes on-site in certain
units for 90 days; or less without having
a permit or interim status pjrovided that
they meet the requirements of that
section. Today's[rule extends the
'applicability of § 262.34 to accumulation
in containment building units.
Owners and operators of new
containment buildings that have not
operated under interim status or a
permit can accumulate wastes under
§ 262.34 provided they meet the
requirements of that section. Owners
and operators of enclosed waste piles
that are permitted or operating under
interim status can convert those units to
generator status and continue
accumulating.wastes under the
provisions of § 262.34 if they first meet
the requirements for closure of the unit
under § 264.1102 or § 265.1102.
In the case of tanks, the Agency has
encountered many owners and
operators that have sought conversion
from permitted or interim status to '
generator status but have been unable tp
satisfy the, closure requirements of
§ 264.197 or 265.197 without ceasing
operation of the unit. While the Agency
does not seek to require •owners and
operators to take these units out of
. operation as part of the conversion to
.generator status, the Agency doe's not
allow conversion to generator status to
serve to exempt permitted and interim .
. status units from the applicable closure
and financial responsibility
requirements. The Agency seeks to
assure that all units that have operated
under the requirements of part 264 or
265 satisfy the applicable closure
.requirements of those parts, and that
funds be available to do so. Thus,
permitted or interim status tanks that
convert to 90-day generator status must
undergo full closure before they are
released from financial assurance
requirements. However, closure
requirements are triggered by the final
receipt of hazardous waste—not by
conversion to 90-day generator status.
Therefore, the tank may defer RCRA
closure until it is taken out of hazardous
waste service.
Similarly, where owners and
operators of interim status or permitted.
containment buildings seek to convert to
90-day generator status but cannot close
the unit without taking it out of
operation, the owner or operator may '
accumulate waste as a generator under
the provisions of § 262.34 (without a
permit requirement) and close the unit at
a later date, However, it should be
noted that unless the owner or operator
satisfies all applicable closure
requirements prior to conversion, the
unit remains subject to the requirements
of subparte G (closure) and H (financial
responsibility) until closure of the unit is
complete. Furthermore, if the facility is
in interim states, it retains interim status
until a permit application is denied or
interim status is Joat. Permitted facilities
would retain any corrective action
-------
, requirements, but could seek permit
amendments to eliminate 40 CFR part
264 standards to which they were no
longer subject (e.g., waste analysis
plan). :
Vin. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 3013, and
'•• 7003 of RCRA, although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and '
requirements for .authorization are found
in 40 CFR part 271.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a
State with.final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program in lieu of EPA administering the
Federal program in that State. The
Federal requirements no longer applied
in the authorized State, and EPA could
not issue permits for any facilities that
the State was authorized to permit.
When new, more stringent Federal
requirements were promulgated or
enacted, the State was obliged to enact
equivalent authority within specified
time frames. New Federal requirements
did not take effect in'an authorized
State until the State adopted the
requirements as State law.
In contrast under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is
directed to carry out these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim. •
Today's rule is being promulgated
pursuant to sections 3004(d) through (k)
and (m), of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924(d)
through (k), and {m)). It is added to
Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.l(j), which
identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA and that take effect
in all States, regardless of their
authorization status. States may apply
for either interim or final authorization
for the HSWA provisions in Table 1, as
discussed in the following section of this
preamble. Table 2 in 40 CFR 271.1(j) is
also modified to indicate that this rule is
a self-implementing provision of HSWA.
EPA is also finalizing a new
management unit, containment
buildings, which involves redefinition of
the tferm "pile," pursuant to HSWA. This
provision assures ah adequate means of
implementing the treatment standards,
either by providing a means that
treatment can occur without constituting
impermissible land disposal, or by
providing a safe staging area that would
not constitute land disposal before best
treatment. Cf. 56 FR.41175 (August 19.
1991) (portion of rule assuring
availability "of capacity adopted
pursuant to HSWA). Thus, this portion
of the rule is adopted pursuant to
HSWA and takes effect immediately in
authorized States.
B. Effect on State Authorization
As noted above, EPA is today ;
finalizing a rule that will be -
implemented in authorized States until
their programs'are modified to adopt
these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the rule is
pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a
program modification may apply to
receive either interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
3006{g)(2) or 3008{b), respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications for either
interim or final authorisation are
described in 40 CFR 271.21. It should be
noted that HSWA interim authorization
will expire on January 1,1993 (see 40
CFR 271,24{.c)).
Section 271.21(e}(2) requires that
States with final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and to subsequently
submit the modification to EPA for
approval The deadline by which the
State would have to modify its program
to adopt these regulations is specified in
§ 271.21(e). The deadline is July 1,1993 if
this rulemaking is finalized on or before
June 30,1992. This deadline can be
extended in certain cases (see
§ 271.21(e}(3)). Once EPA approves the
modification, the State requirements
become subtitle C RCRA requirements
States with authorized R'CRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
final rule. These State regulations have
not been assessed against the Federal
regulations being finalized today to
determine whether they meet the tests
for authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modifications are
approved. Of course, States with
existing standards could continue to
administer arid enforce their standards
as a matter of State law. In
implementing the Federal program, EPA
will work with States under agreements
'to, minimize duplication of efforts, in
many cases, EPA will be able to defer to
the States in their efforts to implement,
their programs rather than talce separate
actions under Federal authority.
States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than 12
.months after the effective date of these
regulations are not required to include
standards equivalent to these
regulations in their application.
However, the State must modify its
program by the deadline set forth in
.§ 271.2l(e). States that submit official
applications for final authorization 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations must include standards
equivalent to these regulations in their
application. The requirements a state
must meet when submitting its' final
authorization application are set forth in
40 CFR 271.3.
The regulations being finalized today
need not affect the State's Underground
Injection Control (UIC) primacy status.
A State currently authorized to
administer the UIC program under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) could
continue to do so without seeking
authority to administer the amendments
that will be promulgated at a future
date. However, a State which wished to
implement part 148 and receive
authorization to grant exemptions from
the land disposal restrictions would
have to demonstrate that it had the
requisite authority to administer
sections 3004 (fj and (g) of RCRA. The
conditions under which such an
authorization may take place are
discussed in a July 15,1985 final rule (50
FR 28728).
IX. Regulatory Requirements
A. Economic Impact Screening Analysis
Pursuant to Executive Order 12291
. Executive Order No. 12291 requires
thaf a regulatory agency determine
whether a new regulation will be
"major" and, if so, that a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA) be conducted. A
major rule is defined as a regulation
likely to result in an annual effect to the
economy of $100 million or more; a
major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individuals, industries,
Federal, State, and local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability of
United States-based enterprises to
-------
37256 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 /-Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
compete with foreign-based enterprises
In domestic or export markets. An RIA
Is a quantification of the potential
benefits, costs, and economic impacts of
a rule.
The Agency estimated the costs of
today's rule to determine if it is a major
regulation as defined by Executive
Order 12291. The Agency expects
today's rule to have an incremental
annual cost below $100 million. Also,
the Agency does not believe the rule
will significantly increase costs for .
consumers, individuals, industries.
Federal, State and local government
agencies, or geographic regions? or have
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
innovation, or international trade.
The Agency has performed an
Economic Impact Screening Analysis for
this rule. The Agency has not assessed
benefits but has rather focused its
analyses on the costs and economic
impacts attributable to today's rule.
1. Cost Methodology
To assess the cost of today's rule, EPA
developed a cost methodology with four
major analytical concerns: (a) Petroleum
refining wastes, (b) remaining wastes
affected by the rule, (c) hazardous
debris, and (d) storage and treatment in
containment buildings. In this section,
the Agency summarizes the
methodology it adopted for each of
these concerns. In addition, at the end of
the cost methodology section, EPA also
lists several wastes included hi today's
rule which are not expected to be
associated with any regulatory impacts.
a. Approach for Petroleum Refining
Wastes (F037 and F038). In the analysis
of the compliance costs for the
treatment standards being set for
petroleum refining wastes, the Agency
first reviewed the work completed for
the listing of F037 and F038, which EPA
promulgated in October 1990 (see 55 FR
46388, subsequently referred to as the
Listing Rule or ysting RIA).53 EPA
estimated in the Listing RIA that 470,000
tons of F037 and F038 nonwastewaters
(with an average water content qf 55
percent) were generated annually. The
Agency assessed compliance costs for
this volume under a compliance
scenario that included LDR treatment
before land disposal because it believed
that the realistic post-regulatory
management practice alter listing will
include treatment. The LDR treatment
" Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Listing of
Primary and Secondary Oil/Water/Solids
Separation Sludges from the Treatment of Petroleum
Refinery Wastewnlera, prepared for U.S. EPA, •
Office of Solid Waste, Economic Analysis Staff, by
DPRA. October 1890.
scenario consisted of dewatering of the
waste followed by either incineration
(on-site or off-site) or solvent extraction
(on-site). j
For today's rule, the Agency updated
the F037 and F038 volume estimates
used in the Listing RIA based on
additional generation ^information
obtained as part of the capacity
determination (see section VI.C for the
capacity analysis of F037 and F038).
Based on this updated information, the
Agency estimated that 223,000 tons of
F037 and F038 nonwastewaters are
generated annually (with an average
water content of 30 percent). EPA
estimated that 56,000 fons per year of
F037 and F038 wastes'were treated to
meet the treatment standards in the
baseline and that the [industry will incur
incremental costs in treating the
remaining 167,000 tonb.
Of the 167,000 tons of land disposed .
F037 and F038 requiring treatment, EPA
estimated that roughly 17,000 tons (i.e.,
10 percent) is land disposed in
California. Californiajhas its own LDR
program, under which F037 and F038
waste are restricted from landjdisposal
as of May 8,1992. The California land
ban standards are substantively
equivalent to- those standards in today's
rule. Thus, even if the Federal
regulations are not promulgated, F037
and F038 waste will be restricted in this
State. Therefore, EPA estimated that
only 150iOOO tons anniially of F037 and
F038 will require additional treatment
prior to land disposal as a result of
today's-rule. For its cost analysis, EPA is
ignoring the effect of ^he one-year
national capacity variance being
granted for this volume and rather
estimatesthe expected annualized cost
several years after the listing decision.
For the baseline scenario, the Agency
estimated that 96,00o!tons per year (i.e.,
64 percent) of the F037 and F038 waste
requiring additional treatment is
managed on-site, and the remaining
54,000 tons (i.e., 36 percent) is sent off-
site. Of the waste managfed:on-site, the
Agency estimated that 91,000 tons per
year (i.e., 95 percent) jis managed using
land treatment, and 5,000 tons per year
(i.e., 5 percent) is landfilled. All wastes
disposed off-site werje assumed to go to
landfills! j
For the post-regulajtory scenario, the
Agency assumed that 130,000 tons (i.e.,
87 percent) of the 150^000 tons requiring
additional treatment will be treated on-
site. Although the Lifting RIA did not
project any volume of waste going to on-
site cokers, information indicates that in
the post-regulatory scenario 34,000 tons
per year (i.e., 26 percent) of the F037 and
F038 volume managed bn-site .will be
disposed of in such a manner, at a cost
of $200 per ton. The remainder of the
F037 and F038 volume managed on-site
was assumed to be split evenly between
solvent extraction (48,000 tons per year,
or 37 percent, at a cost of $500 per ton)
and incineration (48,000 tons per year, or
37 percent, at a cost of $400 per ton). The
post-regulatory scenario assumed '
disposal of residuals in subtitle C
landfills. • . ,
The Agency assumed that 20,000 tons
per year (i.e., 13 percent) of the 150,000
tons requiring additional treatment will
be treated off-site. The Agency
estimated that 2,000 tons per year (i.e.,
10 percent) of this volume will go to , .
incineration, at a cost of $1,600 per ton,
and the remaining 18,000 tons per year
(i.e., 90 percent) will go to cement kilns,
at a cost ranging from $700 per ton to
$1,200 per ton, Although the Agency
.doesn't expect large increases in cement
kiln capacity, there is uncertainty about
.future prices charged by cement kilns
for hazardous waste.
b. Approach for Remaining Wastes. .
. To determine the cost and economic
impacta of the rule for newly listed
wastes other than F037 arid F038; EPA
first identified the industries that will be
affected. The Agency analyzed these
industries to determine the amounts of ,
the affected wastes that they generate,
. how .these wastes are currently. . .,
managed, and how these wastes will
have to be managed to comply with LDR
treatment standards. .
The incremental cost of today's rule
for each waste was estimated by
comparing post-regulatory costs with the
costs of current, or baseline, conditions.
EPA lacked site-specific waste
generation data for this screening
analysis. Accordingly, the Agency
developed costs for the baseline and
post-regulatory scenarios assuming off: ,
site commercial treatment for all wastes
included in the cost analysis, even
though off-site treatment may not be
used by all generators since it generally
is more -expensive ,than on-site'
treatment.
The following paragraphs explain the
approach used to evaluate costs for
wastes besides F037 and F038 affected
by today's jule. " .
(i) Newly .Listed Organic;Wastes. All
newly listed organic chemical wastes
affected by today's rule-r-unsymmetrical
diniethylhydrazine production wastes, 2-
ethoxyethanol, dinitrotoluehe and
. toluenediamine production wastes,
ethylene dibromide production wastes
and methyl bromide production wastes,
and ethylenebisdithiocarbamic atid
production wastes—are land disposed
• in relatively small .quantities. The- '
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160./ Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regufations
37257
baseline for all newly listed wastes was
defined as continued land disposal in
units meeting minimum technological
requirements,
(ii) K081, FOQ8, K062. Today's rule
eliminates the low zinc subcategory for
, K061 wastes and establishes numeric
treatment standards for all K061 based
on high temperature metals recovery
(HTMR). Wastes previously included in
> the high zinc subcategory of K061
already had to meet treatment standards
based on HTMR; they are unaffected by
this change. Wastes previously included
in the low zinc subcategory of K061 had
to meet numeric treatment standards
based on stabilization, although in some
cases HTMR was being used.
: EPA's cost analysis for the regulatory
changes to K061 considered only the low
zinc subcategory since wastes in the
high zinc subcategory are not affected
by the rule. The Agency assumed the
baseline for wastes previously included
in the low zinc subcategory K061 is
stabilization. The Agency assumed that
in the post-regulatory scenario managers
of these wastes will use HTMR.
Today's rule establishes numeric
treatment standards based on HTMR as
an alternative treatment standard for
K062 and F006. The Agency did not
quantify the cost impact of the rule for
these two wastes; it believed that any
operator using HTMR for K062 and F006
will be using the technology only
because .it is more cost-effective than
current management practices.
c. Approach for Hazardous Debris* (i)
Previously Regulated Hazardous Debris.
The majority of hazardous debris is
already regulated under the Solvents
and Dioxins, California list, and the First •
Third, Second Third, and Third Third
LDR rules due to the waste code-carry-
through principle. The waste code carry-
through principle, or mixture rule, states
that a solid waste mixed with a listed
hazardous waste bears the waste code
of the listed hazardous waste.
For this hazardous debris, which is
already restricted under the LDR
program, the standards in today's Kile
are expected to be easier to implement
and less costly than the previous
standards. As one commenter stated, by
specifying multiple acceptable BOAT
technologies for a given hazardous
contaminant category and debris class,
EPA has given the generators and
treaters a number of options to allow
more cost-effective and efficient
treatment of hazardous debris. In
addition, the Agency is allowing
hazardous debris to be treated to meet
the existing LDR standards established
for the listed wastes if the managers of
hazardous debris so desire.
To estimate the incremental annual
cost of treating previously regulated
hazardous debris, EPA constructed
. probabilistic distributions of both the
volume of previously regulated
hazardous debris and the unit costs of
treating various subsets of this volume
before and after the rule takes effect.. . -
EPA relied on the expert judgment of its
technical staff to collect the data
necessary for this step. EPA considered
three sources of generation of previously
regulated hazardous debris: routinely
generated debris (approximately 20
percent of all previously regulated
hazardous debris), debris generated at
remedial actions required by Federal
and State regulations (approximately 30
percent), and debris generated at
demolition and construction sites
(approximately 50 percent). The volumes
associated with each of these sources
were further divided based on other
considerations that would determine the
type and cost of the technology used to
treat the debris,
EPA's approach for previously
regulated hazardous debris did not focus
on volume and cost estimates for
specific wastes or facilities. For this set
of debris, estimates of total volume and
costs were apportioned to sets of
facilities with different debris
generation characteristics and different
treatment patterns. EPA assumed that in
the baseline, incineration would always
be used for debris contaminated with
organic wastes (estimated to be 20
. percent of previously regulated
hazardous debris, on average, for all
sets of facilities); immobilization always
would be use;d for debris contaminated
with organic wastes (estimated to be 20
percent of previously regulated
hazardous debris, on average, for all
sets of facilities); and incineration
followed by immobilization always
-would be used for debris contaminated
with both organic and inorganic wastes
(estimated to be 60 percent of previously
regulated hazardous debris, on average,
for all sets of facilities). In the post-
regulatory scenarios, EPA assumed that
debris contaminated with organics
would be treated using incineration 20 '
percent of the time and washing the
remaining 80 percent of the time, debris
contaminated with inorganics always
would be treated using immobilization
(i.e., no change from the baseline
treatment), and debris contaminated
with both organics and inorganics would
be treated using incineration followed
by immobilization 20 percent of the time
and washing followed by immobilization
80 percent of the time. Cost information,
presented in appendix C of the EIA was
gathered for the Phase I analysis based
on industry contacts and professional
judgment The ranges used for the costs
of incineration and washing reflected
that some debris treated with the
technologies in the post-regulatory
scenario would be exempted from
subtitle C management.
(ii) Newly Regulated Hazardous
Debris. To gather information for its cost
estimate of treating debris contaminated
with wastes newly restricted under
today's rule, EPA used an approach
involving structured interviews with
recognized experts hi the area of
hazardous debris volumes and
treatment technologies. Ah integral part
of these interviews Was identifying the
uncertainties associated with estimates
of future hazardous debris generation
rates and treatment costs.
EPA first identified individuals with
expert knowledge of the industries
generating and managing newly
regulated hazardous debris. EPA
identified nine experts. Four of these
experts were senior environmental
managers associated with several of the
14 organic chemical facilities that
potentially could generate debris
contaminated with organic chemical
production wastes regulated by today's
rule. The remaining five experts were'
senior environmental managers
associated with several of the over 190
petroleum refineries that could
potentially generate, debris
contaminated with F037 and F038.
The Agency then developed protocols
for structured interviews with the
experts who had been identified. The
Agency's protocol was similar in
structure to those used by. Stanford/
SRI 8* and Morgan and Henrion,55
although it was substantially
abbreviated due to time constraints. The
protocol involved five basic stages.
These stages could be described as: (1)
Motivating, (2) structuring, (3) debasing,
(4) encoding, and (5) verifying.
Two individuals conducted each
interview, one a professional facilitator
and the other an engineer with expertise
in the industry being regulated.
Interviews typically lasted one hour,
during which time information on
hazardous debris volumes and
incremental treatment costs was
solicited. Interviewers stressed that
ranges should be supplied rather than
" See:SpetzIer. C.S. and Stael Von Holstein, C.-
A.S., "Probability Encoding in Decision Analysis",
Management Science, VoL 22, No, 3. and Stael Von
Holstein, C.-A.S. and Matheson, J.E.. A Manual for
Encoding Probability Distributions, SRI
International, Palo Alto, CA., 1979.
65 Morgan, M.G. and Henrion, M., Uncertainty: A
Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative
Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1990. . .
-------
37258 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
point estimates, and they requested that
experts provide percentile probabilities
for these ranges.
After the Agency had collected
information from experts, it aggregated
data and generated cost results in terms
of ranges that reflected the uncertainty
of the analysis. EPA used a probabilistic
model to develop volume and cost
estimates. The Agency produced overall
volume and cost estimates for the newly
regulated debris treatment standards
based on the medians of data; it also
generated ranges of volumes and costs
that have a 98 percent likelihood of
containing the true values. EPA
analyzed volumes and costs separately
for the petroleum refining industry,
which will generate debris
contaminated with F037 and F038, and
the organic chemicals industry, which
will generate the remainder of debris
effected by the rule.
d. Methodology for Assessing '
Regulatory Impact Due to Storage and
Treatment in Containment Buildings. As
a result of today's rule, containment
buildings could be used as a method of
waste management They potentially
could provide regulatory relief to the
regulated community. Accordingly, the
Agency assessed the potential cost
implications of using these units. In its
assessment, EPA considered industries
that will use containment buildings for
storage of bulk wastes and treatment of
contaminated debris.
(i) Industries and Wastes Potentially •
Using Containment Buildings for Storage
of Bulk Wastes. EPA believes that two
primary categories of facilities currently
use structures very similar to
containment buildings for storage and
are likely to convert to use of
containment buildings in the future: - -
mineral processing and metal recycling
facilities. Within the mineral processing
category, the Agency believes that
generators of aluminum potliners will be
particularly affected by the provision.
Within the metal recycling category, 'the
Agency believes that brokers of
batteries, battery recyclers (i.e., lead
smelters), and generators and recyclers
of dust and ash from primary steel
producers will be particularly affected..
The Agency bases these beliefs on a
review, of the waste volumea these
industries .generate and comments that it
has received on industrial practices. In
addition, the Agency received extensive
public comment from representatives of .
the three industries, thus enabling the • •
Agency to perform a more detailed
analysis of these industries than of other
industries. . '.',,'
In the case of aluminum potliners,
EPA is assuming that aluminum
facilities already have Subtitle C storage
permits, since potliners are currently
being stored on-s^te in waste piles
pending bulk shipment off-site. Because
waste piles are ajform of land disposal,
if there was no containment building
provision, in order to'comply with the
LDRs EPAbelievJBs that large facilities
will have revert tp sending potliners off-
site at the time of generation. This
change in practices would result in
higher transportation and disposal costs,
given the increased frequency of
shipments. Today's containment
building provision will allow large
generators of spe^it aluminum potliners
to continue their present management
'methods even after treatment standards
are set for K088. '
In the case of the lead acid battery
recovery industry, the Agency believes
that brokers of leiad acid batteries and
recyclers of lead |acid batteries will be
the primary parties affected by the
containment building provision.
Attempts to handle furnace feed
materials differently have proven
unsuccessful and to date remain
infeasible. Becauke EPA considers the
staging of furnace feed materials in the
furnace feed areas as land disposal
under the LDRs, bulk storage would be
prohibited unless the materials.are first
treated. Thus.'if containment buildings
were not exclude'd from LDR regulation,
generators would have to seek treatment
alternatives, such as off-site
stabilization, that might be more
expensive than lead recycling and that.
do not promote resource recovery i
Today's provision will allow brokers •
and secondary smelting facilities to
accumulate sufficient quantities to allow
for more efficient shipment and
processing. ' | .
Lastly, with regard to the primary
steel production industry, steel facilities
store, and sometimes treat, production
dust, primarily K061, in order to lower
,the cost of waste[management through
waste accumulation. As in the lead
smelting'industry, attempts to handle
furnace feed materials differently are '
infeasible. If generators are not able to
store-waste to.facilitate transportation
and treatment, they would have to seek:
management alternatives, such, as off-
site stabilization] that would remain
feasible if waste [had to be sent off-site
immediately after generation. These
alternatives might be more expensive
than HTMR. The! Agency believes that '
both generators of K081 and HTMR
facilities, could take advantage of the
containment building provision and .
continue tp'storej wastes in the present;
manner. !
. The Agency recognizes the possibility
that small generators and recyclers of
bulk hazardous waste may not recognize'
as significant regulatory relief from the
containment buildings provision as
larger generators. Small generators are
less likely than larger generators to have
existing structures which are similar in
design to containment buildings, and
small generators may not generate
enough waste to fully capitalize a
containment building. The Agency.
believes that many small generators and
recyclers of all types of bulk hazardous
waste presently use concrete storage
bins that are regulated under RCRA as
tanks (and'thus are granted a 90-day
storage exclusion from the LDRs).
Storage in concrete bins is possible for
small generators and recyclers because
they do not need the large areas to store
and monitor their hazardous waste. For
example, a small generator of aluminum
smelting waste may store its spent
potliners, each weighing about 10 tons,
in a tank-like concrete bin. Because of
this use of concrete bins, the Agency
believes that many small generators
already enjoy the exclusion from the
LDRs that use of containment buildings
would provide.. •
On the other hand, the industrial
practices of large generators and
recyclers often necessitate the use, of
large containment buildings. Large
aluminum smelting facilities are likely to
generate spent potliners weighing an
order, of magnitude more than those of
small generators (e.g., 150 tons versus 10
tons) arid thus they could take
advantage of the increased storage
capabilities of large containment
buildings. Large recyclers often require
. large areas for proper monitoring and
preparation of waste, and also .could
benefit from the containment building
provision. For example, large recyclers
of lead smelting require substantial
staging areas to achieve time-efficient
.and proper draining of lead waste from
"cracked" batteries. Large facilities are
the primary facilities likely to gain • .
economies of scale in the transportation,
treatment, and disposal costs from the
containment building provision. As a
result, the Agency believes that large
volume managers of wastes, such as
those found in the three industries being
analyzed, will realize significant
benefits from the provision, while small
volume managers will not.
For this reason, as well as the fact
that the scarcity of data on smaller
facilities does not permit a meaningful
analysis, the Agency has focused its .
analysis brt large generators. The
Agency acknowledges .that other •
industries besides the three being
considered could profit from, the :
. containmentbuildingprovision. The
Agency, however, is using the analysis
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No* 160 /Tuesday. August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37259
of these three industries to gain an
understanding of the economic
implications of containment buildings in
use for storage of wastes. • '
' (ii) Facilities Potentially Using
Containment fiuildings for Treatment of
Hazardous Debris. In addition to
analyzing the use of containment
buildings ih'the aluminum smelting,
secondary lead smelting, and steel
production industries, the Agency
'assessed the effects of the provision on
facilities generating hazardous debris.
'To analyze the potential cost savings
associated with treatment in
- containment buildings, EPA assumed in
lieu pf the today's rule, that facilities
would treat hazardous debris off site;
the Agency assumed that under the
containment building provision in
today's rule, facilities will treat debris
oh-slte inside containment buildings.
The Agency used a weighted average of
commercial (oiHslte and off-site
extraction ;and Immobilization costs for
its cost cbrapaiisDn and took into
account the dost qlcoBstotetmg and
operating a containment building.
e. Wastes Not Considered The costs
associated with two groups of wastes—
F001 through F005 spent solvents and 24
K- and U-wastes with wastewater
standards based on scrubber waters—,
were not quantified by the Agency in
this screening analysis. The Agency has
regulated these wastes previously and is
revisiting them in the rale only to modify
the basia for concentration standards.
The modifications are for the purpose of
standardization in testing procedures
and in the basis for treatment standards
and for the purpose of clarification to
ensure appropriate placement in the
Code of Federal Regulations.These
modifications will not change the
required management practices for any
bf these wastes significantly. Thus, the
Agency expects such-changes to have no
significant cost impacts.
2. Cost Estimates
a. Total Cost Estimate. The estimate
for the incremental annual cost of the
standards promulgated in today's rule is
$57 million to $65 million per year.56
Table IX-1 presents quantities of the
wastes affected by today's rale. The
"Wastewaters account for none of the cost of
today's rule. No compliance costs are expected for
treatment of wastewaters because waste waters are
typically discharged to publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) or to coastal and inland waterways
under National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit provisions. When
wastewaters'are discharged in this manner, they are
not subject to the treatment standards required by
the LDRs under RCRA.
estimated cost of compliance with the
, rule for each-waste is presented in Table
IX-2. Neither table includes F001 ..
through F005 spent solvents or the-24 K-
aiid U-wastes covered by today's rule
because the effect of the rule oh these
wastes is negligible, as explained in
. Section IX.l.e., .- .
b. Waste Code Cost Estimates, (i)
Petroleum Refining Wastes (F037 and
F038). The Agency estimates the total
incremental annual cost for treatment of
F037 and F038 nonwastewaters to range
between $40 million and $47 million.
This figure is based on an annual F037
and F038 land disposed volume of
130,000 tons per year in States other
than California. In the upper bound of
the cost range shown forF037 and F038,
35 percent of the post-regulatory cost'
are from off-site treatment. The high
cement lain price used in this analysis,
$1,200 per ton, is expected to be an
overestimate of the long-term price for
treatment in cement kilns. Presently,
cement kilns appear to be charging rates
slightly below those charged by
incinerators; as more cement kilns are
able to handle wastes their prices
should decrease. Because of the high
prices charged by cement kilns, the
Agency has analyzed the costs for F037
and F038 in a range, as shown above.
TABLE IX-1.—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL QUANTITIES OF WASTES AFFECTED BY THE LDRs
' , Waste
Petroleum:refinin.g5slud3es'j(F037and;F03iS9
Unsymmetrical dirneihylhydrazine 'production wastes (K107-
K110), ,' . . •
2-Ethoxyethanol (U359)
Dinitrotoluene and toluenediamine production wastes (Km'
andK112, U328 and U353). ,.
Ethylene dibromide (EDB) production wastes (K117, K118,
and K136) and methyl bromide production wastes (K131
and K132).
Ethylenebisdithtocarbamtc acid (EBDC) production wastes
(K123, K124, K125. and K126).
Electric arc furnace dust (K061)
Debris contaminated with newly listed wastes b
-Previously regulated debris :
•.'„'•'/•
Annual land disposal rate
330,000, tons of routinely
generated waste currently
land disposed, excluding
waste generated in Califor-
nia
No longer produced '.
<500 tons
3,500 tons— K1 11, 0 tons—
K112, <500 tons of U328
and U353. .
<100 tons— K118, <100
tons— K1 32.
< 1 00 .tons— K1 25
67,000 tons of low zinc
K061 «.
XXX tons..
1 000 000 tons
Form of waste
affected
Dewatered sludge..
Nonwastewater
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater.
Nonwastewater
Solid
Solid
Solid,
Generation type
Routine ,
Routine
Routine and
intermittent
Routine and
intermittent
Assumed management
method
Solvent extraction; ,
Incineration; cement
kilns.
Incineration or fuel
substitution.
Incineration.
Incineration.
Incineration.
High temperature metals
recovery.
Destruction;
immobilization;
extraction.
Destruction;
immobilization;
extraction.
" ss ssssssts&sax sfsssoseisup -a "•* - *—
i ne quantity presented here for newly regulated debns is an estimate pending completion of the Agency's analysis for hazardous debris.
-------
37260 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE IX-2.— SUMMARY
[In
OF ANNUAL COSTS OF LDR PHASE I WASTES
millions of dollars per year]
' Waste ' ' ' :
Wastes with Positive Incremental Cost
Potfotsum refining sludges (F037 and F038)
Unsymmetrical oTnxrthyihvdrazine production wastes (K107-K110
2'Elhoxyothanol (U359)
Onf'j-olotuorte and toluerwdiamine production wastes (K111 and I
Ethytono dibromide (EDB) production wastes (K117, K118, a
production wastes (K131 and K132) „ _
Elhylonebisdithiocarbamlc-acid (EBDC) production wastes (K123.
Debris contaminated with new)/ h'sted wastes „
Total for newly listed wastes _.
Wastes with Negative Incremental Cost
Electric are furnace dust (K051) « , _
Previously regulated dobris,..,.. _
]
<112, U328 arid U353) -
nd K136^ arid methyl bromide
K124, K125, and K126)
i
•
Post regulatory
costs
"58 to 66
0
0.4
7
0.3
0.2
15
81 to 89
19
970
Baseline costs • ,
MB'
0
0.1
•r
o!i '
5
24;
30
1,600
Incremental costs
40 to 47
0
0.3
6
0.3
0.2
10
57 to 65
(11)
(560)
• BaseBno assumes all waste is landfilled, except for previously regulated debris. •
•Tha rango of costs shown represents a unit price for cement kilns of between $700 per ton and $1200 per ton. This range is reflected in the total costs
shown tor oacn column as weU. ' I :
(ii) Wastes from the Production of
Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine
(K107-K110). The Agency did not
calculate costs of treatment standards
for wastes from the production of
Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine
(UDMH) (K107, K108, K109, and KllO).
This decision was made based on
information that these wastes are no
longer generated.
(iii) 2-Ethoxyethanol Wastes (U359).
The Agency estimated an incremental
annual cost of $700,000 for the standards
developed for these wastes. This cost is
based on an upper bound assumption of
incineration of 500 tons annually.
(iv) Wastes from Production of
Dinltrotoluene and Toluenediamine
(Kill and K112, U328 and U353). The
Agency estimated an incremental
annual cost of $6.1 million for the
standards developed for these wastes.
This figure is based on an annual land
disposal estimate of 3,500 tons of Kill
nonwastewater, an upper bound
assumption of 100 tons of K112
nonwastewater, and an upper bound
assumption of 500 tons of U328 and U353
combined.
(v) Wastes from Production of
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) (K117, K118,'
and K138). The standards for these
wastes have an estimated incremental
annual cost of $300,000. This figure is ,
based on upper bound assumptions of
100 tons of K118 nonwastewater and 100
tons of K132 nonwastewater requiring
incineration.
(vi} Wastes from Production 6f '
Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic Acid (EBDC]
(K123-K128). The incremental annual
cost estimated for these wastes is
$150,000. This figure is based on an
upper bound assumption of 100 tons of
K125 nonwastewater requiring
incineration. '
(vii) K061, F006, K062. The only
previously regulated [wastes revisited in
today's rule for which the Agency
developed cost estimates are K061 low-
zinc wastes. (As discussed above, the
standards for F006 and K062 are
expected to have no incremental costs.
associated with them.) The standards
for K061 wastes are based on high .
temperature metals r|ecovery (HTMR).
These standards, as applied to KQ61,
could save industry lip to approximately
$11 million annually (i.e., The standards
in today's rule are potentially less costly
than the existing standards.). This figure
is based on an annual generation
estimate of 67,000 tons. The Agency has
used a generation estimate rather than a
land disposal estimate for this waste
because of the high level of uncertainty
regarding the quantity of low zinc K061
that is currently treaied using HTMR.
The effect of using a generation estimate
of the K081 volume is that the cost :
savings' presented is likely to be an
over-estimate of flie true cost savings for
these standards. !
c. Results for Hazardous Debris. .
There are two groups of hazardous
debris in this rule. The first group
includes all previously regulated
hazardous debris: Debris contaminated
with wastes regulated under fee
•previous HSWA land disposal
restriction rules (i.e., [Solvents and
Dioxins, California List, First Third,
Second Third, Third Third rules). The
second group of hazardous debris
includes debris contaminated- with
.wastes newly regulated under tottay's
rule (e.g';, F.037J, . ; , •'•..'
(i) Previously Regulated Hazardous
Debris'. As of May 8, |l992, all of the
national 'capacity variances for the .
debris regulated in the HSWA land
disposal restriction scheduled waste
rules will expire, (If the-Agency •
proceeds With the planned national
case-by-case variance, this date would
be extended to May 8,1993.) All
previously regulated hazardous debris
would then be required to meet the
existing standards for debris established
in the scheduled waste rules. Since the
Agency is interested in long-term
treatment costs, its,analysis does not
take into account the effect of the
national capacity variance on treatment
of hazardous debris.
Standards for debris established in
today's rule allow considerably more
flexibility in debris treatment than did
the standards established in, the LDR
scheduled waste rales. In addition,
today's standards provide for the use of
many more extraction technologies for
treatment then the HSWA standards;
extraction technologies often can be
cheaper to use than the destruction and
immobilization technologies that are
required under current regulations.'
Furthermore, today's treatment
standards allow debris treated toy
destruction and extraction technologies
to be excluded from subtitle C disposal.
Therefore, EPA estimates that today's
standards for previously regulated
debris will result hi a potential-
regulatory relief to Industry. "The Agency
estimates baseline •coots, costs-of debris
treatment and the prior land disposal
restrictions.rules after all variances are
expired to be $1,600 milliortper year;
under-this'rule the costs .would be
reduced by $580 inUlion per year to $970
million. It shoold be no$ed that if there is
a portion of the pEeviousJy regulated
debris'volume whieK would be
generated and managed only during the
period of the national capacity variance, •
to th0 d.egree thdt tltiis pprtiotf is. ,
reflected in the cost savings presented,. '
these savings would be over-estimated. •
-------
One issue should be noted, however,
regarding the baseline for previously
regulated debris. The standard baseline
in cost analysis is formulated as the
scenario of existing management
requirements in the absence of a new
rule. In today's rule, the volume of
previously regulated debris is currently
undera capacity variance. In the
absence of today's rule, once the
variance expires, treatment according to
existing standards is required.
Therefore, the baseline used in the cost
analysis is the existing standards.57
However, since most hazardous debris
is currently under the national capacity
Variance, treatment of hazardous debris
is not generally occurring. Therefore, the
baseline being used does not reflect
current debris management practices.
Yet, in keeping with standard regulatory
. analysis procedures, the Agency
believes it to be appropriate t& analyze
costs for the volume of previously
regulated debris based on a baseline of
compliance with existing standards,
(ii) Newly Regulated Hazardous
Debris. The results of EPA's analysis
indicate that the volume of hazardous
debris newly regulated by today's rule
has a 98 percent likelihood of falling
between 18,000 and 119,000 tons per
year and the corresponding incremental
cost of managing this waste has a 98
percent likelihood of falling between
$3.8 million and $120 million per year.
The median annual incremental cost for
treating newly regulated debris was $10
million. For purposes of determining
whether today's rule is a major rule as
defined by Executive Order 12291, EPA
has used the median volume and cost
results from its analysis.
The volume of debris contaminated
with F037 and F038 has a 98 percent
likelihood of falling between 13,000 tons
per year and 24 million tons per year in
the long term future (i.e., more than five
years after promulgation of today's rule).
The incremental annual cost of treating
this debris has a 98 percent likelihood of
falling between $1.2 million and $5.8
million. The median incremental cost of
treating F037 and F038-contaminated
debris in EPA's analysis was $3.1
million. EPA acknowledges that in the
short-term future (i.e., in the first five '
years after promulgation), the
compliance costs of treating debris
It should be noted that due to the limited data
available for the cost analysis for the previous'LDR
rules, the hazardous debris volumes estimated by
the Agency were small in comparison to the
previously regulated contaminated debris volume
estimated for today's rule. EPA believes that it
underestimated compliance costs for hazardous
debris treatment under the previous LDR rules due
to this lack of data.
contaminated with F037 and F038 will
be much higher.
The volume of debris contaminated
with newly regulated organic chemical
wastes has a 98 percent likelihood of
falling between 3,400 tons and 98,000
tons per year in the long term future.
The incremental annual cost of treating
this debris has a 98 percent likelihood of
falling between $1.4 million and $120
million. The median incremental cost of
treating debris contaminated with newly
regulated organic waste was $7.1
million.
d. Cost Savings From Storage and
Treatment in Containment Buildings,
The Agency lacked information with
which to infer the typical dimensions of
a containment building used to treat
contaminated debris; therefore, the
same size containment buildings were
used for the analysis of treatment
containment buildings as were used for
the storage containment building
analysis. The calculations indicate that
use of containment buildings designed
to store the typical waste quantities
associated with the three industries
considered and to treat
-------
37262 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
barriers and fugitive dust emission
controls. The annualized cost (i.e.,
assuming social discount rate of three
percent and cost annualized over 20
years) for secondary containment
ranged from $7,000 to $23,000 per year
for systems for 50* x 30' containment
building and 340' x 200* buildings,
respectively. Fugitive dust control
ranged from approximately $3,000 for a
SO' x 30' building to $30,000 per year for
a 340' x 200' structure. (The building
dimensions are representative of
possible containment structures for all
of the three industries.)
Given the results of the analysis
presented in this section, the Agency
believes that the containment building
provision will provide regulatory relief
to large facilities, while having little to
no impact on small facilities. The
Agency believes that facilities in the
mineral processing and recycling
industries are particularly likely to
benefit from this provision.
3. Economic Impact!)
A full economic impacts analysis was
not performed because of a lack of data
in many areas. The Agency, however,
qualitatively assessed the economic
impacts attributable to today's rule.
a. Petroleum Refining Wastes (F037
andF038). The Listing RIA considered
the economic impact of the F037 and
F038 listing in light of anticipated land
disposal restrictions on these wastes.
Tho impacts estimated in the Listing RIA
were driven by facility costs and the
economic viability of facility owners.
The results of the Listing RIA's
economic impacts analysis are
summarized below.
In the Listing RIA, two to five percent
of the refineries (depending on the cost
scenario) had cost impacts greater than
one percent of sales. (Cost impacts
exceeding one percent of sales can be
viewed as an indicator of potentially
significant economic-impact.),Slightly
v under two percent of the refineries had
[^«ost impacts that exceeded two percent
of sales under the high-cost scenario,
indicating more severe economic
impacts. Nine out of ten affected
refineries in the high-cost scenario had
. costs below 0.5 percent of sales, land
^ over three-quarters of the refineries fell
f, ielow 0.25 percent, indicating no
£. 'Significant impacts.
The analysis of small entities
presented in the'Listing RIA indicated .,
»that there were potentially seven non-:
Mntegrated refineries (i.e., refineries that
did not produce their own crude and •
market their own products) with cost-to-
sales ratios greater than one percent
under the high-cost scenario. A further
analysis of employment effects and
potential closures was not possible
because of insufficient financial data for
individual refineries.
EPA compared the incremental
compliance cost for the F037 and F038
standards in today's rule with that of the
Listing Rule. The Agency found that
today's rule will have an incremental
compliance cost for F037 and F038
waste, including both nonwastewater
and hazardous [debris, of between $49
million and $58; million, while the Listing
RIA estimated kn incremental annual
compliance co^t of $53 million to $102
million. Based on its qualitative
analysis, EPA Believes that the
economic impacts of today's rule will be
less than the impacts estimated by the
Listing RIA. >
b. Remaining Wastes. Considering the
economic impapts ,of LDRs for the newly
listed organic wastes other than F037
and F038, the Agency estimated the
costs associated with all wastes to be
insignificant, wjth the possible
exception of dihitrotoluene and
toluene diamine| production wastes-. The
Agency, however, did not have the data
to examine these economic impacts.
A quantitative assessment of the
economic impacts associated with the
hazardous debris standards was not
possible because of data limitations.
The Agency does not have
comprehensive site-specific information
on the volumes of previously regulated
or newly listed hazardous debris.
The Agency expects that the impacts
for previously rjegulated debris will not
be significant since the revised
standards are likely to be no more
costly, and in some cases less costly,
than the standards which currently
exist. The impacts of the rule on newly
regulated hazardous debris are
uncertain. The estimated incremental
cost for these standards is expected to
range between $3.8 million and $120
million annually. If a relatively large
'number of facilities bear the burden of
this cost, it is likely'that these standards
will not have a significant impact.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
whenever an agency publishes a notice
of rulemaking, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA)
that describes the effect of the rule on
small entities (i.e., small businesses,
small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions). This
analysis is unnecessary; 'however, if the
rule is estimatecl not to have a
significant economic effect on a
substantial nuiriber- of small entities.
According to EPA's guidelines for
conducting an RFA, if over 20 percent of
the population of small entities is likely
to experience financial distress based
on the costs of the rule, then the Agency
considers that the rule will have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and must
perform an RFA. The Agency has
virtually no data on small entities
affected by today's rule. Because of the
low incremental costs incurred for the
newly listed waste standards, the
Agency believes that the only,area of
potential importance is the hazardous
debris treatment standards. The
previously regulated debris standards,
being potentially a regulatory relief, are,
for this analysis, considered to not have
an effect on small entities. For the debris
contaminated with newly listed wastes,
the impacts to small facilities are
uncertain, although may be significant.
Therefore, although insufficient data
.was available to make a determination,
the Agency estimates that there are not
significant impacts on over 20 percent of
the population of small entities based On
. the costs of the rule, so the Agency has
not conducted an RFA for today's rule.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements for newly listed'wastes
were promulgated in previous land
disposal restriction rulemakings and
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq. and have been assigned OMB
control number 2050-0085, A copy of the
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document (ICR #1442.03) may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer,
Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401M
Street SW. (PM-223Y), Washington, DC
20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The new information collection
requirements and revisions to existing
requirements in this rule will be '
submitted for approval to OMB under
the PRA. These requirements are not
effective until OMB,approves them and
a technical amendment to that effect is
published in the Federal Register.
Send comments regarding -the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to .
Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-
223Y, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street SW., Washington, •
DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Jonathan Gledhill."
-M
-------
List of Subjects
4Q CFR Part 148
PART 148s-»W2AHD©U& WSftSTE
and
procedure, Hazardoua waste,. Reporting,
and' record£eepng:requiEemfinta>, Water
supply. ' • : • '
40 CFR Part 2SOS ,
Stfe; praethse' and' •
procetfute,. CcW8 materials
transportation, Haaaindoua waste,
Reporting and recordkeeping,
recpribements, Water pollution, control,
Water supply. ' .
40' CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procec^e-, Confidential business
infonna-tforii Hazardous- material*
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Indians — tend, Intergovernmental'
relations, PtMaJfiesv Reporting: and
reeofdfeeeping> requirements, Water
pollute control, Water supply.
Dated: June 30, 1992.
William K. Reilly,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble,, title 40, diopter I, of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
1. The. authority, citation foe part 148.
continues, ta reMaa foUJawa;.
CoHser.-vationi and Reeavefy/ Act, 4Z U.S.C.
6901 et. '
™» •.«-M»n«..Ut«*Mf-*C MLmtinDtC.
MANAGEMENT &¥STEMrGENEBAL
3. The authority citation for part 260
continues to'read" as follows:
AuthoEfcy: 42.U.&C: 6905, 6912{it); 6921-
6927,, 6930! 693A 6935, 6937, 6938,. 6939, and,
6974.
4. In § 260.1Q,. a. definition, for .
"containment budding" is added in-
alphabetical order and the definitions of
"misGeilaraeous unif "and "pile"'are
revised; to read- as follows:
§260.10 Definitions.
*****
Containment building means a-
hazardnus-waste management unit that
is used to store of treat hazardous, waste
under the. provisions, of subpart DD of
parts 264 01 265- of this chapter.
* * * * *
Miscellaneous u/Mimeans.a
hazardous waste management unit
where Hazardous, waste ia> treated',
stored, or disposed of and; that- ia not a
container, tank, surface impoundment,.
pile, land treatment unit, landfill,
incinerator, boiler, industrial' furnace-,
underground injection well with
40 CFR pant L4fii, eoniaLDment huildingi
or unit eligible for a nesBaoJcfai,
development asdi demonHteafeni peianifr
under § 27ai6&of thfe ofiapter:;
' ' '
Z. SSeetfea; :E«'Ji7 fe addsd: ta aufiipaut B:
of part 14» tovread: as f oflows;:
§ 148.17 WastespedHc prohibitions;
newly listed wastes.
(a) EffectiKe November 9,, 1992,, the
wastes, specified ia 4Q.GFR, past 261. as.
EPA hazardous^ waste numb«ss.FQ37,
F038, KM)7,,KlQ8i Kl£)9, KElOj Kill,
KUZ, K117,. K11EK K123-,, K124,, K125,
K126, K131, Kl.38,.U32av.U353vandU359
are prohibited from undergFoumdi
injection.. . . •
fb) Effecliite June 3A, 1995* the wastes
specified, in. 4(T' CFR. part 261 aa EPA.
Hazardous waste numbers K117; K118,
K131,. and K132 are prohibited from.
underground? injection. •
fcJTBe requirements of paTagrapfe f a-);
andfb) of'nrisseGttonido-nat apply:
pfEF the waates meet or are treated ttr
meet the applicable- stand'ards- specified
in sufepaitD1 of part 268; or
('23' ff an- exemption- from a- pronifcitioiri
has been granted in response to a
petition raider snbpartC of this- part; or
(3) EJuring'ttie- period ef extension of
the applicabfe effective date,, if an
extension haa- 6een' granted' under
§14814- of this pa-rt).
/'iVe-means-anynoir-cpntainerized
-accumulation of solidv nonflowing-
hazardous waste that is- used* for
treatment or storage and that ik. not a .
containment buiidfiig'.
PART 26t— I
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
5;- The authority- Gitetion- for part -261
confeiues- tec read as follows:
AuAm%^42 W.S.C. 6905,,6912{a^, 6921,
6922; arid5 6936:
. 6. In f 261.3 paragraphs {aJ(2J(iiiJ and
(c)(25fiii)(C)i are. Eesiised! and; paragraph; (f)
is added to read as follows:
§ 261.3 Definition of hazardous waste:
(a); * * *
PI* * *
(iiii) It is a mixture of a solid waste.-
and a hazardous, waste that is.UstedLin;
subpart D of this-part- solely because it-
exhibits one on-more of the >
characteristics! of hazardous waste
identified in subpart C. of this part,.
unless the resultant-mixture no-longer
exhibits any characteristic of hazardous
waste identified in- su&part C of this
pert, or unless the- solid waste is
excluded from regulation- under
§ 26I.4(b)(7) and'the resultant'mixture.
no-longer exhibits any characteristic longer exhibit a
characteristic at the paint, of land
disposal).
{2}
). Nonwastewat-er residues, such
as slag, resulting front high temperaiture
metals; recovery (5HTMM) processing of
KD&l,. K062 or FQQ6 waste, in units
identified as rotaasy, kilns,. Same reactois;
electric furnaces;, plasma we furnaces,
slag reactors, rotary, heacth furnace/
electric furnace combinations OF
industrial- furnaces; (aa defined ia
paragraph (6)>. (7)s, and (131) of the .
deffinitiorc for "-iBdustrial fuinace-" in 40,
CFR 260.10); that are- disposed' in subtitle
D unitsi provided that tnese residues
meet the generic exclusion, levels
-------
'
37264 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
identified in the tables in this paragraph
for all constituents, and exhibit no
characteristics of hazardous waste.
Testing requirements must be
incorporated in a facility's waste
analysis plan or a generator's self-
implementing waste analysis plan; at a
minimum, composite samples of
residues must be collected and analyzed
quarterly and/or when the process or
operation generating the waste changes.
Persons claiming this exclusion in an
enforcement action will have the burden
of proving by clear and convincing '
evidence that the material meets all of
the exclusion requirements.
Conslituont
Maximum for
any single
composite
sample—TCLP
(mg/l)
Generic exclusion lovols for K061 and K062
nonwastowator HTMR residues
Anlhnony— .™~..-.-
Afscotc ._...„„„. „.„. ..
Barium .............. „„. „
Bwvfftum™. — ._.„
Cadmium™™..™.™.™™................
Chromium (tola!)
Lead,,.,...,,.., __......„.. .„
Mofcury,., _..„
Nfckd.™..,.
Selenium,.. — , .„ „..
SUvor™ „,
ThitSum ...................
Zinc, ™.,.™...
0.10
050
76
0.010
0.050
0.33
0.15
0.009
1 0
0.16
0.30
0020
70
Generic exclusion levels for F006 nonwastewater
HTMR residues
Antimony.™..™. . ™...
Arsenic.,...™.. __,„
Barium
Beryllium „
Cadmium.™.
Chromium (total) ™
Cyanide (total) (mg/kg) „...„.,.
Lead.., ...,., „
Mercury............,.™...™...™... „..
Nickel.™™™...™ „._..„ „„..
Selenium ....
Thallium.,,.....™™....™™ .
Zinc™™ ™.L"
0.10
0.50
7.6
0.010
0.050
0.33
1.8
0 15
0.009
1.0
0 16
0.30
0.020
70 -
{2} A one-time notification and
certification must be placed in the
facility's files and sent to the EPA region
or authorized state for K061, K062 or
F008 HTMR residues that meet the
generic exclusion levels for all
constituents and do not exhibit any
characteristics that are sent to subtitle D
units. The notification and certification
that is placed in the generators or
treaters files must be updated if the •
process or operation generating the
waste changes and/or if the subtitle D
unit receiving the waste changes.
However, the generator or treater need
only notify the EPA region or an
authorized state on an annual basis if
such changes occur. Such notification
and certification should be sent to the
EPA region or authorized state by the
end of the calendar year, but no later
than December 31. The notification must
include the following information: The
name and address of the subtitle D unit
receiving the waste shipments: the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number(s) and
treatability group(s) jat the initial point
of generation; and, the treatment
standards applicable to the waste at the
initial point of generation. The
certification must be signed by an
authorized representative and must
state as follows: "I certify under penalty
of law that the generic exclusion levels
for all constituents have been met
without impermissible dilution and that
no characteristic of hazardous waste is
exhibited. I am aware that there are
significant penalties |for submitting a
false certification, including the
possibility of fine anjd imprisonment."
* * * * 1 *
(f) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this se'ction and provided
the debris as defined in part 268 of this
chapter does not exhibit a characteristic
identified at subpart'C of this part, the
following materials are not subject to
regulation under 40 GFR parts 260, 261 to
266, 268, or 270:
(1) Hazardous debris as defined in
part 268 of this chapter that has been
treated using one of the required
extraction or destruction technologies
specified in Table 1 of § 268.45 of this
chapter; persons claiming this exclusion
in an enforcement action will have the
burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidencejthat the material .
meets all of the exclusion requirements;
or | ...
(2) Debris as defined in part 268 of this
chapter that the Regional Administrator,
considering the extent of contamination,
has determined is no longer
contaminated with hazardous waste.
PART 262— STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE I . . '
8. The authority citation for part 262
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6906, 6912, 6922, 6923,
6924, 6925, and 6937.
9. In § 262.34, paragraph (a)(l)(iii)
introductory text is arnended.by
removing the semicolon at the end and
replacing it with a colon, paragraph
ta)(l)(iii)(B) and the concluding text of
paragraph (a)(l) are revised, and
paragraph (a)(l)(iv) is added to read as
follows: I
§ 262.34
(a) *
Accumulation time.
(D * * *
(iii)
(B) Documentation of each waste
removal, including the quantity of waste
removed from the drip pad and the sump
or collection system and the date and
time of removal; and/or
(iv) The waste is placed in
containment buildings and the generator
complies with subpart DD of 40 CFR
part 265, has placed its professional
engineer certification that the building
complies with the design standards
specified in 40 CFR 265.1101 in the
facility's operating record no later than
60 days after the date of initial operation
of the unit. After February 18,1993, PE
certification will be required prior to
operation of the unit. The owner or
operator shall maintain the following
records at the facility:
(A) A written description of
procedures to ensure that each waste
volume remains in the unit for no more
than 90 days, a written description of
the waste generation and management
practices for the facility showing that
they are consistent with respecting the
90 day limit, and documentation that the
procedures are complied with; or
(B) Documentation that the unit is
emptied at least once every 90 days.
In addition, such a-generator is exempt
from all the requirements in subparts G
and H of 40 CFR part 265, except for
§§265.111 and 265.114.
*****
10. In § 262.34(a), the first paragraph
designated (a)(2) and the undesignated
paragraph following (a)(2)(ii) are
removed.
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR OWNER
AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
11. The authority citation for part 264
continues to read as follows: •
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and
6925. - • ..
12. Section 264.110 is amended by
removing the word "and" •from the end
of paragraph (b)(l), by adding' a
'semicolon in place of the period at the
end of paragraph (b)(2), by adding ";
and" in place of the period at the end of
paragraph (b}(3), and by adding a new ' ''.
paragraph (bj(4) to read as follows:
§264.110 Applicability.
*****.
(b)•*'* * '..-.''
(4) Containment buildings that are
required under § 264.1102 to meet the
requirement for landfills.
-------
§ 264. W Closure performance standard.
*»*•**'.
. (c). Complies with, the closure
requirements of this subpart, including,
but not limited to, the. requirements, of
§§ 264.178, 264.197,. 264.228, 264,258,
264.280, 26$.aiO, 284.351, 264.60Whrough
264.603, and 264.1102.
14. Section. 264J112 is- amended by
revising, paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows; " .
§ 264. m Closure pian; amendment of
plait.
(4 *..* *
(2) The Director's, approval of the plan,
. must ensure that the approved closure
plan is consistent'with §§264.111
through 264.115 and the applicable
requirements- of sabpart F of this part
§§ 264,178; 264.197,. 264.228, 264.258
264.280, 264.310, 264.351, 264.601, and
264.1102. Until final-closure is completed
and certified in accordance with
§ 264.115, a copy of the-approved plan
and all approved- revisions must be
furnished to the Director upon, request,
including, requests by mail
* * * * *
15. Section 264.140 is amended by
adding a semicolon in place of ", and" at
the end of paragraph (b)(l), by adding a
semicolon in place of the period at the
end of paragraph {b)(2), by adding ";
and" in place of the period at the end: of
paragraph fb)(3), and by adding a new
paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
§264.140 Applicability.
* * * * *
(b);
(4) Containment buildings that are
required under § 264.1102 to meet the
requirements for landfills.
*****
16. Section 264.142 is amended by
revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a) to read as follows;
§ 264.142 Cost estimate for closure.
(a) The owner or operator must have a
detailed written estimate, in current ,
dollars, of the cost of closing the facility
in accordance with,the requirements in
§ § 264.111 through 264.115 and
applicable closure requirements in
§§ 264.178, 264.197, 264.228, 264.258,
264.280, 264.310, 264.351. 264.601 through'
284.603,. and 264.1102.
'***»' • '
17. Subpart DD is added to part 264 to.
read as follows:
Sec.
264.1100 Applicability.
264.1101 Design and operating, standards.
264.1102 Closure and post-closure care
264.1103-264.1110 [Reserved]
Subpart DD—Containment Buildings
§264.1100 Applicability:
The requirements of this subpart
apply to owners or operators who store
or treat hazardous waste in units
desigjned- and operated tinder § 264.1101
of this subpart. These provisions will
become effective on February 18,1993,
although owner or operator may notify
the-Regional'Administrator of his intent
to be bound by this subpart at an earlier
time. The owner or operator is not
subject to, the definition of knd disposal
in RCRA section 3004(k) provided that
the unit:
(a) Is a completely enclosed, self-
supporting structure that is designed and
constructed of manmade materials of
sufficient strength and, thickness, to
support themselves,, the. waste: contents,
and any personnel and heavy equipment
that operate within the unit, and to
prevent failure due to pressure
gradients, settlement, compression, or
uplift,, physical contact with the
hazardous wastes to which they are
exposed; climatic conditions; and the
stresses of daily operation, including; the
movement of heavy equipment within
the unit and contact of such equipment
with containment walls;
(b) Has a primary barrier that is
designed to be sufficiently durable to
withstand the movement of personnel,
wastes, and handling equipment within
the unit;
(e) If the unit is used to manage
liquids, has:
(1) A primary barrier designed and,
constructed of materials to prevent
migration of hazardous constituents into
the barrier;
(2J A liquid collection system
designed and constructed of materials to
minimize the accumulation of liquid on
the primary barrier; and
(3) A secondary containment system
designed and constructed of materials to
prevent migration of hazardous
constituents into the barrier, with a leak
detection and liquid collection system
capable of detecting, collecting/and
removing leaks of hazardous
constituents at the earliest practicable
time, unless, the unit has been granted, a
variance from the secondary
containment system requirements under
§ 264.1101(b.){4};
(d) Has controls sufficient to prevent
fugitive dust emissions to meet the no
visible-emission standard i
§ 264,1101.(c)£l)(,i.v);. and
(e) Is designed and operated to ensure
containment and prevent the tracking, of
materials from the urailj by peisonnel-or
equipment.
§264.ttOT Design and operating
standards.
(a) All containment buildings must
comply with, the following design
standards: '_ .
(1) The containment building must be
completely enclosed with a floor, walls,
and a roof to prevent exposure to the
elements, (e.g., precipitation, wind, min-
on), and to. assure containment of
managed wastes;
(2) The floor, and. containment walls of
the unit,, including: the- secondary
containment system, if required under
paragraph (fe) of this section,' must be
designed and constructed, of materials of
sufficient strength, and thickness to
support themselves, the; waste contents,
and any personnel and heavy equipment
that operate within the unit, and to
prevent failure due to pressure
gradients, settlement, compression, or
uplift, physical' contact with the
hazardous wastes to which they are,
exposed; climatic conditions; and the-
stresses of daily operation, including the
movement of heavy equipment within
the unit and contact of such equipment
with containment walls. The unit must
be designed' so that it has sufficient
structural strength to prevent collapse or
other failure: All surfaces to be in
contact with hazardous wastes must be
chemically compatible with those
wastes. EPA will, consider standards
established by professional
organizations generally recognized by
the industry such as the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) and the
American Society of Testing Materials
(ASTM) in judging the structural
integrity requirements of this paragraph.
If appropriate to the nature of the waste
management operation to take place in
the unit, an exception to the structural
strength requirement may be made for <
light-weight doors and windows thai
meet these, criteria: . .
(i) They provide an effective barrier
against, fugitive dust emissions under
paragraph (eKlKiv); and
(ii) The unit is designed and operated
in a fashion that assures that wastes
will not actually come in contact with
these; openings.
(3) Incompatible hazardous wastes or
treatment reagents must not be placed
in the unit or its secondary containment
system if they could cause the unit or
secondary containment system to leak.
corrode, or otherwise fait'
-------
37266 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
(4) A containment building must have
a primary barrier designed to withstand
the movement of personnel, waste, and
handling equipment in the unit during
the operating life of the unit and
appropriate for the physical and
chemical characteristics of the waste to
be managed.
(b) For a containment building used to
manage hazardous wastes containing
free liquids or treated with free liquids
(the presence of which is determined by
the paint filter test, a visual
examination, or other appropriate
means), the owner or operator must
include:
(1) A primary barrier designed and
constructed of materials to prevent the
migration of hazardous constituents into
the barrier (e.g., a geomembrane covered
by a concrete wear surface).
(2) A liquid collection and removal
system to minimize the accumulation of
liquid on the primary'barrier of the
containment building:
(i) The primary barrier must be sloped
to drain liquids to the associated
collection system; and
(ii) Liquids and waste must be
collected and removed to minimize
hydraulic head on the containment
system at the earliest practicable time.
(3) A secondary containment system
including a secondary barrier designed
and constructed to prevent migration of
hazardous constituents into the barrier,
and a leak detection system that is
capable of detecting failure of the
primary barrier and collecting
accumulated hazardous wastes and
liquids at the earliest practicable time.
(5) The requirements of the leak
detection component of the secondary
containment system are satisfied by
installation of a system that is, at a
minimum:
(A) Constructed with a bottom slope
of 1 percent or more; and
(B) Constructed of a granular drainage
material with a hydraulic conductivity
of 1X 10'z cm/sec or more and a '
thickness of 12 inches (30.5 cm) or more,
or constructed of synthetic or geonet
drainage materials with a transmissivity
of 3X10
-------
Federal Register / Voi57^0. 160 /Tuesday. August m 1992 / Ruies and Regulations
• (iii) Upon completing all repairs and
cleanup the owner or operator must
notify the Regional Administrator in
writing and provide a verification,
signed by a qualified, registered
professional engineer, that the repairs
and cleanup have.been completed
according to the written plan submitted
m accordance with paragraph
. (cX3)(i)(D) of this section.
(4) Inspect and record in the facility's
operating record, at least once every
seven days, data gathered from
monitoring equipment and leak
detection equipment as well as the
containment building and the area
immediately surrounding the
containment building to detect signs of
releases of hazardous
-------
[
37268 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
Sec.
265.1102 Closure and post-closure care.
265.1103 -285.1110 [Reserved]
Subpart DD—Containment Buildings
§285.1100 Applicability.
The requirements of this subpart
apply to owners or operators who store
or treat hazardous waste in units
designed and operated under § 265.1101
of this subpart. These provisions will
become effective on February 18,1993,
although the owner or operator may
notify the Regional Administrator of his
intent to be bound by this subpart at an
earlier lime. The owner or operator is
not subject to the definition of land
disposal in RCRA section 3004(k)
provided that the unit:
(a) Is a completely enclosed, self-
supporting structure that is designed and
constructed of manmade materials of
sufficient strength and thickness to
support themselves, the waste contents,
and any personnel and heavy equipment
(hat operate within the units, and to
prevent failure due to pressure
gradients, settlement, compression, or
uplift, physical contact with the
hazardous wastes to which they are
exposed; climatic conditions; and the
stresses of daily operation, including the
movement of heavy equipment within
the unit and contact of such equipment
with containment walls;
(b) Has a primary barrier that is
designed to be sufficiently durable to
withstand the movement of personnel
and handling equipment within the unit;
(c) If the unit is used to manage
liquids, has:.
(1) A primary barrier designed and
constructed of materials to prevent
migration of hazardous constituents into
the barrier;
(2) A liquid collection system
designed and constructed of materials to
minimize the accumulation of liquid on
the primary barrier; and
(3) A secondary containment system
designed and constructed of materials to
prevent migration of hazardous
constituents into the barrier, with a leak
detection and liquid collection system
capable of detecting, collecting, and
removing leaks of hazardous
constituents at the earliest possible
time, unless the unit has been granted a
variance from the secondary
containment system requirements under
§ 285.1101(b)(4);
fd) Has controls as needed to permit
fugitive dust emissions; and
(e) Is designed and operated to ensure
containment and prevent the tracking of
materials from the unit by personnel or
equipment.
§265.1101 Design and operating
standards.
(a) All containment buildings must
comply with the following design
standards: I
(1) The containment building must be
completely enclosed with a floor, walls,
and a roof to prevejnt exposure to the
elements, [e.g., precipitation, wind, run-
on), and to assure containment of
managed wastes.
(2) The floor and containment walls of
the unit, including the secondary
containment system if required under
paragraph (b) of this section, must be
designed and constructed of materials of
sufficient strength and thickness to
support themselves, the waste contents,
and any personnel and heavy equipment
that operate within! the unit, and to
prevent failure due|to pressure
gradients, settlement, compression, or •
uplift, physical contact with the
hazardous wastes to which they are
exposed; climatic conditions; and the
'stresses of daily operation, including the
movement of heavy equipment within
the unit and contact of such equipment
with containment vjralls. The unit must
be designed so that it has sufficient
structural strength jo prevent collapse or
other failure. All surfaces to be in
contact with hazardous wastes must be
chemically compatible with those
wastes. EPA will consider standards
' established by professional
organizations generally recognized by
the industry such as the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) and the
American Society of Testing Materials
(ASTM) in judging the structural
integrity requirements of this paragraph.
If appropriate to the nature of the waste
management operation to take place in
the unit, "an exception to the structural
strength requirement may be made for
light-weight doors and windows that
meet these criteria: j .
(i) They provide an effective barrier
against fugitive dust emissions under
paragraph (c)(l)(iv){ and
(ii) The unit is designed and operated
in a fashion that assures that wastes
will not actually come in contact with
these openings.
(3) Incompatible hazardous wastes or
treatment reagents must not be placed
in the unit or its secondary containment
system if they could cause the unit or
secondary containment system to leak,
corrode, or otherwise fail.
(4) A containment building must have
a primary barrier designed to withstand
the movement of personnel, waste, and
handling equipment in the unit during
the operating life of|the unit and
appropriate for the physical and
chemical characteristics of the waste to
be managed. j . - ,
(b) For a containment building used to
manage hazardous wastes containing
free liquids or treated with free liquids
(the presence of which is determined by
the paint filter test, a visual
examination, or other appropriate
means], the owner or operator must
include:
(1) A primary barrier designed and
constructed of materials to prevent the
migration of hazardous constituents into
the barrier (e.g. a geomembrane covered
by a concrete wear surface).
(2) A liquid collection and removal
system to prevent the accumulation of
liquid on the primary barrier of the
containment building:
(i) The primary barrier must be sloped
to drain liquids to the associated
collection system; and
(ii) Liquids and waste must be
collected and removed to minimize
hydraulic head on the containment
system at the earliest practicable time
that protects human health and the
environment.
(3) A secondary containment system
. including a secondary barrier designed
and constructed to prevent migration of
hazardous constituents into the barrier,
and a leak detection system that is
capable of detecting failure of the
primary barrier and collecting
accumulated hazardous wastes and
liquids at the earliest practicable time.
(i) The requirements of the leak
detection component of the secondary
containment system are satisfied by
installation of a system that is, at a
minimum:
(A) Constructed with a bottom slope
of 1 percent or more; and
(B) Constructed of a granular drainage
material with a hydraulic conductivity
of 1 X 10"2 cm/sec or more and a
thickness of 12 inches (30.5 cm) or more,
or constructed of synthetic or geonet' •
drainage materials with a trasmissivity
of 3 X 10~5 m 2 / sec or more.
(ii) If treatment is to be conducted in
the building, an area in which such .
treatment will be conducted must be
designed to prevent the release of
liquids, wet materials, or liquid aerosols
to other portions of the building.
' (iii) The secondary containment
system must be, constructed of materials
that are chemically-resistant-to the
waste and liquids managed in the
containment .building and of sufficient
strength and thickness to prevent
collapse under the pressure exerted by
overlaying materials and by any
equipment used in the containment
building. (Containment buildings can
serve as secondary containment ;
systems for tanks placed within the
building under certain conditions. A
-------
containment building can serve as an
external liner system for a tank,
provided it meets the requirements of
§ 265.193{d)(l). Jn addition, the
containment building must meet the
requirements of § 265.193 (b) and (c) to
be considered an acceptable secondary
containment system for a tank.)
(4) For existing units other than 90-day
generator units, the Regional
Administrator may delay the secondary
containment requirement for up to two
years, based.on a demonstration by the
owner or operator that the unit
substantially meets the standards of this
Subpart. In making this demonstration,
me owner or operator must:
(i) Provide written notice to the
Regional Administrator of their request
by February 18,1993. This notification
must describe the unit and its operating
practices with specific reference to the
performance of existing containment
systems, and specific plans for
retrofitting the unit with secondary
containment;
(ii) Respond to any comments from
the Regional Administrator on these '
plans within 30 days; and
(iii) Fulfill the terms of the revised
plans, if such plans are approved by the
Regional Administrator.
(c) Owners or operators of all
containment buildings must:
(1) Use controls and practices to
ensure containment of the hazardous
waste within the. unit; and. at a
minimum:
(i) Maintain the primary barrier to be
free of significant cracks, gaps,
corrosion, or other deterioration that
could cause hazardous waste to be
released from the primary barrier;
(ii) Maintain the level of the stored/
treated hazardous waste within the
containment walls of the unit so that the
hejght of any containment wall is not
exceeded;
(iii) Take measures to prevent the
tracking of hazardous waste out of the
unit by personnel or by equipment used
in handling the waste. An area must be
designated to decontaminate equipment
and any rinsate must be collected and
properly managed; and
(iv) Take measures to control fugitive
dust emissions such that any openings
(doors, windows, vents, cracks, etc.)
exhibit no visible emissions. In addition
all associated particulate collection
devices (e.g., fabric filter, electrostatic
precipitator) must be operated and
maintained with sound air pollution
control practices. This state of no visible
emissions must be maintained
effectively at all times during normal
operating conditions, including when
vehicles and personnel are entering and
exiting the unit.
(2) Obtain certification by a qualified
registered professional engineer that the
containment building design meets the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section. For units placed into
operation prior to February 18,1993, this
certification must be placed in the
facility's operating record (on-site files -
for generators who are not formally
required to have operating records) no
later than 60 days after the date of
initial operation of the unit After
February 18,1993, PE certification will
be required prior to operation of the
unit. •
(3) Throughout the active life of the
containment building, if the owner or
operator detects a condition that could
lead to or has caused a release of
hazardous waste, must repair the
condition promptly, in accordance with-
the following procedures.
(5) Upon detection of a condition that
has led to a release of hazardous waste
(e.g., upon detection of leakage from the
primary barrier) the owner or operator
must:
(A) Enter a record of the discovery in
the facility operating record;
(B) Immediately remove the portion of
the containment building affected by the
condition from service;
(C) Determine what steps must be
taken to repair the containment building.
remove any leakage from the secondary
collection system, and establish a
schedule for accomplishing the cleanup
and repairs; and
. (D) Within 7 days after the discovery
of the condition, notify the Regional
Administrator of the condition, and
. within 14 working days, provide a
written.notice to the Regional
Administrator with a description of the
steps taken to repair the containment
building, and the schedule for
accomplishing the work.
(ii) The Regional Administrator will
• review the information submitted, make
a determination regarding whether the
containment building must be removed
from service, completely or partially
until repairs and cleanup are complete,
and notify the owner or operator of the
determination and the underlying
rationale in writing.
(iii) Upon completing all repairs and
cleanup the owner, or operator must
notify the Regional Administrator in,
writing and provide a verification.
, signed by a qualified, registered
professional engineer, that the repairs
and cleanup have been completed
according to the written plan submitted
in accordance with paragraph
(cj(3)(i)(D) of this section.
. (4) Inspect and record-in the facility's
operating record, at least once every
seven days, data gathered from '
monitoring equipment and leak
detection equipment as well as the
containment building and the area
immediately surrounding the
containment building to detect signs of
releases of hazardous waste.
(d) For containment building that
contains both areas with and without
secondary containment, the owner or
operator must:
(1) Design and operate each area in
accordance with the requirements
enumerated in paragraphs (a) through
(c) of this section;.
(2) Take measures to prevent the
release of liquids or wet materials into
areas without secondary containment;
and
(3) Maintain in the facility's operating
log a written description of the operating
procedures used to maintain the
integrity of areas without secondary
containment.
(e) Notwithstanding any other
provision of this subpart,,the Regional
Administrator may waive requirements
for secondary containment for a
permitted containment building where
the owner or operator demonstrates that
the only free liquids in the unit are
limited amounts of dust suppression '
liquids required to meet occupational
health and safety requirements, and
where containment of managed wastes
and liquids can be assured without a
secondary containment system.
§ 265.1102 Closure and post-closure care.
(a) At closure of a containment
building, the owner or operator must
remove or decontaminate, all waste
residues; contaminated containment
system components (liners, etc.),
contaminated subsoils, and structures
and equipment contaminated with
waste and leachate, and manage them
as hazardous waste unless § 261.3(d) of
this chapter applies. The closure plan,
closure activities, cost estimates for
closure, and financial responsibility for
containment buildings must meet all of
the requirements specified in sabparts G
and H of this part.
(b) If, after removing or
decontaminating all residues and
making all reasonable efforts to effect
removal or decontamination of
contaminated components, subsoils,
structures, and equipment as required in
paragraph (a) of this section, the owner
or operator finds that not all .
contaminated subsoils can be
practicably removed or decontaminated,
he must close the facility and, perform
post-closure car,e in accordance with the
closure and post-closure requirements/
that apply to landfills (§ 265.310):, In.
addition, for thq purposes of closure.
-------
37270 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
post-closure, and financial
responsibility, such a containment
building is then considered to be a
landfill, and the owner or operator must
meet all of the requirements for landfills
specified in subparts G and H of this
part.
§§265.1103—265.1110 [Reserved]
•PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
26. The authority, citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905.6912(a), 6921, and
6924.
27. In § 268.2 paragraph (g) is revised
and paragraph (h) added to read as
follows:
§268.2 Definitions applicable In this part
*****
(g) Debris means solid material
exceeding a 60 mm particle size that is
intended for disposal and that is: A
manufactured object; or plant oranimal
matter; or natural geologic material.
However, the following materials are
not debris: Any material for which a
specific treatment standard is provided
in subpart D, part 268; Process residuals
such as smelter slag and residues from
the treatment of wasfe, wastewater,
sludges, or air emission residues; and
Intact containers of hazardous waste..
that are not ruptured and that retain at
least 7555 of their original volume. A
mixture of debris that has not been
treated to the standards provided by
§ 268.45 and other material is subject to
regulation as debris if the mixture is
comprised primarily of debris, by
volume, based on visual inspection.
(h) Hazardous debris means debris
that contains a hazardous waste listed
in subpart D of part 261 of this chapter,
or that exhibits a characteristic of
hazardous waste identified in subpart C
of part 261 of this chapter.
28. Section 268.5 is amended by -.-•
adding "; or" in place of the semicolon
at the end of paragraph (h)(2)(ii), by
redesignating paragraph (h)(2)(v) as
paragraph (h)(2)(vi), by revising • .
paragraph (h)(2)(iv) and by adduig new
paragraph (h)(2)(v) to read as follows:
§268.5 Procedures for case-by-case
extensions to an effective date.
» * * * ,
00 • * • , •
(2) * * •
(iv) The surface impoundment, if
permitted, is in compliance with the
requirements of subpart F of-part 264 '
and § 264.221 (cj, (d) and (e) of this
chapter; or
(v) The surface impoundment, if newly
subject to RCRA section 3005(j)(l) due
to the promulgation of additional listings
or characteristics for the identification
of hazardous w!aste, is in compliance
with the requirements of subpart F of
part 265 of this [chapter within 12 months
after the promulgation of additional
listings or characteristics of hazardous
waste, and with the requirements of
§ 265.221 (a), (c|) and (d) of this chapter
within 48 months after the promulgation
of additional listings or characteristics
of hazardous waste. If a national
capacity variance is granted, during the
period the variance is in effect, the
surface impoundment, if newly subject
to RCRA sectioh 3005(j)(l) due to the
promulgation of additional listings or
characteristics pf hazardous waste, is in
compliance with the requirements of
subpart F of part 265 of this chapter
within 12 months after the promulgation
of additional listings or characteristics
of hazardous waste, and with the
requirements of § 265.221 (a), (c) and (d)
of this chapter within 48 months after
the promulgation of additional listings or
characteristics of hazardous'waste; or
* * * '. * *
29. Section 268.7 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(l)(iii), (a}(l)(iv),
(a)(2) introductory text, (a)(3)(iv),
(a)(3)(v), (a)(4) introductory text, (b)(4)
introductory te?it, and (b}(5)
introductory text, and by adding
paragraphs (a)(l)(v), (a)(3)(vi), and (d) to
i;ead as follows;
§ 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeeplng.
(a) * * * (
(i)* !
.(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipmefit of waste;
(iv) For hazardous debris, the
contaminants subject to treatment as
provided by § 268.45(b) and the
following statement: "This hazardous
debris is subject to the alternative
treatment standards of 40 CFR 268.45";
and
(v) Waste analysis data, where
available. j
(2) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
Part, and determines that the waste can
be land disposed without further
treatment, with jsach shipment of waste
he must submit, jto the treatment,
storage, or land pisposal facility, a
notice and a certification stating that the
waste meets the* applicable treatment
standards set forth in subpart D of this
part and the applicable prohibition
levels set forth in § 268.32 or RCRA
section 3004(d). (Generators of hazardous
debris that is excluded from the
definition of hazardous waste under
§ 261,3(e)(2) of this chapter (i.e., debris
that the Director has determined does
not contain hazardous waste), however,
are not subject to these notification and
certification requirements.
* * , * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Waste analysis data, where
available;
(v) For hazardous debris, the
contaminants subject to treatment as
provided by § 268.45(b) and the
following statement: "This hazardous
debris is subject to the alternative
treatment standards of 40 CFR 268,45";
and
(vi) The date the waste is subject to
the prohibitions.
(4) If a generator is managing
prohibited waste in tanks, containers, or
containment buildings regulated under
40 CFR 262.34, and is treating such
waste in such tanks, containers, or
containment buildings to meet
applicable treatment standards under
subpart D of this part, the generator
must develop and follow a written
'waste analysis plan which describes the
procedures the generator will carry out
to comply with the treatment standards.
(Generators treating hazardous debris
under the alternative treatment
standards of Table 1, § 268.45, however,
are not subject to these waste analysis
requirements.) The plan must be kept on
site in the generator's records, and the
following requirements must be met:
(4) A notice must be sent with each
waste shipment to the land disposal
facility which includes the following
information, except that debris excluded
from the definition of hazardous waste
under § 261.3(e) of this chapter (i.e.,
debris treated by an extraction or
destruction technology provided by
Table 1, § 268.45, and debris that the
Director has determined does not
contain hazardous waste) is subject to
the notification and certification
requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section rather than these notification
requirements: • • •
* * • * * +
(5) The treatment Tacility must submit
a certification with each shipment of
waste or treatment residue of a
restricted waste to the land disposal
facility stating that the waste or
treatment residue has been treated in
compliance with .the applicable
performance standards specified in
subpart D of this part and the applicable
prohibitions set forth in § 268.32 or
RCRA section 3004(d). Debris excluded
from the definition of hazardous waste
under § 261. 3(e) of this chapter (i.e.,
debris treated by an extraction or
destruction technology provided by
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
37271
Table 1, § 268.45, and debris that the
Director has determined does not
contain hazardous waste], however, is
subject to the notification and
certification requirements of paragraph
(d) of this section rather than the
certification requirements of this
paragraph ;(b)(5).
* * * * *,.'
(d) Generators or treaters who first
claim that hazardous debris is'excluded
from the definition of hazardous waste
under § 261.3(e) of this chapter (i.e.,
debris treated by an extraction or
destruction technology provided by
- Table 1, § 268.45, and debris that.the
Director has determined does not
contain hazardous waste) are subject to
the following notification and
certification requirements:
(1) A one-time notification must be
submitted to the Director or authorized
State including the following
information:
(i) The name and address of the
Subtitle D facility receiving the treated
debris;
[ii) A description of the hazardous
debris as initially generated, including
the applicable EPA Hazardous Waste
Number(s); and
(iii) For debris excluded under
§ 261.3(e)(lj of this chapter, the
technology from Table 1, § 268.45, used
to treat the debris.
(2) The notification must be updated if
the debris is shipped to a different
facility, and, for debris excluded under
§ 261.2(e)(l) of this chapter, if a different
type of debris is treated or if a different
technology is used to treat the debris.
(3) For debris excluded under
§ 261.3(e)(l) of this chapter, the owner
or operator of the treatment facility must
document and certify compliance with
.the treatment standards of Table 1,
§ 268.45, as follows:
, (i) Records must be kept of all
inspections, evaluations, and analyses
of treated debris that are made to
determine compliance with the
treatment standards;
(ii) Records must be kept of any data
or information the treater obtains during
treatment of the debris that identifies
key operating parameters of the
treatment unit; and
(iii) For each shipment of treated
debris, a certification of compliance
with the' treatment standards must be
signed by an authorized representative
and placed in the facility's files. The
certification must state the following: "I
certify under penalty of law that the
debris has been treated in accordance
with the requirements of 40 CFR 268.45.1
am aware that there are significant
penalties for making a false
certification, including the possibility of
fine and imprisonment."
* * ' * * *
30. In § 268,9, paragraph (d) is revised
to read as follows:
§268.9 Special rules regarding wastes
that exhibit a characteristic.
* *,**.*
(d) Wastes that exhibit a
characteristic are also subject to § 268.7
requirements, except that once the
waste is no longer hazardous, a one-
time notification and certification must
be placed in the generators or treaters ,
files and sent .to the EPA region or
authorized state. The notification and
certification that is placed in the
generators or treaters files must be
updated if the process or operation
generating the waste changes and/or if
the subtitle D facility receiving the
waste changes. However, the generator
or treater need only notify the EPA
region or an authorized state on an
annual basis if such changes occur. Such
notification and certification should be
sent to the EPA region or authorized
state by the end of the.calendar year,.
but no later that December 31.
(1) The notification must include the
following information:
(i) Name and address of the Subtitle D
facility receiving the waste shipment;
(ii) A description of the waste as
initially generated, including.the
applicable EPA Hazardous Waste
Number(s) and treatability group(s)r
(iii) The treatment standards
applicable to the waste at the point of
generation.
(2) The certification must be signed by
an authorized representative and must
state the language found in § 268.7(b)(5).
31. Section 268.14 is added to subpart
B of part 268 to read as follows:
§ 268.14 Surface impoundment
exemptions.
(a) This section defines additional
circumstances under which an
otherwise prohibited waste may
continue to be placed in a surface
impoundment.
(b) Wastes which are newly identified
or listed under'sectiqn 3001 after
November 8,1984, and stored in a
surface impoundment that is newly
subject to subtitle C of RCRA as a result
of the additional identification or listing,
may continue to be stored in the surface
impoundment for 48 months after the
promulgation of the additional listing or
characteristic, not withstanding that the
waste is otherwise prohibited from land
disposal, provided that the surface
impoundment is in compliance with the
requirements of subpart F of part 265 of
this chapter within 12 months after
promulgation of the new listing or
characteristic,
(c) Wastes which are newly identified
or listed under section 3001 after
November 8,1984, and treated in a
surface impoundment that is newly
subject to subtitle C of RCRA as a result
of the additional identification or listing,
may continue to be treated in that
surface impoundment, not withstanding
that the waste is otherwise prohibited
from land disposal, provided that
surface impoundment is in compliance
with the requirements _of subpart F of
part 265 of this chapter within 12 months
after the promulgation of the new listing
or characteristic. In addition, if the
surface impoundment continues to treat
hazardous waste after 48 months from
promulgation of the additional listing or
characteristic, it must then be in
compliance with § 268.4.
32. Section 268.36 is added to subpart
C of part 268 to read as follows:
§ 268.36 Waste specific prohibitions—
newly listed wastes.
(a) Effective November 9,1992, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers K107,
K108, K109, K110, Kill, K112, K117,
K118, K123, K124, K125, K126, K131,
K132, and K136; and the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.33(f) as EPA
Hazardous Waste numbers U328, U353,
and U359 are prohibited from land
disposal.
(b) Effective June 30,1993, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers F037 and
F038 that are not generated from surface
impoundment cleanouts or closures are
prohibited from land disposal.
(c) Effective June 30,1994, the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers F037 and
F038 that are generated from surface
impoundment cleanouts or closures are
prohibited from land disposal.
(d) Effective June 30,1994, radioactive
wastes that are mixed with hazardous
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers F037
and F038; the wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Numbers K107, K108, K109, KllQ, Kill,
K112, K117, K118, K123, K124. K125,
K126 K131, K132, and K136; or the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.33(1) as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers U328,
U353, and U359 are prohibited from land
disposal.
(e) Effective June 30,1994, debris
contaminated with hazardous wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.31 as EPA
Hazardous Waste Numbers F037 and
F038; the wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.32 as EPA Hazardous Waste
-------
37272
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
Numbers K107. KlOB. K109, KllO. Kill.
K112, K117. K118. K123, K124. K125.
K128 K131. K132. and K136: or the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.33(f) as
EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers U328.
U353, and U359; and which is not
contaminated with any other waste
already subject to a prohibition are
prohibited from land disposal.
(f) Between June 30,1992 and June 30,
1993, the wastes included in paragraph
(b) of this section may be disposed of in
a landfill, only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in § 268.5{h)(2), and may be
generated in and disposed of in a .
surface impoundment only if such unit is
in compliance with either § 268,5(h)(2) or
§ 268.14.
(S) Between June 30,1992 and June 30,
1994, the wastes included in paragraphs
(d) and (e) of this section may be
disposed of in a landfill only if such unit
is in compliance with the requirements
specified in § 268.5(h)(2), and may be
generated in and disposed of in a
surface impoundment only if such unit is
in compliance with either § 268.5fh)(2) or
§ 288.14.
(h) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section do
not apply if:
(1) The wastes meet the applicable
.standards specified in subpart D of this
part;
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 268.6, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by
the petition; ;
(3) The wastes meet the applicable •
alternate standards established
pursuant to a petition granted under
§268.44; ' ;
(4) Persons have been granted an
extension to the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to § 268.5, with
respect to the wastes covered by the
extension. -; '
(i) To determine whether a hazardous
waste identified in this section exceeds
the applicable treatment standards
specified in §§ 268.41 and 268.43, the
initial generator must test a
representative sample of the waste •
extract or the entire waste, depending'
on whether the treatmjent standards are
expressed as concentrations in the
waste extract or the wjaste, or the
generator may use knowledge of the
waste. If the waste contains constituents
in excess of the applicable levels in
subpart D of this part, the waste is
prohibited from land disposal, and all
requirements of part 268 are applicable,
except as otherwise specified.
33. In § 268.40, paragraph (b) is
revised and paragraph (d) is added to
read as follows:
i
§268.40 Applicability of treatment
standards. '
* * * * *
(b) A restricted waste for which a
treatment technology ik specified under
§ 268.42(a) or hazardous debris for
which a treatment technology is '
specified under § 268.45 may be land
disposed after it is treated using that
specified technology or an equivalent
treatment method approved by the
Administrator under the procedures set
forth in § 268.42(b).
* * * * *'
(d) If a treatment standard has been
established in §§ 268.41 through 268.43
for a hazardous waste that is itself
hazardous debris, the waste is subject to
those standards rather than-the
standards for hazardous debris under
§ 268.45.
34. In § 268.41, paragraph (a) text
preceding table is revised, and Table
CCWE is amended by revising the entry
for "F001-F005 spent solvents," by
removing the entries for "K061 (Low
Zinc Subcategory—less than 15% Total
Zinc)" and "K061 (High Zinc
Subcategory—greater than 15% Total
Zinc)—Effective until August 7,1991, by
adding entries for "F037", "F038", and
"K061", and by adding paragraph (c) to
read as follows;
§ 268.41 Treatment standards expressed .
as concentrations In waste extract "
(a) Table CCWE identifies the
restricted wastes and the .concentrations
of their associated constituents which
may not be exceeded in the extract of a .
waste or waste treatment residual
extracted using the test method in
appendix I of this part for the allowable
land disposal of such wastes.
Compliance with these concentrations is
required based upon grab samples.
268.41 TABLE CCWE.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTE EXTRACT
Commer-
U/nfl|a rwfa * Cial r» i *
waste code chemical Se? als°
name
, . •
F001-F005 spent solvents NA Table CCW in 268.43...:.:....:
. .
F037 NA.. Table CCW hi 268.43..:.....
F038 NA™.. Tabte CCW in 268.43
KOS1 .™™™™., NA Table CCW hi 268 43
^
Regulated hazardous constituent
Carbon disulfide "..
Cydohexanone. :..:
Methartol.....
Chromium (Total)
Nickel
Chromium (Total)
Nickel
Arsenic
Barium ' • '
Beryllium
Cadmium „
Chromium (Total) •
Lead
Mercury ........U
Nickel '.
Selenium ........:.
Silver........ ;
Thallium ;....
Zinc
hazardous
constituent
* , .
75-15-0
108-94-1
67-56-1
, •
7440-47-32
7440-02-0'
7440-47-32
.. 7440-02-0
•
. ' 7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7-
7440-43-9
'• 7440-47-32
.. 7439-92-1
7439-97-6
' 7440-02-0
• 7782~49-2
7440-22-4
,. 7440-66-6
Wastewaters
Concentra-
tion (mg/l)
Notes
*
NA
NA
NA .
*
NA
NA "
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA,
NA
NA»*.
NA
NA
NA
NA -
NA •
NA
Non-
wastewaters
Concentra-
tion (mg/l)
Notes
4 8
0 75
0 7S
0 20
1 ' -"1 7
020
'• n n*w
'019
.ftOQ
0.37
' n nno
' 0 16
. no
0 078
sa
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 /Rules and Regulations
37273
(c) The treatment standards for the
constituents in F001-F005 which are
listed in Table CCWE only apply to
wastes which contain one, two, or all
three of these constituents. If the waste
contains any of these three constituents
along with any of the other 26
constituents found in F001-F005, then
only the treatment standards in § 268.43
Table CCW are required.
35-36. In § 268.42, Table 2 of "
paragraph (a) is amended by adding
entries for K107, K108, K109, KllO, K112,
K123, K124, K125, K126, U328, U353, and
U359 in alphanumerical order and
paragraphs (b) and (d) are revised to
read as follows:
§ 268.42 Treatment standards expressed
as specified technologies.
268.42 TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE
code See also Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcategory
CAS No.
for •
regulated.
hazardous
constitu-
ents
. Technology code
Wastewaters .Nonwastewaters
K107 : : Column bottoms from product separation from the prbduc- NA
tion of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) from carboxylic
acid hydrazides.
K't.98-- : Condensed column overheads from product separation NA
and condensed reactor verrt gases from the production
of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) from carboxylic acid
hydrazides.
K109 Spent filter cartridges from product purification from the NA
production of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) from car-
. boxylic acid hydrazides.
110 •• Condensed column overheads from intermediate separa- NA....
tion from the production of 1,1-dimethylhydrazine
(UDMH) from carboxylic acid hydrazides.
12 -•• Reaction by-product water from the drying column in the NA
production of toluenediamine via hydrogenation of dint-
trotoluene.
• •
K123 Process wastewater (including supernates, filtrates, and NA...
washwaters) from the production of ethylenebisditlitocar-
bamic acid and its salts.
24 Reactor vent scrubber, water from the production of ethy- NA
lenebisdithiocarbamic acid and its salts.
5 : Filtration, evaporation, and cerrtrifugatJon solids from the
production of ethylenebisdithiocarbamie acid and its
salts.
K126 Baghouse dust and floor sweepings in milling and packag-
ing operations from the production or formulation of
^ ^ ethylene bisdithiocarbamic acid and its salts.
* ', * •
U328 • - o-toluidine ,
U353 p-totuidine.: „; .". '_ .
U359 - 2-ethoxy-ethanol ';
NA....
NA..
INCIN; or CHOXD fb, CARBN; or INCIN.
BIODG fb CARBN.
INCIN; or CHOXD fb. CARBN; or INCIN
BIODG fb CARBN.
INCIN; or CHOXD fb, CARBN; or INCIN
BIODG fb.CARBN.
INCIN; or CHOXD fb, CARBN; or INCIN
BIODG fb CARBN.
INCIN: or CHOXD fb, CARBN; or INCIN.
BIODG fb CARBN.
. INCIN; or CHOXD fb (BIODG or INCIN
CARBN).
INCIN; or CHOXD fb (BIODG or INCIN
CARBN).
INCIN; or CHOXD fb (BIODG or INCHM
CARBN). . .
INCIN; or CHOXD fb (BIODG or INCIN
CARBN). ,
.... 95-53-4....
.... 106-49-0..
....110-80-5..
INCIN; or CHOXD fb, (BIODG or
CARBN); or BIODG fb CARBN.
INCIN; or CHOXD 'fb, (BIODG or
CARBN); or BIODG fb CARBN.
INCIN; or CHOXD fb, (BIODG or
CARBN); or BIODG fb CARBN.
INCIN; or Thermal
Destruction.
INCIN; or Thermal
Destruction.
INCIN; or FSUBS.
(b) Any person may submit an
application to the Administrator
demonstrating that an alternative
treatment method can achieve a
measure of performance equivalent to
that achieved by methods specified in
paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) of this
section for wastes or Specified in Table
1 of § 268.45 for hazardous debris. The
applicant must submit information
demonstrating that his treatment method
is'in compliance with federal, state, and
local requirements and is protective of
human health and ;the environment. On
the.basis of such information and any
other available information, the •
Administrator may approve the use of
the alternative treatment method if he
finds that the alternative treatment
method provides a measure of
performance equivalent to that achieved
by'methods specified in paragraphs (a),
(c), and (d) of this section for wastes or
in Table 1 of § 268.45 for hazardous
debris. Any approval must be stated in
writing and may contain such provisions
and conditions as the Administrator
deems appropriate. The person to whom
such approval is issued must comply
with all limitations contained in such a
determination.
* i * * ' * + •
(d) Radioactive hazardous mixed
-•wastes with treatment standards
specified in Table 3 of this section are
not subject to any treatment standards
.specified in §§ 268.41 or 268.43, or Table
2 of this section. Radioactive hazardous
mixed wastes not subject to treatment
standards in Table 3 of this section
remain subject to all applicable
treatment standards specified in
§ § 268.41, 268.43, and Table 2 of this
section. Hazardous debris containing
radioactive waste is not subject to the
treatment standards specified in Table 3
of this section but is subject to the
treatment standards specified in
§ 268.45.
37. In § 268.43(a) Table CCW is
amended by revising the entries for
F001-F005 spent solvents, K015, K016,
K018, K019, K020, K023, K024, K028,
K030, K043, K048, K049, K050, K051,
K052, K087, K093, K094, U028, U069,
U088, LJ102, U107, and U190, by
removing the entry for U042, and by
-------
37274 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
i
adding the entries for F037, F03S, K117, §268.43 Treatment standards expressed
K118, K131, K132, and K136 in as waste concentrations.
alphanumerical order to read as follows: (a) * * *
268.43.—TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES
Waste coda Commercial, g^ . Regulated hazardous
«BSIB chemical name t>ee also constituent
* " • • * *
F001-F005 spent NA, Acetone
servants.
Benzene...... .
n-Butyl alcohol
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
• Cresolr(m- and p-isomers)
o-cresol
o-Dichlorobenzene
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene .-..
Ethyl ether
Isobutyl alcohol
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Nitrobenzene \
Pyridine •„
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene ......;
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane — '.
1,1.2-Trichloroethane
i Trichloroethylene
1.1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluoromethane.
Trichloromono-
fluoromethane.
Xylenes (total) .;.:
F037».» NA Table.CCWE in Acenap!hthene
268.41. . ! .
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene :
Bis{2-eihylhexyl) phthalate...
Chrysene
Di-n-bu)yl phthalate
Ethyibenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene...!
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene^ 1
Toluene '. .
Xylene(s) .'. .
Cyanides (Total) :.
' • •' • Chromium (Total) .'.
Lead..J .'• .
F038....™™, . NA Table CCWE in Benzene
268.41. ' ;
Benzo(a)pyrene
' "'• ' '• Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate...
Chrysene ....
. • •• " •" Di-n-butyl phthalate !....! :...
* , * Ethylbehzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pnenol.l...: :..
- - • Pyrene.i
Toluene
Xylene(s)
Cyanide's (Total)
Chromium (Total)..
.Lead :
K015 NA. Tabto CCWE in Anthracene.!... .".
288.41. I
Benzal Chloride
CAS number
for regulated
hazardous
constituent
*
67-64-1
71-43-2
71-36-3
56-23-5
108-90-7
95-50-1
141-7-6
100-41-4
60-29-7
78-83-1
75-9-2
78-93-3
108-10-1
98-95-3
110-8&M
127-18-4
108-88-3
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
76-13-1
. 75-69-4
•#
208-96-8
120-12-7
71-43-2
50-32-8
117-81 7
75-15-0
218-01-9
105-67-9
100-41-4
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
108-88-3
57-12-5
7440-47-32
. 7439-92-1
71-43^2
50-32-8
117-81-7
218-01-9
84-74-2
; 100-41-4
86^-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
108-88-3
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92r-1
* •'
120-12-7
98-87-3
Wastewaters
Concentration Notes
, *
0.28
0.070
5.6
0.057
0.057
0.77
0.11'
. 0.088
0.34
0.057
0.12
5.6
0.089
0.28
0.14
0.068
0.014
0.056
0.08
0.054 •
0.030
0.054
0.057
0.02
0.32
*
0.059 (2)
0.059 (2)
0.14 (*)
0.059 (z)
0.061 (2i
0.28 (2)
0.059 (2)
0.057 . (2)
0.057 (2)
0.059 (2)
0.059 (2)
0.059 (2)
0.039 (2)
0.067 (")
0.08 (2)
0.32 (2)
0.028 (')
0.2
0.037.
0.14 ' (2)
0.061 (2)
0.28 (*)
0.059 (2)
0.057 (»)
0.057 (2)
0.059 (2)
0.059 (2)
0.059 ;. , (2)
0.039 (2)
0.067 . (2)
0.080 (=)
0.32 (2)
0.028 (')
0.2
0.037
*
0.059
0.28
Nonwastewaters
Concentra-
tion (mg/l)
*
160
3.7
2.6
5.6
5.7
3.2
5.6
6.2
33
6.0
160
. 170
33
36
33
. 14
16
5.6
28
5.6;
7.6
5.6
28
33
28
*
NA
28
14
20
12
7.3
15
3.6
14
NA
42
34
3.6
36
14
22
1.8
' NA
NA
.14
12
7.3
15
3.6
14
NA
42
34
3.6
36
14..
22
1.8
NA
NA
3.4
e.2
. Notes
...„.„.»
•"••••••.
(')
1
(l)
1
I
(M
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37275
268.43.— TABLE CCW.— CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES— Continued
Waste code Comrnei
'•»-. ,
K016 NA
*
K018 , NA
K019 NA...
K020 NA
*
K023, ;. NA
K024 — NA....1
K028 NA
*
K030 - NA
K030.... NA
, ...
?!al . see also Regulated hazardous
name constituent
Sum of Benzo(b) fluoran-
thene and Benzo(k) fluo-
ranthene. -
. Phenanthrene
Toluene...
Chromium (Total)....
Nickel
•— Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopenta-
diene.
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene...,
.* • » •
Chloromethane
1,1-Dtehtoroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane.... '....
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene......
Pentachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Hexachloroethane
Ctilorobenzene
Chloroform
p-Dichlorobenzene ..
1,2-Dichloroethane :
Fluorene , .
Hexachloroethane...'..............
Naphthalene.....
Phenanthrene ..
1,2,4,5-
Tetrachtorobenzene.
Tetrachloroethene „.
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane '...
• 1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroetharte ....
Tetrachloroethene.....
'* ' *
Phthalic anhydride (meas-
• ured as Phthalic acid).
Phfhalte anhydride (meas-
_ ._, ured as Pnthalic acid).
laoieocWEin 1,1-Dichloroethane trans-
Dichloroethane „.. :.
Hexachlorobutadiene .
: Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethane
1.1.1,2-Tetrachloroethane ....
1 . 1 ,2,2-Tetrachtoroethane ....
1,1,1, -Trichloroethane . .;•
1,1,2-Tric^loroethane......;:....
Tetrachloroethylene .. .
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
• Nickel
* *, . » , "'
p-Dichlorobenzene .„
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane ;
Hexachloropropene ,
Pentachlorobenzene .... •
Pentachloroethane....:,..... i .
1,2,4,5-
Tetrachtorobenzene.
Tetrachloroethene ...'„. .. ,
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene .
2,6-Dichloropheno .-. .
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol .
2,4,6-Trichloropnenol :.
CAS number
for regulated
hazardous
constituent
. 207-08-9
85-01-8
108-88-3
7440-47-32
7440-02-0
118-74-1
87-68-3
77-47-4
67-72-1
127-18-4
*
76-00-3
74-87-3
75-34-3
107-06-2
118-74-1
87-68-3
76-01-7
71-55-6
67-72-1
111-44-4
108-90-7
67-66-3
106-46-7
107-06-2
86-73-7
67-72-1
91-20-3
85-01-8
95-94-3
127-18-4
120-82-1
71-55-6"
106-93-4
79-34-6
127-18-4
*
85-44-9
85-44-9
75-34-3
87-68-3
67 72-1
76-01-7
630-20-6
79-34-6
71-55-6
79-00-5
127-18-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
95-50-1
106-46-7-
87-68-3
67-72-1
1888-71-7
608-93-5
76-01-7
95-94-3
127-18-4
120-82-1
*
120-83-2
187-65-0
95-95-4
88-06-2
Wastewaters
Concentration ^
0.055
0.059
0.08
0.32
0.44
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.055
0.056
*
0.27
0.19
0.059
0.21
0.055
0.055
NA
0.054
0.055
0.033
0.057
0.046
0.09
0.21
0.059
0.055
0.059
0.059
0.055
0.056
0.055
. 0.054
0.21
0.057
0.056
0.069
0.069
0.059
0.054
0.055
0.055
'NA
. 0.057
0.057
0.054
0.054
0.056
6.4
0.35
0.037
0.47
*
0.088
0.09
0.055
0.055
NA
NA
NA
0.055
0.056
0.055
*
0.044
0.044
.0.18
0.035
^••••••^^••^•••••M
Nonwastewaters
tonC(mg% *<**
3.4
3.4 (')
6.0 (i)
NA
28' (i)
5.6 (>)
5.6 (i)
28 (>)
6.0 (i)
*
6.0 (i)
NA
6.0 (')
6.0 (')
28 (>)
5.6 (')
6.0
28 (i)
5.6 (')
6.0 (')
6.0 (')
NA
6.0 (')
28 (')
5.6 (')
5.6 (')
NA
6.0 (<)
19 (<)
6.0 (i)
6.0 (')
5.6 (>)
6.0 (')
28 (")
28 (i)
6.0 (')
6.0 (')
5.6 (i) •
28 (')
5.6 (>)
5.6 (')
5.6 (i)
6.0 (')
6.0 (i)
6.0 (')
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.6 (')
28 (i)
19 (>)
28 (>)
5.6 (')
14 (»)
6.0 (i)
19 (i)
*
0.38 (')
0.34 (')
8.2 (i)
7.6 (')
-------
37278 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations?
268;43. — TABLE CCW. — CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES — Continued
w«-.!n porfo Commercial c • Regulated hazardous
WMiacodo chemical name See-also constituent
Tetrachlorophenols (Total)
Pentachloropheno!
Tetrachloroethdna . —
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins. !
Hexactilorodibenzofurans
PentachlorodibercK>-p-
dioxins. |
Pentachlorodibenzo furans...
TetracWorodibenzo^)-
dioxins. :
Tetrachlorodibenzof urans .....
• . • * * ! •
K048.....™. NA^ Table CCWE in Benzene ;
268.41.
Benzo(a)pyrene;. _
Bis(2-ethy)hexyi) phthalate...
Di-n-buty} phthalate-...!
Ethyibenzene'..J
Naphthalene I .
Phertc4i __!3™ZJZH"
Pyrene . L............_......
Toluene .™.....^ ..
Xylene(s). ....._...:
Cyanides: (Total) ... ...
Chromium (Total)...- „...
Lead.......
K049.«...™™,....,..«».... NA „ Table CCWE in Anthracene. '.. . .
268.41i , ' i
Benzene I
Benzo(a)pyrene|
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phtrrateto ...
Carbon disulfide.
* Ghrysene ,.........>.
2.4-0imethyl' phenol- ;...
Ethylbenzene ...!
Naphthalene-.....!..
Phenanthrene...! ;
• PhenoJ..... _...!.....,
Pyrene. ; I
Toluene. I
Xylene{s) 1
Cyanides-frbtal^...
Chromium (Total)
K050mM»«..M.™ .. NA Table CCWE irr • Lead ,'
268.4V. '
Benzo{a)pyrene!.
Phenor. ..J...
Cyanides (Tota^f-
Chromium- (Total);
• " ' 'lea*. i
K051 „.. „ . NA Table CCWE irr Acsnaphthene.J „
268.41. . j • . '
Anthracene-. i ."
. , Benzene. i _ .'.
Benzo(a)' anthracene.
Benzo(a)pyrenej
Bis(2^lhyjhexyl) phthalate ...
Chrysene
Di-n4Sutir|'pmhaiate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene...,.........' » ..'.
Naphthalene........'............ .".
Phenanthrena,.... ....
Phenol. J .'. :
Pyrene ;..;... : •
Toluene
Xylenefc). _„„
Cyandides (Total)
Chromium .(Jota!)
, Lead .'..._..„.
Be'nzo(a)pyrana, ••
CAS number
for regulated
hazardous
constituent
87-86-5
79-01-6
71-43-2
50-32-8
117-81-7
218-01-9
84-74-2
100-41-4
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-9&-2
129-00-0
108-88-3
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
120-12r7
71-43-2
117-81-7
75^150-0
75-1EW)
2218-01-9
105-67-9-
100-41-4
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
129^00-0
108-88-3
56-12^-5
7440-47-32'
7439-92-1
50-32-8
108-95-2
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-29-1
83-32-9
120-12-7
71-43-2
50-32-8
117-81-7
75-15-0
2218-01-9
105-87-9
100-41-4
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
108-88-3
57-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
71-43-2
50-32^-8
Wastewaters
Concentration w_
(mg/l) No
NA
0.089
0.056
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
•
0.14
0.061
0.28
0.059
0.057
0.057
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.039
0.067
0.080 .
0.32
0.028
0.2
0.037
0.059
0.14
0.061
0.28
0.014
0.059
0.036.
0.057
0.059
0.059
0039
0.067
0.08
0.32
0.028'
0.2
0.037
0.061
0.039
0.028
0.2
0.037.
0.059
0.059
0.14
0.059
0.061
0.28
O.0591
0.057 -
0.057 .
0.059
0.059
. 0.059
0.039
0.067
0.08
0.32
0.028
0.2
0.037
0.14
0.061
Nonwastowaters
tes
33 3333333333333333 3 333 33333333333333 3 3333333333333 3
Concentra-
tion (mg/l)
0.68
1.9
1.7
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
14
12
7.3
15
3.6
14
NA
42
34
3.6
36
14
. 22
1.8
NA
NA
28
14
12
7.3
NA
15
NA
14
42
34
3.6
36
M-
22
1.8
NA
NA
12
3.6
1.8
NA
NA
NA
28
14
20
12
7.3
T5
3.6
NA
42 ••'
34
3,6
36
14
22
1.8
NA
NA ,
14
12
Notes
C>
9
C)
C>
(?
(?
C)
(|)
O
0
(i):
P)
P)
P)
P)
-------
Federa] Register / Vol. 57. No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37277
268.43,—TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES—Continued
Waste code • Commercial <3P»,te0
chemical name &e& also
K052
K087 .".
K093
K094
K111
K117
K118
K132
K136
U028
U069
U088
U102
U107
U190
NA Table CCWE in
268.41.
* ' * *
NA Table CCWE in
; ' 268.41.
WA
NA..
*' • • . *
NA :..
* * *
NA
MA •
!NA ;...
NA '•''•'
NA
'
phthalate.
* ' ' * '. ' .
phthalate.
*
Diethyl phthalate
* * *
* * *
Di-n-octyl
phthalate.
* ' * . •
Phthalic anhydride
(measured as
, Phthalic acid). -
Regulated hazardous
constituent
p-Cresol ;
2,4-Dimethylphenol .
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene...;
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes
Cyanides (Total)
Chromium (Total)
Lead
*
Benzene '.
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Naphthalene..^
Phenanthrene
Toluene
Xylenes :
Lead
Phthalic anhydride (meas-
ured as Phthalic acid).
Phthalic anhydride (meas-
ured as Phthalic acid).
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrbtoluene
*
Ethylene dibromide
Methyl bromide
Chloroform
Ethylene dibromide...;,...;
Methyl bromide
Chloroform
Methyl bromide
Methyl bromide
Ethylene dibromide
Methyl bromide
Chloroform
*- •
B|s(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate...
Di-n-butyl phthalate
*
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate •
*
Di:n-octyl phthalate
ured as PhthaKc acid).
CAS number
for regulated
•hazardous
constituent
95-48-7
106-44-5
105-67-9
100-41-4
91-20-3
85-O1-8
.- J08-95-2
108-88-3
.55-12-5
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
*
208-96-8
71-43-2
218-01-9
206-44-0
193-39-5
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-88-3
7439-92-1
85-44-9
85-44-9
*
121-14-2
606^20-2
*
106-93-4
74-83-9
67-66-3
106-93-4
74-83-9
67-66-3
74-83-9
74-83-9
106-93-4
74-83-9
67-66-3
*
117-81-7
#
84-74-2
84-66-2
*
131-11-3
*
117-84-0
85-44-9
Wastewaters'
Concentration ..„,„„
(mg/l) .Notes
0.1 1 . (2)
0.77 (2)
0.036 • . (2)
0.057 . (2)
0.059 (2)
0.059 (2)
• ' 0.039 (2)
0.08 (2)
. 0.32 , . (2)
0.028 (i)
0.2
0.037
*
: 0.059 (2)
0.14 . (2)
0.059 (2)
0.068 (2)
0.0055 (2)
0.059" (2)
0.059 (2)
0.08 (2)
0.32 (2)
0.037
0.069
0.069
*
0.32
0.55
*
0.028
0.11
0.046
0.028 . .
0.11
0.046
',0.11
0.11
0.028
0.11
0.046
* *
0.28
*
0.057
*
0.2
0.047
*
0.017
*
0.069 .
*
Nonwastewaters
:Concentra-
tion (mg/l)
6.2
6.2
NA
14
42
34
-3.6
- 14
22
1.8
NA
*
3.4
0.071
3.4
3.4
3.4 '
3.4
3.4
0.65
0.07
NA
28
28
140
28
*
15
15
5.6
15
15
5.6
15
15
15
15
5.6
28
*
28
28
*
28
28
. 28
Notes
H
9
9
."•
40CFR
NOTE: NA means Not Applicable. .
38. In subpart D, § 268.45 with Table 1
is added to read as follows:
§268.45 Treatment standards for
hazardous debris.
(a) Treatment standards. Hazardous
debris must be treated prior to land
disposal as follows unless ERA
determines under § 26i.3(e)(2) of this
chapter that the debris is no longer
contaminated with hazardous waste or
-------
37278 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
the debris is treated to the waste-
specific treatment standard provided in
this subpartfor the waste contaminating
the debris:
(1) General. Hazardous debris must be
treated for each "contaminant subject to
treatment" defined by paragraph- (b) of
this section using the technology or
technologies identified in Table 1 of this
section.
(2) Characteristic debris. Hazardous
debris that exhibits the characteristic of
ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity
'identified under §§ 261.21, 261.22, and
261.23 of this-chapter, respectively, must
be deactivated by treatment'using one
of the technologies identified in Table 1
of this section.
(3) Mixtures of debris types. The
treatment standards of Table 1 in this
section must be achieved for each type
of debris contained in a mixture of
debris types. If an immobilization
technology is used ina treatment train,
it must be the last treatment technology
used.
(4) Mixtures of contaminant types.
Debris that is contaminated with two or
more contaminants subject to treatment
identified under paragraph (b) of this
section must be treated for each
contaminant using one or more
treatment technologies identified* in
Table 1 of this section. If an
immobilization technology is used in a
treatment train, it must be the last
treatment technology used.
(S) Waste-PCBs. Hazardous debris
that is also awaste PCB under 40 CFR
part 761 is subject to the requirements of
either 40 CFR part 761 or the
requirements of, this section, whichever
are more stringent.
(b) Contaminants subject to
treatment. Hazardous debris must be
treated for each "contaminant subject to
treatment." Thfe contaminants subject to
treatment mus^ be determined as
follows:
(1) Toxicity characteristic debris. The
contaminants subject to- treatment for
debris .that exhibits the Toxicity
Characteristic JTC) by § 261.24 of this
chapter are those EP constituents for
which the debrjis exhibits the TC toxicity
characteristic.
(2) Debris contaminated with listed
waste. The contaminants subject to
treatment for debris that is
contaminated with a prohibited listed
hazardous waste are those constituents
for which BDAT standards are
established for, the waste under
§§268.41 and 268.43.
(3) Cyanide reactive debris.
Hazardous debris that is reactive
because of cyanide must'be^treated for
cyanide. .
(c) Conditioned exclusion of treated
debris. Hazardous debris that has been
treated using one of the specified
extraction or destruction technologies in
Table 1 of this section and that does not
exhibit a characteristic' of hazardous
waste identifieji under subpart C, part
261,, of this chapter after treatment is not
a- hazardous waste, and need not be
managed in a subtitle- C facility.
Hazardous debris contaminated with a
listed waste that is treated'by an
immobilization technology specified in
Table 1 is a hazardous waste and must
be managed in a subtitle C facility.
(d] Treatment residuals—(1) General
requirements. Except as provided by
paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(4) of this
section:
(i) Residue from the treatment of
hazardous debris must be separated
from the treated debris using simple
physical or mechanical means; and
(ii) Residue from the treatment of
hazardous debris is subject to the
waste-specific treatment standards
provided by subpart D of this part for
the waste contaminating the debris,
(2) Nontoxic debris. Residue from the
deactivatipn of ignitable, corrosive, or
reactive characteristic hazardous debris
(other than cyanide-reactive] that is not
contaminated with a contaminant
subject to treatment defined by
paragraph (b) of this section, must be
deactivated prior to land disposal and is
not subject to the waste-specific
treatment standards of subpart D of this
' part.
• ,(3) Cyanide-reactive debris. Residue
from the treatment of debris that, is
reactive because of cyanide must meet
the standards for D003 under § 268.43.
(4) Ignitable nonwastewater residue.
Ignitable nonwastewater residue
containing equal to or greater than 10%
total organic carbon is- subject to the
technology-based standards for D001:
"Ignitable Liquids based on
§ 261.21(a)(l)" under § 268.42.
(5) Residue from spoiling. Layers of
debris removed by spelling are
hazardous debris that remain subject to
the treatment standards of this section.
TABLE 1.—ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT, STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS DEBRIS
Technology description
Performance and/or design and operating standard
Contaminant restrictions!
A. Extraction Technologies;
1. Physical Extraction
a, Abresh-o Blasting: Removal of contaminated
debris surface layers using water and/or air
^ pressure to propel a solid media (e.g.." steel
shot, aluminum oxide grit, plastic beads).
b. Scarification, Grinding, and Planing: Process
I utilizing striking piston heads, saws-, or rotating.
grinding wheels such that "contaminated debris
surface layers are removed.
c. Spelling: Drilling or chipping holes at appropriate
locations and depth in the contaminated debris
surface and applying., a tool, which exerts, a force
on tha sides of those hales, such thai the-sur-
face layer Is removed. The surface layer re-
moved remains hazardous debris subject to the
dobria treatment standards.
d, Vibratory Finishing: Process utilizing scrubbing
media, flushing fluid, and oscillating energy such
that hazardous contaminants or contaminated
dobris surttsc* layet&are removed.*-
Glass. Metal, Plastic, Rubber: Treatment to a clean
debris surface.3 [
Brick, Cloth, Concrete, Paper, Pavement, Rock,
Wood: Removal of at least 0.6 cm of the surface
layer; treatment to a clean debris surface.3
Same as above 1. ;<:
Same as above-
Same as above..
All Debris: Nona.
Same as above.:
Same as above.
Same as above.
-------
57. No. 160 /.Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37279
TABU? 1.—ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS DEBRIS'—Continued
Technology description
Performance and/or design and operating standard
Contaminant restri
e. High Pressure Steam and Water Sprays: Appli-
cation of water or steam sprays of sutficien
temperature, pressure, residence time, agitation
surfactants, and detergents to remove hazarc
pus contaminants from debris surfaces or t
remove contaminated debris surface layers.
2. Chemical Extraction
a Water Washing and Spraying:- Application o
water sprays or water baths of sufficient temper
ature, pressure, residence time, agitation, surfac-
tants, acids, bases, and detergents to remove
hazardous contaminants from debris surface
and surface pores or to remove contaminate
debris surface layers.
b. Liquid Phase Solvent Extraction: Removal of
hazardous contaminants from debris surfaces
and surface pores by applying a nonaqueous
liquid or liquid solution which causes the hazard-
ous contaminants to enter the liquid phase and
be flushed away from the debris along with the
liquid or liquid solution while using appropriate
agitation, temperature, and residence time.*
c. Vapor Phase Solvent Extraction: Application o
an organic vapor using sufficient agitation, resi-
dence time, and temperature to cause hazard-
ous contaminants on contaminated debris sur-
faces and surface pores to enter the vapor
phase and be flushed away with the organic
vapor.4
3. Thermal Extraction
a. High Temperature Metals Recovery. Application
of sufficient heat, residence time, mixing, fluxing
agents, and/or carbon in a smelting, melting, or
refining furnace to separate metals from debris.
,b. Thermal Desorption: Heating in an enclosed
chamber under either oxidizing or nonoxidizing
atmospheres at sufficient temperature and resi-
dence time to vaporize' hazardous contaminants
from contaminated surfaces and surface pores
and to remove the contaminants from the heat-
ing .chamber in a gaseous exhaust gas.7
3ame as above
B. Destruction Technologies: '
1. Biological Destruction (.Biodagradatton): Remov-
al of hazardous contaminants from debris sur-
faces and surface pores hi an aqueous solution
and biodegration of organic or nonmetaINc inor-
ganic compounds (i.e., inorganics that contain
phosphorus, nitrogen, or sulfur) In units operated
under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions.
2. Chemical Destruction
a. Chemical Oxidation: Chemical or electolytic oxi-
dation utilizing the following oxidation reagents
(or. waste reagents) or combination of rea-
gents—(1) hypochlorite (e.g., bleach); <2) chlc-
nne; (3) chlorine dioxide; (4) ozone or UV (ultra-
violet light) assisted ozone; (5) peroxides; (6)
persutfates; (7) perchlorates; (8) permangan-
ates; and/or (9) other oxidizing reagents of
equivalent destruction efficiency.* Chemical oxi-
dation specifically includes what is referred to as
alkaline chlorination.
All Debris: Treatment to a clean debris surface;3
Brick, Cloth, Concrete, Paper, Pavement, Rock,
Wood: Debris must be no more than 1.2 cm (V4
inch) in one dimension fke., thickness limit,8
except that .this thickness limit may be waived
under an "Equivalent Technology' approval under
§ 268.42(b);8 debris surfaces must be fn contact
with water solution for at least 15 minutes
Same as above....;....
Same as above, except that brick, cloth, concrete,
paper, pavement, rock and wood surfaces must be
in contact with the organic vapor for at least 60
minutes.
Same as above.
Brick, Cloth, Concrete, Paper, Pavement, Rock,
Wood: Contaminant must be soluble to at least
5% by weight in water solution or 5% by weight in
emulsion; if debris is contaminated with a dfoxin-
. listed waste,8 an "Equivalent Technology" approv-
al under § 268.42(b) must be obtained."
Brick, Cloth, Concrete, Paper, Pavement, Rock,
Wood: Same as above, except that contaminant
must be soluble, to at least 5% by weight in the
solvent
Same as above.
For refining furnaces, treated debris must be sepa-
rated from treatment residuals using simple physi-
cal or mechanical means,9 and, prior to further
treatment, such residuals must meet the waste-
specific treatment standards for organic com-
pounds in the waste contaminating the debris.
All Debris: Obtain, an "Equivalent Technology" ap-
proval under § 268.42
-------
37280 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS DEBRIS 1—Continued
Technology description
Performance and/or design and operating standard
Contaminant restrictions!
b Ctwnicst Reduction: Chemical reaction utilizing
the following reducing reagents (or waste rea-
gonts) of combination of reagents: (1) sulfur
dioxide; (2) sodium, potassium, or alkali salts of
suHitas. bisulfites, and metabisuSfites. and po!y-
otnylona glycols (e.g., NaPEG and KPEG): (3)
sodium hydrosulfide; (4) ferrous sails; andfor (5)
other reducing reagents of equivalent efficien-
cy.*
3. Thermal Destruction: Treatment in an incinerator
oporabng in accordance with Subpart O of Parts
264 or 265 of this chaplen a boiler or industrial
furnace operating In accordance with Subpart H
ol Part 266 of this chapter, or other thermal
treatment umt operated fn accordance with Sub-
part X, Part 264 of this chapter, or Subpart P.
Part 265 of this chapter, but excluding for pur-
poses of these debris treatment standards Ther-
mal Dosorptfon units.
C Jmmobfczation Technologies;
1« Macmencapsuiation: Application of surface
coaling materials such as polymeric organlcs
(o,g.. rosins and plastics) or use of a jacket of
Inert Inorganic materials to substantially reduce
surfaco exposure to potential leaching media.
2. MlsmaiKSf3su!at/OK Stabilization of the debris
wish tha following reagents (or waste reagents)
such that the teachability of the hazardous con-
tarninanta is reduced: (1) Portland cement; or (2)
time/pozzolans (e.g., fly ash and cement kiln
dust). Reagents (e.g.. iron salts, silicates, and
days) may be added to enhance the set/cure
tSmo and/or comprossiva strength, or to reduce
the teachability of the hazardous constituents."
3. Seating: Application of an appropriate material
which adheres tightly to the debris surface to
avoid exposure of tha surface to potential leach-
ing modia, When necessary to effectively seal
tho surface, sealing entails pretreatment of the
debris surface to remove foreign matter and to
cksan and roughen the surface. Sealing materi-
als iocludo epoxy. siltoone, and urethane com-
pounds, but paint may not be used as a sealant
Same as above..
Same as above.
Treated debris must be separated from treatment
residuals using sirn'ple physical or mechanical
means,8 and, prior to further treatment, such resi-
due must meet the waste-specific treatment stand-
ards for organic compounds in the waste contami-
nating the debris. \
Encapsulating material must completely encapsulate
debris and , be resistant to degradation by the
debris and its contaminants and materials into
which it may come [into contact after placement
(leachate, other waste, microbes).
Leachability.of the hazardous, contaminants must be
reduced. I '
Brick, Concrete, Glass, Mdtal, Pavement, -Rock,
Metal: Metals other than mercury, except that
there are no metal restrictions for vitrification.
Debris contaminated with a dioxln-llsted waste*
Obtain an "Equivalent Technology" approval under
§ 268.42(b),8 except that this requirement does not
apply to vitrification.
None.
None.
Sealing must avoid exposure of the debris surface to
potential leaching media and sealant must be
resistant to degradation by the debris and its
contaminants and materials into which it may
come into contact after placement (leachate. other
waste, microbes). I '
None.
J-KJP"^9., s. T"8* ^L*?ated fy.e^er these standards or the wastkspecific treatment standards for the waste contaminating the debris. The treatment
t^^SS., ^S r?1?• . eacl1 tyP® ?; d,ebns contained in a mixture of debris types, unless the .debris is converted into treatment residue as a result of the
treatment process. Debns .treatment residuals are subject to the waste-speqific Jreatment standards for the waste contaminating the debris.
MM ZSiiPJSS" rcsjncton "wans that the technology is not BOAT for that contaminant If debris containing a restricted contaminant is treated by the technology.
"* '?!$!™ne&JStui 5? subsequently treated by a technology for which it is pot restricted in order to be land disposed (and excluded from Subtitle C regulation).
.«. -L.-jT^1: « surface means the surface, when viewed without magnification, shall be free of all visible contaminated soil and hazardous waste except that
JSiat jUS^USi «!"! -L . w?8*9 consisting of light shadows, slight streaks, or minor discolorations, and soiland waste in cracks, crevices, and pits may be
^ 4 a JKrSSrJ •! s*Ji ,"9 and waste and ^ iri cracks, crevices, and pits shall be limited to no more than 5% .of each square inch of surface area.
mniBmSfio^StahJj^'iw^fTl^ reagents may react with some'debris and contaminants to form hazardous compounds. For example, acid washing of cyanide-
S22SiS52 ?S?S %3d r25S?t'" "^ «3"na?on of hydrogen cyanide. Some acids may also react violently with some debris and contaminants, depending on the
concomrauon 01 the acid and the type of debns and contaminants. Debris treatbrs should refer to the safety precautions specified in Material Safety Data Sheets for '
varwus acws to avoid applying an incompatible acid to a particular debris/contaminant combination. For example, concentrated sulfuric acid may react violently with
conjiin organic compounds, such as acrylonitnle. ' i . .
.^toUSZ&Sft!? "S PJTjicle size of debris to meet the treatment standards restilts in material that no longer meets the 60 mm minimum particle size limit for debris,
S^.^KS H '°4 °. waste-specifici treatment standards for the waste contaminating the material, unless the debris has been cleaned and separated from
noStebrtf rnii^ri«iai5n ^..IK S«s2eh!?du<;Sr0n- At f ""'"'/"uni. simple physical or mechanical means must be used to provide such cleaning and separation of
OOIXMWS materials to ensure that the debns surface is free of caked soil, waste, or other nondebris material. . . •».•-.
• Djpxm-listod wastes are EPA Hazardous Waste numbers FO20, FO21-, FO22, FO23, FO26, and FO27. . - • . . -
^^S ««t52ilISrl*!,d^?ui3}1!d froffl T*!8171]?1 Pes'ruc'ion in that the; primary purpose of Thermal Desorption is to volatilize contaminants and to remove
i the treatment chamber for subsequent destruction or other treatment • . - . .
demonstration "EqiMvalent Technology" under §268.42(b) must document that the technology treats cbntamlriants subject-to treatment to a level
„ L™J>?"Pfmanc? a!$ Design and operating standards for other technologies in this table such that residual levels of hazardous
n hazard to human health and the environment absent management controls.
.». 1^.^ .__-., „... ~,mains on: tna debrjs isurface fa ramain8 n^^ witn ^e debrjs) after treatment is considered a treatment
a minimum, simple physical or mechanical means. Examples of simple physical or mechanical means are
—'-ce need not be cleaned to a "clean debris surface" as defined In note 3 when-separatina treated
soil, waste, or other nondebris material. Treatment residuals are subject' to the waste-specific
39. In subpart D, § 268.46 is added to
read as follows:
§ 268.46 Alternative treatment standards
based on HTMR.
Table 1 identifies alternative
treatment standards for F006 and K062
nonwastewaters, ;
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 / Tuesday. August 18. 1992 / Rules and Regulations 37281
TABLE 1.—ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT STANDARDS
Waste
code
F006 ..
K062
.See also
Table CCWE in 268.41 and Table CCW in 268.43 -
\ . ' -
Table CCWE in 268.41 and Table CCW in 268,43
• ' • "
Regulated hazardous constituent
Antiomony
Arsenic- .
Barium „. f
Betyflkiml
CcKJfirtuni _.. . ;
Chromium (total) ;
Cyanide ' .
(e)*
{«) * * * .
{B) To allow treatment or storage in
tanks or containers, or in containment
buildings in accordance wife 40 CFR
part 268; '
- * * * *
46. In § 270.42, appendix I is amended
by adding entry 6 to section I., and.by
adding new section M. to read as
follows:
APPENDIX I TO § 270.42—CLASSIFICATION
OF PERMIT MODIFICATION
Modifications
Class
L Enclosed Waste Piles.
* • *. . * .
6. Conversion of an enclosed waste pile to,
a containment building unit
M. Containment Buildings.
•S- Modification or addition of containment
building units:
a. Resulting in greater than 25% Increase
in the facility's containment building
storage or treatment capacity
to. Resulting in up to 25% increase m the
facility's containment building storage
or treatment capacity. „
2. Modification of a containment building
unit or secondary containment system
without increasing .the capacity of the unit...
3. Replacement of a containment building
with a containment building that meets
the same design standards provided:
a. The unit capacity is not increased
-------
37282 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 160 /( Tuesday, August 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
APPENDIX I TO § 270.42—CLASSIFICATION
OF PERMIT MODIFICATION—Continued
Modifications
Class
b. Tho replacement containment building
meets Iho same conditions In the
permit :.
4. Modification of a containment buiiding
management practice
5. Storage or treatment of different wastes
In containment buildings:
a. That require additional or different
management practices .1
b. That do not require additional or differ-
ent management practices
47. In § 270.72, paragraph (b)(6) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 270.72 Changes during interim status.
* . * *: * *
(b) * * * I
(6) Changes to treat or store, in tanks,
containers, or containment buildings,
hazardous vjrastes subject to land
disposal restrictions imposed by part
268 of this chapter or RCRA section
3004, provided that such changes are
made solely[for the purpose of
complying With part-268 of this chapter
or RCRA section 3004.
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
48. The authority citation for part 271
continues to;read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), and 6926.
Subpart A—Requirements for Final
Authorization
49. Section 271.1(j) is amended by-
adding the following entries to Table 1 <,
in chronological order by date of I
publication in the Federal Register, and , a,
by adding the following entries to Table I
2 in chronological order by effective '•*»
date to read as follows:
§ 271.f Purpose and scope.
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Title of regulation
Federal Register
reference
Effective date
August 18,1932
Land disposal restrictions for'newly listed [Insert Federal Register June 30,1992.
wastes in § 268.36 (b)-(g). (FR) page number].
Land disposal restrictions for newly listed Do Novembers,
pastes in § 26B.36(a), hazardous debris, and 1992.
generic exclusion for K062 and F006 non-
Waste-walers. •
• -,; « . „ .
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective date
Self-implemepting provision
RCRA citation
Federal Register reference
June 30.1992 Surface Impoundment Retrofit [Insert Federal Register August 18r 1992, 57 FR
., . _ „ | (FR) page numbers].
November 9.1992 Prohibition on land i disposal of hazard- Do August 18,1992, 57 FR
CM,
------- |