Monday
May 24, 1993
40 OFR Part.264 et .ai. , ',,' • : / "'.;-;'". ;
Land Disposal. Restrictidhs for •; Sgn stable
and :Corro?!ve •'Characteristic'-"Wastes";..-/
'Whose. Treatment, Standards Were-.:.,., ;
..Vacated; interim /Final Rule.... . ,
-------
29860 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 / Mpnday, May J2-|C 1993 7 Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, 268, 270, and
271
[FRL 4656-7]
Land Disposal Restrictions for
Ignltable and Corrosive Characteristic
Wastes Whose Treatment Standards
Were Vacated
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Interim final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today amending the
treatment standards under the land
disposal restrictions (LDR) program for
wastes displaying the characteristic of -
ignitability (EPA Hazard Code D001)
other than those ignitable wastes
containing greater than 10 percent total
organic carbon (i.e., D001 high TOC
sulicategory), and corrosivity (EPA.
Hazard Code D002) that are managed in
systems other than those regulated
under the Clean Water Act (CWA), those
zero dischargers treating wastewater by
CWA-equivalent treatment prior to
ultimate land disposal, and those
injecting into Class I deep wells
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA). This action is being taken
to comply with the September 25,1992
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in
Chemical Waste Management v. EPA,
976 F.2d 2 (B.C. Cir. 1992). The
underlying rule at issue in the opinion
was signed on May 8,1990, and
published on June 1,1990 (55 FR
22520). In the court's decision, the
deactivalion treatment standards for
certain ignitable and cwrosive wastes
were vacated. Because tknd disposal of
these wastes would be prohibited if no
treatment standard is in place, EPA is
replacing the vacated treatment
standard before the courtts mandate
becomes effective to avoid an absolute
ban on land disposal of these wastes.
DATES: This interim final rule is
effective on May 10,1993.
Comments may be submitted on or
before July 9,1993.
ADDRESSES: The public must send an
original and two copies of their written
comments to the EPA RCRA Docket
(OS-305), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Place the Docket
Number F-93-TTCF-FFFFF on your
comments. The official record for this
rulcmaking is also located in the RCRA
Docket, room 2427, at the above
address. It 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) 260-93:27. A
maximum of 109 pages from the docket
may be copied at no cost. Additional
copies cost $.15 per page. j
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information, contact the KCRA
Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll free) or
(703) 412-9810 losally. Fot information
on specific aspects of this rule, contact
Rhonda Craig, and for technical
information about treatment standards,
contact Lisa Jones, Office of Solid Waste
(OS-322W), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (703)
308-8434. For information on capacity
determinations, contact Bengie Carroll,
Office of Solid Waste (OS-321W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460,
telephone (703) 308-8440.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: j
Outline ' ! "
I. Background
A. Summary of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 j'..
B. Summary of Third Third Standards for
Ignitable, Corrosive and Reactive
Characteristic Wastes
C. Summary of the D.C. Circuit's Opinion
D. Response to the'Court Decision
1. Options Prepared for the Notice of Data
Availability !"» . .
2. Solicitation of Comments on the;
Supplemental Information Report
E. Rules Compelled by the Opinion; to be
Issued on An Emergency^ Basis
1. Zero Discharge Facilities -
2. Underground Injection Wells Other than
Class! ,
F. Identification of Affected Facilities
I. Underground Injection Wells, j
2. Combustion and Stabilization !'
G. Future Response to Issues Remanded by
the Court Decision i
II. Overview of the Interim Final Rule:
HI. Treatment Standards for Ignitable and
Corrosive Wastes ''
A. Overview 6f Treatment Standards Tor
Ignitable and Corrosive Wastes Not
Disposed In CWA or SDWA Facilities or
That Do Not Engage in CWA-Equivalent
Treatment Prior to Land Disposall
B. The Basis of the Numerical Treatment
Standards :
C. Alternative Standards for Ignitable
Wastes ; :
D. Alternatives Discussed in the
Supplemental Information Report.
E. Changes in Treatability Group Are Not
a New Point of Generation for Purposes
of Today's Rule
F. Minimize Threat Levels
G. Compliance Monitoring Requirements
H. Addressing Potential VOC Emissions
and Violent Reactions During Dilution of
Ignitable and Reactive Wastes
1. Potential VOC Emissions During
Dilution of Ignitable Wastes-
Background and Comments ,
2. Potential Violent Reactions During
Dilution of Reactive Wastes—>
Background and Comments
3. Final Approach
I. Notification Requirements
I. Constituents To Be Included on the LDR
Notification
2. Management in Subtitle C-Regulated
Facilities
3. Management of Deactivated Ignitabie or
Corrosive Wastes at a Subtitle D Waste
Management Facility
J. Do Minimis Losses of Characteristic
Materials Are Not Prohibiibed
1. De Minimis Losses of Ignitable (D001),
or Corrosive (D002) Commercial
Chemical Products or Chemical
Intermediates Containing Underlying
Hazardous Constituents
2. Was.tewaters From Laboratory
Operations
K. Status of Impoundments and Landfills
Receiving Decharacterized Ignitable and
Corrosive Wastes Subject to a Capacity
Variance
IV. Capacity Determinations
.. A. Data Sources and Limitations
/B. Comments on Capacity from the Notice
of Data Availability
C. Methodology and Analysis
1. Treatment and Treatment Residuals
2.1C Wastes Currently Deactivated Covered
By This Rule , ,
3. Affected Facilities
D. Variance Determinations . -,
V. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorization
•VI. Regulatory Requirements :
A. Economic Impact Screening Analysis
Pursuant to Executive Order 12291
1. Methodology
a. Estimation of Affected Volumes—
Overview ,
b. Estimation of Affected VoltSaes—
Liquids
c. Estimation of Affected Volumes—
Residuals
"d. Estimation of Affected Volumes—
Affected Class V Wells
e. Estimation of Costs Incurred—Liquids,
Residuals and Affected Class V Wells
f. Estimation of Costs Incurred—Testing
Costs
g. Estimation of Costs Incurred—Reporting
Requirements
h. Methodology for Economic Impact
Analysis
2. Results
a. Results of Affected Volumes Estimation
b. Results of Incremental Costs Incurred
c. Results of the Economic Impacts
Analysis
d. Sensitivity Analysis of Cost Results
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. Interim Final Rule Justification
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),
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 58, No. 98 / Monday. May 24, 1993
ano^
enacted on November 8,1984, allow .'
; hazardous; wastes to be land disposed •_.;",
only if they satisfy either of two
conditions: (1) They are treated, or
otherwise satisfy the requirement of
RCRA section 30a4(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 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 under a congressionallyr
mandated schedule. "Treatment •'-'
standards had to be promulgated by
May 8,1990, for all wastes that were ;
either listed or identified as hazardous
at the time of the 1984 amendments to
avoid a ban on land disposal of those
hazardous wastes, a task EPA completed
within the statutory time frame
(although certain of those standards
were later vacated by the D.C. Circuit,
necessitating today's emergency interim
final rule). RCRA section 3004 (d), (e),
and (g).
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
• of the prohibition 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 successfully
makes certain demonstrations. RCRA
section 3004(h)(3). /
• 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
, accumulating such quantities of
' hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposal. RCRA section 30Q4(j). The
provision applies, of course; only to ;,.,
storage which is not also defined as land
disposal in section 3004(k).
B. Summary of Third Third Standards
forIghitable, Corrosive and Reactive -
Characteristic Wastes
On May 8,1990, EPA promulgated
regulations addressing the last of five
congressionally-mandated prohibitions
on land disposal of hazardous wastes for
those wastes that were either listed or .
identified as hazardous at the time of
the 1984 amendments, (the third one-
third of the schedule of restricted
hazardous wastes, hereafter referred to
as the ThirdThird). Among other things
in the Third Third final rule, the Agency
promulgated treatment standards and
prohibitions for hazardous wastes that
exhibited one or more of the following
characteristics: igriitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or EP toxicity (40 CFR , .
261.21-261.24). The Third Third rule
established treatment standards for the
characteristic wastes in one of four
forms: (1) A concentration level for
hazardous constituents equal to, or
greater than, the characteristic level; (2)
a.concentration level for hazardous :
constituents less than the characteristic
level; (3) a specified treatment
technology (e.g.; for ignitable wastes
containing high levels of total organic
carbon); and, (4) a'treatment standard of
"deactivation" which allowed the use of
any technology, including dilution,, to
remove .the characteristic property. For
ignitable, corrosive, and reactive wastes,
consideration was given to the •
hazardous constituents in the waste.
only when the Agency had information
- that such .constituents were present .
(e.g.,.reactive cyanide wastes);
otherwise, only the hazardous property
of the characteristic waste had to be ;
addressed. •• ...,-..;-.-
The Agency also evaluated the
applicability of certain provisions of the--'
land disposal restrictions' framework
'with respect to characteristic wastes,
including wastes regulated under the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SOW A) -'-..'-
Upderground Injection Control (UIC)
programs. This was done in an effort to
ensure the successful integration of
these program's with the LDR ;
regulations, as required by Section 1006
. of RCRA which; specifies that the
Administrator shall integrate RCRA for
purpose of administration and
enforcement and shall avoid duplication
to the maximum extent practicable. .See
generally 55 FR 22653-59 (June 1, .;-
1990). Specifically, the Agency
considered the appropriateness of the
dilution prohibition for each of the
: characteristic waste streams, and ;the
applicability of treatment standards •'.•. '
expressed as specified methods. •
The Agency found,; generally, that
mixing waste streams tb eliminate
certain eliaracterisfics was appropriate
and permissible for corrosive
wa'stewaters, or in some cases, reactive
or ignitable wastewaters. Furthermore, ;
EPA stated that the dilution prohibition
did not normally apply to characteristic
wastewaters that are managed in ;
treatment trains vvhich include surface
impoundments where the ultimate
discharge is subject to regulation under
the pretreatment and National Pollutant
. Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
programs under sections 307(b).and. 402
of the GWA, or in Class I underground
injection well Systems regulated under, -v
the SDWA. In particular, the. Agency ;
stated that the treatment requirements •. .
and associated dilution rules 'under the ;
CWA are generally consistent with the
dilution rules:under RCRA, and
therefore decided to regulate these ; '.'••:
wastes exclusively under the existing ' -.
CWA provisions. Howeyer,>the Agency
also singled out certain particularly
toxicr wastewaters Or wastewaters not
readily amenable to centralized
wastewaterimariagement to which the ;
dilution prohibition still applies
- notwithstanding management in CWA --,
systems. 40 CFR 268.3(b).
Similarly, EPA stated that this
regulatory program for Class I wells •
under the SDWA adequately protects
drinking water sources. Glass I deep •
wells'inject below the lowermost .
geologic formation containing an "
underground drinking water source and
are subject to federal location, - ;
construction, and operaiior^
requirements. The Agency :stated that
application of the dilution prohibition
• to these .wastes would not further ..
minimize threats to humari health and •
, the'environinent, so that it was
permissible to inject wastes that were
decharacterized by dilution into Glass I
wells. ,-. ,-- "
C. Summary of the D.C. Circuit's
Opinion ,-'--"• •":...iv:'.- ^
On September 25,1992i th^e United
States Cburt of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit ruled on the various
petitions :for review filed against the
Third Third rule. Chemical Waste
Management, Inc. eta/, v. EPA, 976 F. ;
2d 2. The principal holdings of'the case
with respect to characteristic wastes, '
.under EPA's. initial reading of the
" opinioii, are'that: (1) EPA may require ...
treatment under RCRA section .3004(m)
to more stringent levels thari'those at ::
which wastes are identified as ;
hazardous salong as the level defining•••'.-
the waste as hazardous wafi above $ie -'"'
-------
S V. 1
29862 Federal, Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 / Monday, May 2:4, 19937 Rules and Regulations
level at which, threats to human health
and the environment are minimized,
976 F. 2d at 12-14; (2) section 3004(m)
requires that treatment standards
address both short-term and long-term
potential harms posed by hazardous
wastes, and consequently must result in
destruction, removal or immobilization
of hazardous constituents'as well as
removal of the characteristic property,
id. at 16,17, 23; as a consequence,
dilution is permissible as an exclusive
method of treatment only for those
characteristic wastes that do not contain
hazardous constituents "in sufficient
concentrations to pose a threat to
human health or the environment" (i.e.,
the minimize threat level in section
3004(m)), id. at 16; and. (3) situations
where characteristic hazardous wastes
are diluted, lose their characteristic(s)
and are then managed in centralized
wastewater management land disposal
units (i.e., subtitle D surface
impoundments or Class I injection
wells) are legal only if it can be
demonstrated that hazardous
constituents are reduced, destroyed or
immobilized to the same extent as they
would be pursuant to otherwise-
applicable RCRA treatment standards,
id. at 7.
As a consequence of these holdings,
the court held that the deactivation
standard for ignitable and corrosive
wastes did not fully comply with RCRA
section 3004(m). This was because that
standard could be achieved by dilution,
and dilution fails to destroy, remove, or
immobilize the hazardous constituents
that can be present in the wastes. Id.
The court further held that dilution was
ordinarily a permissible means of
removing the ICR property of the
wastes, but stated that it could be an
impermissible means of removing
ignitability and reactivity. This was
because the court thought the emission
of volatile organic constituents (VOCs)
might be greater during the process of
diluting ignitable wastes than when
they are treated by other means, and
that the risks of explosion of reactive
wastes might be greater when those
wastes are treated by dilution to remove
the reactivity property. 976 F. 2d at 17,
18.
(It should be noted that the court also
addressed several other issues that the
Agency is not required to respond to in
this interim final rule, either because it
denied the petitioner's request for
review, or because certain rules were
remanded rather than vacated. For
instance, the court remanded the lead
and chromium treatment standards
because EPA appeared to have relied on
data that does not support its
conclusion, and it denied review of a
petition for review of test compliance
procedures.)
• D. Response to the Court Decision
EPA filed a petition for rehearing with
the D.C. Circuit on November 9,1992.
In its petition, EPA requested i
clarification of whether the provisions
of the Third Third rule that allowed
dilution of wastes going to CWA/SDWA
units were vacated or remanded,
suggesting that these provisions were
more appropriately remanded. EPA also
requested a 90-day stay of the mandate.
In a separate action, industry
petitioners filed an unopposed motion
seeking a 90-day stay of the mandate.
On November 24, the D.C. Circuit issued
an order partially granting industry's
motion, staying the mandate through
January 5,1993. Then on January 5,
industry petitioners filed a petition with
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a writ
of certiorari. The government's response
opposing grant of that motion was filed
on April 8,1993.
The Court denied EPA's request for
rehearing on January 11,1993, stating,
however, that the Third Third treatment
standards were vacated only insofar as
expressly indicated in the September 25
opinion. On January 19, EPA published
a Notice of Data Availability requesting
comments and data on options for
responding to the court decision (58 FR
4972). ' ;
Industry's petition for certiorari
continued the stay of mandate issued by
the D.C. Circuit pending action by the
Supreme Court. On April 26,1993, the
Supreme Court denied certiorari, and
the D.C. Circuit's mandate issues on
May 10,1993.
1. Options Prepared for the Notice of
Data Availability
As mentioned above, on January 19,
1993, EPA published a Notice of Data
Availability to solicit as many
comments as possible on all issues in
the court opinion (58 FR 4972). The
Agency prepared a Supplemental
Information Report that was distributed
to the public that set out the Agency's
options for complying with the court's
decision. :
The report included options for
establishing treatment standards for the
underlying hazardous constituents in
ignitable, corrosive and reactive (ICR)
wastes that would have to be met prior
to land disposal (including disposal in
UIC wells). Two approaches were set
out, along with the Agency's views on
possible advantages and disadvantages
of each. Under approach one, the
Agency discussed the possibility of
adopting concentration limits for \
underlying hazardous constituents.
Under approach two, the Agency
discussed specifying required treatment
technologies. The Agency discussed
how these possible approaches might
apply to ICR wastes that are not
managed in CWA centralized
wastewater treatment systems.
Furthermore, the applicability of LDR
treatment standards to CWA facilities,
and possible implementation scenarios
under the CWA were also discussed.
Additional issues involving the
establishment of treatment standards
were also discussed: options for
addressing potential volatile organic
constituent (VOC) emissions during
dilution of ignitable wastes, and
potential violent reactions during
dilution of reactive wastes were
presented.
The Agency discussed options for
how to determine the equivalency of
CWA treatment systems with treatment
under RCRA. The "equivalency"
discussion included possible options for
addressing air emissions, leaks, and
sludges frprn CWA treatment surface
impoundments. Also mentioned were
other Agency efforts such as the
Hazardous Organic NESHAPs being
developed by the Office of Air, and
information being gathered by the Office
of Solid Waste from existing databases
on the management of nonhazardous
industrial wastes as possibly being
useful for addressing equivalency of
CWA treatment impoundments.
The Agency also discussed possible
alternative means of compliance with
the treatment standards for the
underlying hazardous constituents once
they were developed. Options included
the-possible use of risk-based standards
being developed for the Hazardous
Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) to
"cap" LDR treatment standards"; meeting
treatment standards before land disposal
in a treatment surface impoundment;
compliance with requirements of RCRA
section 3005(j)(ll) (i.e., installing
double liners, grouhdwater monitoring,
and leachate collection systems and
removing sludge not meeting LDR
standards annually for further
treatment); and, the possibility of
performing waste minimization as a
means of meeting the requirements of
treatability, and possibly capacity,
variances.
Miscellaneous issues were also
discussed, such as: does the opinion
apply when characteristic wastes are
treated by means pther than dilution?
Should de minimis losses of
characteristic wastes sent to wastewate-
treatment systems be prohibited?
Applicability of the decision to RCRA
Subtitle C surface impoundments; and
possible revisions to the principle
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 /Monday, May24, 1993 7 Rules and Regulations. \. V 29863
established in the Third Third rule that
a change in treatability group ,
coristituted a new point of generation
for characteristic wastes. •
' Preliminary capacity determinations
were also presented for comment, as
well as the legal basis for possibly
granting a national capacity variance.
Finally, preliminary regulatory impact
screening analyses for surface disposed
and underground injected wastes were
also presented. : ;
2. Solicitation of Comments on the
Supplemental Information Report
The Agency solicited comments on
various aspects of the options in the •'•
Supplemental Information Report.
Approximately 60 public comments
were received in response to the Notice
of Data Availability. TheAgency's'-'.,.
response to issues that pertain to today's
interim final rule have, in some cases,
been included in the preamble
: discussion; the remainder of the
Agency's responses may be found hi the
Response to Comments Background
Document, available in the RCRA
Docket. Other issues raised in the public
comments that pertain to remanded;
portions of the court's opinion will be •-
considered when the. Agency prepares
proposed approaches in future
rulemakings.
'-..E, Rules Compelled by the Opinion to be
.Issued on An Emergency Basis
EPA is issuing this interim final rule
on an emergency basis only with respect
to those treatment standards that were '
vacated (as opposedTto remanded) by
the court. The distinction between
'vacated and.remandedjrules is that ,
.vacated rules are no longer in effect
(once the court's mandate issues),
whereas remanded rules remain irK/orce
until the Agency'acts to replace them.
This distinction has considerable "".
significance,with respect to LDR '_.•
treatment standards. If there is no
treatment standard for a prohibited
waste (for example, as a result of a"
vacatur), that waste is prohibited from
land disposal, because it has not been
treated to mee.t the treatment standard
established by EPA, and (presumably) is
not being disposed in a no-migration
unit. RCRA sections 3004 (d), (e), and
(g)(5). A remanded treatment standard,
on the other hand, would remain in " '•
effect and disposal of prohibited wastes
treated pursuant to that standard is legal
until the standard is amended.
In its November 9 request for
rehearing to the court, EPA specifically
requested that the Court clarify if it
intended; to remand, not vacate, the -
rules addressing dilution and ;
subsequent land disposal of certain
decharacterized wastes being managed
in Class I injection wells br in subtitle .
D surface,impoundments,whose ..".-:"
ultimate discharge is subject to the
CWA. The Court indicated in its January
il/1993 response that the RCRA
treatment standards were vacated only
insofar as expressly indicated in the
September 25 opinion.
In light of this order, the Agency's
opinion is that the rules dealing with
centralized wastewater management
involving land disposal (§§ 268.1(c)(3)
and 268.3(b)) were remanded, not
vacated. (See 976 F. 2d at 7,19-26
where these rules are discussed and not
expressly vacated.) This means that the.
only .wastes.16 which today's rule
applies are those ignitable. and corrosive
wastes for which the treatment standard
-was deactivation (since the deactivation
standard for these wastes was vacated)
and which are riot managed in the types
of centralized wastewater management
systems covered by the remanded rules
cited abpve. Today's rule would thus :
apply, for example, to corrosive wastes
that are being incinerated. ,
An issue exists under this
interpretation as to whether centralized
wastewater management systems ;, •
receiving decharacterized ignitable or ;':.
corrosive wastewaters would-have to .
meet the treatment standards for those
was'tes promulgated in today's rule. The
Agency does not read the opinion as .
requiring this result. In the first place,
it seems clear from the structure of the
opinion that the court was considering
, all issues relating to centralized
wastewater management as essentially
one single issue, see 976 F. 2d at 19-26,
and did not vacate the rules affecting,
those systems. • : '
Second, by not vacating the rules
allowing treatment standards,to be
achieved through dilution where ' »
centralized wastewater management is
involved, if EPA were to apply the ;
amended ignitable and corrosive
treatment standards to these centralized
wastewater management situations^
facilities could still dilute to meet the,
standards. Such a result makes no sense •
as-a policy matter, and so does not
.-appear to reflect the court's intent.
Third, the remanded rule relating to
Class I injection wells allows injection
of decharacterized wastes provided the
, wastes do not exhibit a characteristic at
the point of injection. Consequently,
ignitable'and corrosive wastes could r
continue to be decharacterized (by any
means) and injected in Class I/deep
wells without meeting the treatment ,
standards for thosa wastes (since /
§ 268.1(c)(3) was remanded). Section
268.3(b), on the other hand, is drafted
somewhat differently to provide that
characteristic wastes that are managed <
hi wastewater treatment syste.ihs whose
discharge is ultimately^subject to the
CWA arid that involve jsome type of land
disposal can be diluted to meet the :
treatment staridardsv Although this .'..•-, '
language, unlike the* parallel provision
in 268.1 respecting Class I deep wells, ;
does not expressly allow wastes not •
•exhibiting a characteristic at the point of
disposal to be managed in such systems,
it would be anomalous to read the
opmion as requiring more stringent
rules Ip apply to CWA systems than to
UIC systems, since the CWA systems;
perform treatment arid donot (as the ",.-;. '-..
court viewed it) involve permanent land
disposal. 976 F.2d at 24, 26; In addition,
EPA intended that the provisions ' .
allowing dilution" for characteristic •
wastes going to CW;A systems and Class
I deep wells have the same scope; 55 FR.
at 22656-58. Consequently, they should
have the same scope in assessing the^
affect of the ^court's vacatur. ., _' ' , •
.'••.Finally, thei opinion does not vacate
the treatrnent standards for Wastewaters •
exhibiting the EP characteristiCr. ; ;. , ;
Cdnsequentlyi since the rules on
dilution were only remanded, such .,
wastesvcan continue to be diluted and
land disposed in GWA systems,: or in.
Class I deepwells. By extension, it ^
makes sense to allow dilution of
ignitable and corrosive wastewaters,
which, by definition, would contain EP
constituents'(if at all) in lower
concentrations.1 ;, ', .
The following discusses those types of
centralized wastewater management
that cquld.be covered by today's rule, '
and the circumstances under which
they are and are;not covered. " .'• •'.-..--.-
1. Zero Discharge Facilities," ;; ,» '-',
^ InJtsNbUce of Data Availability, EPA
solicited comment on whether facilities
that treat wastewater but do not.
'ultimately discharge it to a navigable; .
water or a POTW should be subject to
the same standard of equivalent
treatment as direct and indirect v-
dischargers ;(see Supplemental : ,
1 The Agency also believes that any issues relating
to the extent to which the opinion applies to
subtitle C impoundments receiving decharacterized
ignitable and corrosive wastes do not have to be
addressed in today's rule because they arise only
with respect to rules that were remanded. EPA
solicited comment on the issue of whether subtitle
C impoundments receiving decharactarized wastes
could be affected by the court's opinion.
Supplemental Information, pp. 40^1. The Agency
has not resolved these issues. However, the court's •
opinion does not discuss the issue directly, and it
would be anomalous for such facilities to be "
immediately subject lo treatment standards when
facilities with subtitle D Impoundments are not, :
Consequently, today's rules do hot apply to subtitle
C impoundments receiving decharacterized
ignitable and corrosive wastes.
-------
298G4 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 / Monday, May 24,; 1993 / Rules and Regulations
Information Report, pp. 38-9).
Commenters agreed that the same
principles should apply. The Agency
also bcliovcs that these facilities should
bo on the same regulatory timetable as
direct and indirect dischargers, and
consequently that today's treatment
standards should not apply to such
facilities when they do not apply to
direct and indirect dischargers. Based
on these comments, and for the reasons
sot out below, facilities that treat
ignitable and corrosive wastes (either in
tanks or in land-based units) in the
manner described below and then land
dispose the wastewaters, for example,
by spray irrigation rather than by
discharging to a navigable water or a
POTW. do not have to meet the
treatment standards for ignitable and
corrosive wastes adopted today.
The Agency is taking this step in
response to commenters who indicated
that they treat wastewaters as well as
direct or indirect dischargers, hut are
located in areas where there is no body
of water into which to discharge (see,
e.g. Comments of Hoechst Celanese).
These facilities, in some cases, are
subject to federal or state regulatory
limitations that are as strict as those that
apply to direct arid indirect dischargers.
To avoid subjecting zero dischargers
that substantially treat their wastewater
to regulatory requirements not
applicable to similarly-situated direct
and indirect dischargers, the emergency
rule provides that zero discharge
facilities performing treatment
equivalent to that performed by
facilities subject to CWA limitations and
standards are not subject to the
emergency rule. This standard of
equivalence is not the same as that
which the Agency must ultimately
address under the opinion regarding the
extent of "RCRA-equivalent" treatment
that must be performed to allow
continued management involving
surface impoundments. (Supplemental
Information Report, pp. 15-25) Rather,
EPA intends that, for purposes of
today's rule, facilities that treat ignitable
and corrosive wastewaters by the types
of treatment that form the technical
basis for most of the CWA, standards and
limitations (as well as the F039
\vastewater standards) are not subject to
the rule. These types of treatment are
biological treatment for organics,
reduction of hexavalent chromium,
precipitation/sedimentation for metals,
alkaline chlorination or ferrous sulfate
precipitation of cyanide (to the extent
these constituents are present in the
untreated influent to wastewater
treatment systems), or treatment that the
facility can show performs as well or
better than these enumerated
technologies. The Agency reiterates that
these criteria has limited application
only to this interim final rule. It is
included because the Agency is
promulgating this rule under emergency
circumstances and this criteria provides
a readily ascertainable way of i
determining who is and is not affected
by today's rule. It is not meant to affect
in any way what the appropriate CWA
effluent limitation guidelines or
individual permit limitations based on
permit writers' Best Professional
Judgement may be. ;
In determining whether a facility is
performing CWA-equivalent treatment,
treatment would need to be performed
only for those hazardous constituents in
the ignitable or corrosive wastes (f
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 58,- No. 98 / Monday, May 24, 1993 I Rules and Regulations 29865
subject to aily federal requirement;
through which information could be
gathered^ '_•.-.- • .".'; V
1. Underground Injection Wells *
The Agency has limited and
'- conflicting information about how many
Class V wells may be impacted, as well.
as the volumes and types of formerly
characteristic waste injected in these
wells, making it difficult to fully assess
the need for relief, such as national
capacity variances for these:facilities.
An estimate of the number of facilities
"that could.pptentially be impacted by
this interim final rule is 100. The
( Agency believes that many of the Class
' V wells may fall under the Small
Quantity Generator (SQG) exclusion and
are conditionally exempt from the
RCRA requirements^ including the LDRs
(see 268.1(e)(l)). From information
gathered, and comments received on the
Notice of Data Availability, EPA farther
believes that a number of the deep Class
V wells treat their wastes prior to
injection, and thus would notbe
affected by this rule if such a practice
would qualify them as a CWA-
equivalent facility. As an interim
measure, however, the Agency is
granting .a national capacity variance
extending the effective date of today's
• rule for nine months from the date of-'
signature for decharacterized ignitable
and corrosive wastes injected into Class
V wells that dovnot engage in CWA-
equivalent treatment before injection/in
order for the facility to determine if it
is impacted, to develop, appropriate on-
site modifications for alternative
treatment, and to obtain off-site
treatment or submit petitions for case-
by-case capacity variances (see section
IV of this preamble). The Agency also
solicits additional information on the.
numberof Class V wells, the types of
wastes, and the volumes of such wastes
injected. The Agency believes that it
would be prudent for .these Class V, and
any other non-Class I, wells to apply for
case-by:case extensions of the effective -
date during this, nine-month period.
A number of companies extract
elemental bromine from desep geologic
formations, recover the bromine through
Jon exchange processes that change the
pH of the brine to less than two, •
neutralize the pH to that of the original
.brine arid reinject the spirit solutipn-
int'o the original geologic formation.
Because the reinjection process is
classified as a Class V injection well, ,
and because the brine's pH is changed :
to less than two during the-process of
extracting bromine, these companies
raised the issue in their comments as to
whether contemplated rules could affect
, these practices. .--. '-'..';. -.".•''---.. .
: As described in the comments, these
practices involve beneficiation and
possibly mineral processing operations..
(The Agency had insufficient
information to determine whether the
operations were/totally beneficiation or
also; included some mineral processing.)
In either case/the solution-injected into
•the Class V wells would not be affected
by today's rule. In particular, if these
wastes were generated only from
beneficiation operations', they would not
be hazardous at the point of generation
-'; arid thus, hot affected by today's rule
(see § 268.1(b)), If some of the wastes are
generated from mineral processing
operations, they still would riot be ;
affected by today's rule since these
wastes (if hazardous) were not .
.identified as hazardous until after 1984,
and thus were not included within the
scope of the Third Third rule (55 FR at
22667, June 1,1990). Rather, treatment
standards for .these wastes— -
characteristic mineral processing ,
.wastes—will be promulgated in the .'--.;
future. The Agency is also aware of-
fundamental arguments as to vyhether
brine remjected in this manner is a solid
waste. The Agency is not addressing
this issue at this time." , .
After an. examination'and evaluation '..
of the comments'received on the Notice
of Data Availability, the Agency believes\
that Class IIUIC wells (see complete
definition of Glass II wells under 40 CFR
144.6(b)) injecting oil and gas
exploration and production wastes'are
, not newly impacted by this rule. While
one commenter indicated that this rule
would impact their injection of
decharacterized ignitable and corrosive
wastes into a Glass n UIG well, the ;
Agency disagrees. First, injection into
Class n disposal wells of ...-
decharacterized wastes riot covered by
the exemption in § 261.4(b)(5) would
•r violate existing UIC regulations. See
§ 146.5(b)(l) specifying which wastes
may be,injected into Class II disposal
wells. Because the conduct is already
illegal, EPA does not view today's rule .;
as having any further regulatory impact .
on that conduct.
Second, injection of such wastes into
Class n enhanced recovery wells might
also be illegal. To be permissible, the
injected materials must qualify as an
"enhanced recovery fluid." To do so, -
the fluid, "must function primarily to
enhance recovery of oil and gas and
must be recognized by the Agency as
being appropriate for enhanced recovery"
* * * In this context, 'primarily ,
functions'means that the main reason
for injecting the materials is to enhance
recovery of oil. arid gas rather than to
serve as a means for disposing of those
materials.".See Report to Congress;
Management of Wastes from the ' .-.- ;,
Exploration, Development, and
Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas,.
and Geqthermal Energy; Volume 1 of 3;
Oil and-Gas, EPA/530-SW-88-O03,
December, 1987, p. H-18. The Agency
gave produced waters as one example of
materials appropriate for enhan'ced :
recovery. Id. In determining what fluids
are appropriate, the Agency is of the .
view that fluids that are hazardous -. i
wastes at the point of injection would;
never meet the test. Decharacterized
fluids might also fail to satisfy the test
dependirig on their composition as well
as the motivation for the injection. Since
the cornmenter provided none of this
inforrnation (or even, indicated if the
comment.referred to injection in _
disposal or enhanced recovery wells),
the Agency is unable totassess further
whether today's fule might have any .
effect on these operations^,
2. Combustion arid Stabilization
Additionally, some of the wastes
covered by this rule have been, and will
continue to.be, managed in combustion
;and stabilization devices. Upon
promulgation of this rule, such facilities ,
must treat the wastes to remove any
hazardous characteristic and meet the
treatment standards for any underlying
hazardous constituents, prior tq land
disposal. EPA estimates that the number .
of such facilities that could potentially,
be impacted by this rule is
approximately 340. Subrriittal of
additional data and information \
characterizing the universe of facilities
affected by this rule is encouraged. See
section IV of this preamble for more
information on these issues,
G. Future Response to Issues Remanded
by the Court Decision
, The Agency plans to address issues ,
which have been remanded.by the court
in future rulemakings. Many of these
remanded issues are significantly riiore
complex than those dealt with in this
interim final rule regarding the vacated
deactivation treatment standards. In
addition, the universe of facilities
affected by the remanded portions of the
Third Third rule is much broader than , ,
that covered today, as it will include
(among Other things), treatment systems
regulated under the GWA, Class I
injection wells regulated under the :.
SDWA, plus zero discharge facilities .
that are engaged in treatment that is ;> '
equivalent to CWA dischargers.
Furthermore, the volumes^of .wastes •
affected by.the remanded rules are
much greater than those at issue; in this
regulation (one estimate is that Class I
injectipri wells dispose more than 6 '
-------
29366 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 / Monday, May 24, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
billion gallons of hazardous waste per
year).
It is important that facilities that will
ba impacted in the future by the
remanded portions of the court's
decision begin immediately to plan and
take actions that will help the facility
comply with the new treatment
standards for ignitable, corrosive, and
reactive wastes consistent with the
court's decision. Options for addressing
these issues were presented in the
Supplemental Information Report
prepared for the January 19 Notice of
Data Availability. The court vacated the
deactivation treatment standard for
ignitable and corrosive wastes,
instructing EPA to develop treatment
standards for the hazardous constituents
in ignitable and corrosive (and by
natural extension of the logic, in
reactive) wastes!"**.
Also, it is clear that the court intends
for the Agency to address the special
dilution provisions for CWA and SDWA
Class I injection wells, specifying that
dilution alone is not adequate treatment
if an ignitable, corrosive, (and,
presumably, reactive) waste contains
underlying hazardous constituents. This
will potentially greatly impact the
injection of these wastes in deep wells,
since there are few treatment systems
currently in place upstream of the
injection well that could treat
underlying hazardous constituents, if
present. Such facilities seem to have few
options for dealing with the court's
decision: undertaking substantial waste
minimization efforts; installing on-site
treatment systems; arranging for off-site
transport and treatment; or, applying
for, and being granted, a no-migration
petition that would allow continued
land disposal of untreated wastes.
Although commenters suggest that EPA
can promulgate a rule that does not
require treatment of underlying
hazardous constituents, based on a
generic finding that injection is a
prolw.live practice, the Agency's
tentative view is that this is not a viable
option (soo Supplemental Information
Report, pp. 25-7). However, the Agency
socks additional comments on the
technical and legal issues raised in this
notice.
Probably the biggest issue for CWA
wa'M-vvaler treatment facilities will be
that of demonstrating the equivalency of
CWA treatment systems with RCRA
LDR treatment. Associated issues such
as whether the opinion authorizes
controls on leakage or volatilization
from treatment surface impoundments,
or whether sludges generated in
impoundments must be treated, may be
especially difficult to resolve, even
though the court's opinion stated that
RCRA LDR requirements should mjake
some accommodations to allow
continued treatment of these wastes hi
CWA treatment systems, EPA will
consider the extensive comments on the
equivalency demonstration and !
associated issues as the Agency
develops an approach for future !
proposed rules.. ;—
II. Overview of the Interim Final Rule
The Agency is promulgating rev}sed
treatment standards for certain ignitable
and corrosive wastes that are not ":
managed: (1) In centralized wastevrater
treatment systems subject to the CWA or
in Class I underground injection wells
subject to the SDWA Underground,
Injection Control (UIC) program; o;r, (2)
by a zero discharger with a wastewater
treatment system equivalent to that
utilized by CWA dischargers prior'to
land disposal. The treatment standards
promulgated in this interim rule retain
the requirement of deactivation to
remove the hazardous characteristic (see
DEACT in Table 1, 40 CFR 268.42); >
however, this rule also sets numerijcal
treatment standards for the underlying
hazardous constituents that may bii
present in the wastes. EPA is also <
promulgating alternative treatment
standards of incineration, fuel
substitution, and recovery of organlcs
for ignitable wastes. |
In addition, changes have been made
in the format of 40 CFR 268.42, Talkie
2, that simplify the way the treatment
standards appear, and thus simplify
compliance monitoring. The varioiis
D001 and D002 subcategories that have
appeared in Table 2 since promulgation
of the Third Third rule are combined, so
that now there are only three D001
subcategories and two D002
subcategories. In particular, forDOpl
wastes, EPA has broken the :
subcategories into: The 40 CFR
261.21{a)(l) High TOG Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory (greater than 10% total
organic carbon)—the court decision had
no impact on this treatability group;
D001 wastes that include all i
descriptions at 40 CFR 261.21 exceipt for
the § 261.21(a)(l) High TOC Ignitable
Liquids Subcategory managed in noh-
CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-Class I
SDWA systems; and, DOOl wastes that
include all descriptions at 40 CFR
261.21 except for the § 261.21(a)(l]l High
TOC Ignitable Liquids Subcategory
managed in managed in CWA/CWA-
equivalent/Class I SDWA systems,[
• Furthermore, new precautionary
measures are being established in the
LDR'regulations in 40 CFR 268 to
prevent emissions of volatile organic .
constituents or violent reactions during
the process of diluting ignitable and
reactive wastes. All are described in
detail in subsequent sections of this
preamble.
Finally, the Agency is granting a
three-month national capacity variance
that extends the effective date until
August9,1993, for persons affected by
this interim final rule, and an additional
extension for those persons who manage
ignitable or corrosive wastes and
dispose of them in Class V UIC wells,
which facilities are not performing
CWA-equivalent treatment before
injection, that extends the effective date
until February 10,1994. These
extensions are necessary because the
Agency realizes that even where
sufficient treatment capacity exists, it
may not be immediately available. See
section IV of this preamble, for
additional information on these capacity
extensions.
III. Treatment Standards for Ignitable
and Corrosive Wastes
A. Overview of Treatment Standards for
Ignitable and Corrosive Wastes Not
Disposed in CWA or SDWA Facilities or
That Do Not Engage in CWA-Equivalent
Treatment Prior to Land Disposal
The Agency is promulgating revised
treatment standards for certain ignitable
(DOOl) and corrosive (D002) wastes.
(See list of applicable waste streams
below.) The revised standards retain the'
requirement to remove the hazardous •
characteristic (i.e., the deactivation
treatment standard (DEACT) remains
applicable); it also requires that the
waste be treated so that each underlying
hazardous constituent in the waste
meets the same concentration-based
treatment standard promulgated for that
constituent in the treatment standards
for FO 3 9 waste waters .and
nonwastewaters. (F039 is the hazardous
waste code for liquids that have
percolated through land disposed
wastes (i.e., leachate) resulting from the
disposal of more than one listed
hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.31.)
By means of incorporating the F039
treatment standards into the treatment
standards for certain ignitable (DOOl)
and corrosive (D002) wastes, this rule.
allows the Agency to address any and
all of those constituents regulated
elsewhere in the Land Disposal
Restrictions program with
concentration-based treatment
standards. Table III—1 presents these ,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. S& No. ^8 / Monday,May. 24. 19S3 / Rules and .Regulations
29887
concentrations; for the reader's .-',
convenience.. .-.".-;!.. -|
DOOl—ignitable Liquids based on
261.21{a)(i)—Wastewaters,
DOOl—Ignitabie Liquids'based on
261.21(a)tt^-i.ow TOG Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory-^Le'ss than 10% total :
' organic carbon {Nonwastewaters).
DOOl—Ignitable-Reactive? based on
261.2i(a)[2) (Nonwastewaters}.,
DOOJ—IgnilabTg.Compressed Gases based on
261.22{a)(3) (Nonwastewaters).
DOOl—Qxidizers based on 26i.21(a}(4)
(Wastewaters and Nonwastewaters).
DOC_—Acid Subcategory basedon
26l,22{a){l j with Ph less than or equal to
' 2 (Wastewaters and Nonwastewaters).
:.. D002—Alkalinis Subcategory based on '
261.22(a)(l) with Ph greater than or
equal to 12;5 (Wastewaters and
Nonwastewaters). ' v
D002—Other Corrosives based on
261.22(a)(2) (Wastewaters and
Nonwastewaters). .'••.-".
B. The Basis of the Numerical
Treatment Standards
' While the Court agreed that
deaGtivatiqii by any means to remove
the characteristic property normally was
appropriate treatment, tie Court held
that because hazardous constituents;
could be present in these wastes ,at ,
concentrations of concern, the
' deactivation standard alone did not
fully comply with RGRA section
3QQ4(m). Consequently, EPA is now
. promulgating a treatment standard that
retains the requirement of deactivation .
to remove the hazardous characteristic
(i.e., DEACT) and that also sets
numerical treatment standards for the
hazardous constituents that may be '
present in DOOl arid D002 wastes. The
numerical treatment standards for
organics are established based ori :
whether the residues are wastewaters
(with total limits expressed in mg/L) or
nonwastewaters (with total limits
expressed in ing/Kg)! The numerical
treatment standards for metals are
established based on whether the
residues are wastewaters (with total
limits expressed in mg/L) or
nonwastewaters (with TCLP limits
expressed in mg/L). Constituent-specific •-
concentration limits allow a certain
degree of freedom in selecting the most
effective, practical and economical
means of achieving compliance through
treatment and/or waste minimization.
The Agency has already promulgated
numerical treatment standards for
organics that EPA believes are
achievable for most RCRA hazardous
wastes.'The Third Third final rule,
along with revisions promulgated on
August 18, 1992 (57 FR 37203-37206),
established numerical treatment
standards for organics that were
: essentially applied universally to most
RCRA waste codes. The treatment
standards promulgated in today's rale
..; for DOOl and D002 wastes are based on
"a transfer of these same treatment data
. and are represented by the existing
standards for F039. As suchVthe new
standards for DOOl and BOG2 wastes are
essentially a compilation of all earlier
treatment standards and include
Virtually every RCRA hazardous; :
, constituent that can be routinely
analyzed by existing analytical methods,
(i.e, a set of approximately 200
constituents)* Table III-l at the end of
, this section tabulates these wastewater
and nonwastewater numerical • "
'standards. , ' ', \ : . .
EPA evaluated treatability data for
nonwastewaters and wastewaters that
are currently available for each
hazardous constituent. The resulting set
of treatment standards reflect EPA's
preference for data from full-scale
^operations over data from pilot- or '
' bench-scale units, and for processes:
treating high concentration, difficuk-to-
. treat wastes. The Final BOAT
Background Document for Hand P
Wastes and Multisource Leachate,
Volumes A and C, explain on a
constituent-by-constituent basis how
each wastewater and nonwastewater
standard, respectively, was calculated.
EPA developed the wastewater'"
treatment standards using constituent-
specific data from treatment of both"
RCRA and non-RGRA wastewaters.
These performance data were from three
major sources: (1) Industrial waste .
treatment data generated by the Office of
Water in the Effluent Guidelines ;
development.effbrt; (2) data, from EPA's
Office of Research and Development
Wastewater Treatment Database, a
compilation of treatability research
results reported in the technical -
literature; and, (3) industry-generated
data submitted to EPA for the purpose
of providing data for the Third Third
- rule.-Activated sludge and other forms
of biological treatment were the
technologies most frequently used as the
basis of the treatment standards for
organic constituents. Granulated and
powdered activated carbonjSteain and
air strippingrand wet-air and chemical
oxidation were also utilized to establish
standards for certain organics.
Standards for metals'were generally
based on lime precipitation followed by
sedimentation and filtration. •
2While the Agency 4s establishing treatment
standards for approximately 200 hazardous
constituents, as discussed later in this preamble,
compliance with the treatment standards will be
met for those hazardous constituents reasonably
expected to be present in the ignitable amd/or
corrosive waste. '
EPA developed tiie/nonwastewaferT
'treatment standards using constituent-
specific data from treatment of primarily:
. RCRA wastes. Most data were from the
analysis of ash residues from the •
incineration of 14 different waste types.
C. Alternative Standards for Ignitable
Wastes ..--..;-•-
For DGQ1 wastes,EPA is also -• :. .'-;
promulgating alternative standards of
incineration (INCIN), fuel substitution ,
(FSUBS) and recovery of organics
(RORGS), EPA previously promulgated
these same standards as BOAT for DOOl
.nonwastewaters in the High TOG ,
Ignitable Liquids Subcategory; /
Therefore, this is simply an extension of
an existing provision for these methods
to serve as standards for these'wastes
and does not reflect any change in
EPA's preference for establishing
constituent-specific concentration levels.
rather than treatment methods as the'
LDR treatment standards. Since lp- .-'- •'
'" rOCjionwastewaters and the DOOl
wastewaters. would necessarily contain
lower concentrations o£ organics than V
'the DOOl nonv/astewaters in;the high
TOC Subcategory, treatment methods
based on high temperature thermal
destruction (i.e.,.3NCIN and FSUBS)"
would be expected to achieve similar
performance for the hazardous -organic
constituents presentin these other DOOl
.wastes. Also> while the recovery of
organies from DOOl wastewaters that
necessarily contain lower
'concentrations of orgariics may be '
technically more difficult and somewhat
less economically desirable than
recovery from DOG 1 wastes with higher
concentrations of organics j the Agenqy .
does not want to discourage on-going
enyirorimentally sound recovery
pr'actices such:as steam stripping, oil- •
water separation, and distillation that
'are currently being performed. •.'
Additionally, all of these specified
methods will remove the DOOl
characteristic of i^nitability.
Because the emissions frorn thermai
technologies are regulated under 40 CFR ;
part 264, subpart O, or 40 CFR part 266,;
subpartH, and the Agency wants to
encourage enviEpnmentally sound
resource conservation, thetAgency finds
INCIN^ RORGS and FSUBS to be
acceptable interim alternatives to the .
numerical ;treatment; standards, -
notwithstanding the Agency's :
preference for numerical •treatment
standards. Therefore INCIN, RORGS and
FSUBS are being promulgated in today's •
rale as an alternative to compliance
with the DEACT plus numerical
standards until the Agency can
complete a more thorough investigation :
on the need to apply the numerical
-------
29868 Federal Register / Vol. 58,. No. 98 / Monday, May 2J4, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
standards to the residues. Th? treater or
generator has. for the interim, the option
of choosing either regulatory alternative.
There are advantages to either means
of compliance. Using the specified
methods reduces the need for costly
compliance monitoring. Using the
numerical standards (along with
deactivation of the characteristic) allows
more freedom in selecting treatment
technologies. As a general matter, the
Agency heard in the LDR Evaluation
Project Roundtable meeting3 held
January 12-14,1993, there is a need for
more efficient and meaningful
monitoring to demonstrate compliance
with the numerical treatment standards.
EPA is assessing broad-based changes to
the LDR monitoring requirements and
intends to address this issue in
upcoming notices of proposed
rulemaking.
D, Alternatives Discussed in the
Supplemental Information Report
EPA considered mandating the use of
particular treatment technologies (such
as those identified in appendix VI to
part 268) as a means of regulating the
hazardous constituents for all ignitable,
corrosive, and reactive (ICR) wastes.
Tliis approach appears unnecessarily
complicated and the Agency concluded
it would lead to unnecessary and
potentially burdensome controls and
governmental review. In many cases,
specifying treatment methods would
require establishing surrogate or
indicator parameters for compliance
monitoring to ensure treatment ctf the
hazardous constituents. Then, all the
generators and treaters.would be
required to identify and verify trjat the
surrogate parameters were indeed
indicators of treatment for the
hazardous constituents present.
In addition, for wastes containing
both metal and organic constituents,
specifying single types of treatment does
not necessarily result in treatment of all
of the constituents that are present.
While EPA could have designated a
treatment train, i.e., a specified j
sequence of treatment processes, as a
method of treatment, situations could
arise where wastes containing only a
single type of hazardous constituent
would, then, be overregulated requiring
unnecessary and costly treatment.
EPA also considered specifying the
methods that were considered B1DAT
during the development of the treatment
standards for eaclrindividual hazardous
constituent. However/the abovef
mentioned problems with specifying
methods remained and new ones'
appeared; for example: specific cm-site
technical and engineering decisions,
including the possibility of Agency
review and approval on the proper
sequencing of treatment units would
have been necessary; additional [
sequencing decisions dependent upon
the types and concentrations of J
hazardous constituents present Urould
have to have been made; and whenever
new constituents or wastes were
introduced, the sequence decisions.
would have to be reviewed and
reapproved.
As such, EPA believes that
constituent-specific numerical treatment
standards ensure treatment of the
hazardous constituents more efficiently
(on a regulatory basis) than the
approach of mandating the use of
specific technologies. Moslfof the
commonters agreed. Although the
alternative standards, FSUBS, INCIN
and RORGS are appropriate as interim
standards pending EPA's subsequent
development of treatment standards
reflecting a more thorough evaluation of
these waste streams, they are a special
case reflecting the need to respond
promptly to the court by instituting
adequate treatment standards for the
hazardous constituents in these wastes.
Additional reasons supporting the
FSUBS, INCIN and RORGS options are
discussed in section C immediately
preceding this section.
EPA continues to prefer constituent-
specific numerical treatment standards
whenever possible. Setting numerical
standards also provides for the ,
encouragement of innovative !
technologies and practices to achieve
these limits. This also encourages the
use of source reduction techniques to
reduce the overall loading of hazardous
constituents into these wastes as
alternative and cost-effective means of
compliance.
TABLE 111-1 .—REGULATED CONSTITUENTS; AND STANDARDS
Constituent
Acatona ,.../. , : '.
Acenaphttialene
Acertaphthene
Acetonitrile ,
Acotophanone ?. ,
2— Acetylaminofluorene
Acroloin ...
Acrylortitrllo
AWfki
4— Arninoblphenyl
Aniline
Anthracene
Ararnite
Aroclor 1016
Arodor 1221
Arodof 1232 „
Aroclor 1242
Afodor 1248 '.
Arodor 1254
Afoclor 1260 ....
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
Wastewater (mg/i)
6.28
' 0.059
0.059
b.i7
o.oio
0.059
0.29
0.24
0.021
0.13
0.810
0.059
0.36
0.013
0.014
0.013
0.017
0.013 - '
0.014
0.014
0.00014
0.00014
Nonwastewater (mg/kg)
160 '
.3.4
4.0
NA
9:7
140
NA
84
0.066
NA
14 , •
4.0
NA
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
1.8
1.8
0.066
0.066
JThe LDR Evaluation Project Roundtable meeting
was held with EPA regional and State regulators, an
environmental group, the waste management .
Industry, and tho regulated community. The main
intention of the meeting was to provide these
persons an opportunity to comment on various '
aspects of the LDR program, and to offer suggestions
on how the program could be improved. A.
summary of the Roundtable proceedings iu available
in the RCRA Docket, number F-92-CD2Fr-SOU4.
-------
Federal Register /
TABLE »J-1.— REGULATED CONSTITUENTS AND STANDARDS-— Continued
', .-Constituent . • "•,'•" ."..'"'/ .- /;\,"
delta-BHG ..„.. . ..».„....'...............
gamma-BHC ...„.....:..........„......
Benzene ..............;:......
Berizo (a) anthracene ...................
Benzo (b)fluoranthene
Benzo (k) fluoranthena
Benzo (g,h,0 peryiene ...;...
Benzo (a) pyrene ........
Bromodichlofomethana
Brbraoform
Bromomathana (methyl bromide)
4— Bromophenyl pheny! ether »
r.-Butanol (n-Butyl aicohol) ..„:
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-Buty!-4,6-dinitrophenor ...
Carbon tetrachloride .......;.
Carbon disulflde .........'.„.............;..
Chlordana ...:... .....
p-Chloroaniiine ........
Chlorobenzene ..i.....^.....................
Chlorobenzilate . '"•',- .
2-chloro-1 ,3-butadiehe ............,'....
Chlorodibrbmomethane
Chloroethane .. .. .
bis-(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
•~ bis-(2-Chloroethyl) ether ................
Chloroform :.......;..'..'......„...........
bis-(2-Chloroisopropyf) ether .
: p^Chlofo-m-cresol
Chloromethane (methyl chloride) ..
2-Chloronaphthalena i....
2-Chlorophenol . . '
3-Chloropropena .1
Chrysene ...... „;..;'
o-Cresol .:...................„... ;....
Cresol (m- and p- Isomers)
Cyclohexanone : ..-
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane ......:
1 ,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylena dibro
Dibromomethane .......
2,4-Dichl6rophenoxyaceti"c acid (2/
0,p-DDD ...
p,p-DDD ;.-. .....:..,......*...
0,0-DDE ..:.:........„.:.....:...:...„....... .
p,p-DDE .....„..................<....„..„
O.p-DDT ...
p.p-DDT .........w...
Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene . ...
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrena .„
n-Dichlorobenzane ...„.
o-Dich!orobenzene .................
p-D!chlorobenzene ... ;.._
Dichlorodifluoromethane .... .'
1 ,1-Dichlorpathane .;.....;.'................
1 ,2-Dichtoroethahe ..:. ..........
i,1-Dichloroethylane
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylena ............
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichtbrophenol .'.„.,;.,...
1 ,2-Dichloropropane ._:*. ......
cis-1 ,3TDIchloropropene ..„.
trans-1 ,3-Dlchlorbpropena .......
Dieidrin ...-.J.J...........;.;,........;.^........
Diethyl phthalate .'.... .................
2j4rDimethyl phenol
'Dimethyl pfithalate ..•.>.......„.
D!-n-butyl. phthalate .»....-....; .;..
1 ,4-Dinitrobenzene ...........
4,6-Dinitrocresol «....
2,4-Dlnitrophenol .:... .> . ...
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene ....'....
• .- - " :- ' • • ' '>'-,- ir- . , .-
' ----- ~ f '
' --....- i.-1'--- ' .":- ^ "./ -
--. > . ' • --•-• •- ' ' ' -:
. - - " . "'
r, .^ --.= . - - . • . ^ . -
," '. -".° ,'-•*,," -•" "
""•' •' F - f -*-*-' •' -
' - •
mide) „ „;..
1-6) .....; .
, . , ... ....
, . • ..••-• j.
... ••- ••••.-.• — ,
, • •.-'••- - .--"
.'-••' ™
Wastewater (mg^) ,
' .- " •'• '-- 0.023 ":•'••
0.0017
:- -0.140
. -0:059
: ', :! o.o5s:>;
• - -- ' 0.059
'0.0055 /;
0.061
0.35
.. 0.63
.-'•. "' :: '6.1i: -• .'
" -. •: 0.055
'"-- •••-.:.'•'-' 5.6 : . :
- 0.017
. - 0.066
; .' 0.057 ;
0.014
0,0033
•". 0.46
... 0:057
.--.-•-' : "•-'-• 0;10 :
' 0.057
,- 0.057
.-••: 0.27 .
•'•-., ••' -r- 0.036
--..- / •; , ' '-: 0.033 '
; - • 0.046
. .----• 0.055 " '."-.-:
'"•'- 0.018
0.19
0.055
1 .0.044 '
• - - 0.036
: '0.059
' ' '. - -:-.- : 0.11
'- . : ' ' - ' .0.77 • '
-" '--• '--' ./-0.3S -"•-'-•"•'• -' ' '•
• •• ••-'••' -'• : • o:iV. • '. •"
... -.-••'- •-,-'." 0.028
'•'-'. ' • •'-•':• f>.tiv- :• '.
, 0.72
0 023
. 0.023'
0.031
..-.-" : '•'.-• Q.031 .-•;-
0.0039
0.0039
:--",- '•'-. OJ355 ."-..:-'•
0.061
;,• 0.036 •••'-"
.----• 0.088
0.090 --••
. - 0.23 ••--'
0.059
0.21
0.025,
0.054
0.044
' 0.044 '"•'-•'
- -0.85- •
: -:•-•-' 0.036
0.036:.
0017
. / - 0:20
-'••-... , 0.036 -,- :.V-'
0.047
0.057 ,
- ......-:.-• - ."V-::;.'Q;32 ..'•-• •-,.
; '••"•"" ' ' v '• :'0'28'' •'•- """:
•'-'.'•-.. :. •:.-• /".v.' :-a.i2 .-,- ?. ;
•,-•-.• .-".; .-.,•.-:." .0.32; . ;••-.
"-•:•.' • - ••••-:-.- .iOv55 :••..'.•:; -;
• '-•--.- Nonwastewater (mg/kg)
• • . . -•-: 0.066 -
: • " - . 0.066
'•• .-••'.' ;-,' " -; -36'..'.: : "
;••" :-• •••:••••• •-•: v>aj.: v-v . : ;
••' ; . ';' ' ZA- : ...v
• • - -•'.'-.•••-.•--:. y- 3.4' • •..-•• •" .
' .'-". . . •- . -1.5; ' '- -..•-.
- .->.--. • •:.•=•• ^8.2-. -••-••• :
/•.'.. --v.r-.; •-.-• ,15; :,::-:• -
. ' . - ; / ! ' 4C •- -' " ' :•- ' ' • -
.-. --1-. - <5 .-- ••-.-:
. - ' .'.-' ' 15'"'' • '
•- '.-" , - - /is-" " •-': • . •-
••• :: •• -.. .2.6-- ••-•• ,
- •'.'-:.-• -...- -'' '-: 7,9 . .- .
.'••-".• : -•:- •"'•' :.' --2.5' " :
' ". '- " ' , •.-'-" - 5.6 ." ' .
•• - ' " ..'• :NA. •-•'-.,• -
-,:.- OJ3 ;
:: •.-.-"••- . -:-r: -e -,•;;;;- ,,;
--. ;- :>.-.. \vsj-.;--. .--•:•
•---'- ." ."'••.-• •-. 'A - : • - ' -
;: '••::'-' • •--' •:.--- .«A-."
•:.'.•..':"••;•• ,• ; 15 ••-•-.', • .
' -'••:-:-. •--- 6.0 -. -•-'
•- • '• •: -. :• ''. / -.'7.2 / - ' '
-.'•" •"•." •>,;'-•-' : "'-2 . - .
v:-.. • •-.-.. --.--- ,3:6;.: ', ;-:
•'--. -.'..'••-• •_••- 7,2 .-•: '-•'.;
•• - . v •'
-•"•..-••'.: .-••'. -.-:-• . 4- -.,.•:-.•..
•:•.•.'.• .-• ' js :: : -.-.
- -.. -r'- -•••:. '; ---'5.6-- -,--:
- '••••- -..". -v ,;;"••• :5.7 • "" •-
. ' .'••••• - : - -.-": :>8- ';"-- :- '•
r -'.-."•'-'--• ...'''•. 8^2: ••'-.-'.-•
.-:'•:•• ;• •-•--.:• - 5.5- . .:-••'
. . ,• : •-•&?.: .. ••-,-
•••<•- - )A •
. .... .... . ;_- .,
' .- _ --- .-- -• :::&•: ' •
-' .-"•, -- •-- :- ; • .5- .v •-". -.--
. , .-:.,• . ' 10 •" -;
'-•-,'- 0.087
; 0.087. ••--.>
' 0 087
. -.-.. : -'••':•• = . ••'••-.. • 0-087-'.;-
. 0.087 -:. ,..
; 0.087 '
'--•-• • •:-•••' -8.2'- -.;.:-r
::•-: ' : ,«* :
-" -. . " -. -. . /i-2 •. " • -- •
- - . • - >••& ' - - .-
•: •:• ' - ••-'-•'-• ": •-•'-•.. ., •:
.- •-..:-• .'.,. , - 6-2 -.. :-'
v -.- - •-• 7.2 ' .-;.-
: . .- -•-. 7.2 ' '
--.-••-•".•.•-•.,•• 7.2* -: ' '
".••^••-.. ..••-: : 33 ;• •• ---
-.'.-.:'... 33 ;:.:",,'' .
- . •-. ": .14 •;... -.v. ;-
: --:',- --"14 ' -'-;',
: •:- : . , . 18, . •••. '
•:-. ---.. -.•.-.; ' is-- • .-, - - -
-:: : •-••--.•;---'l8 :. . •'•-• . '
- .0.13.- ••--..-.. ••'
••• •'.'•••. •-". -'\ .28 ./ •:.;
•'-••'-.:•:- •• --/ -M- •-••- '
•.-.:- . -:• . 28 ; : , '
. .. - ---••' 28 :.,.:•. -.
. :.-.. ::; . ,.- . , 2.3 •;."..- •..-
'.:'.- ':"' . '-':•" : '--'ieQ."/'--..:-''?:-.'- •
..--••' ••-. 160 '•- : -•.-. ,
:•>•• -:•>'.. \-.:-.:.. :140/ ..•".'.';, ,--,-- -
.-.-.. •-: •' - -•-.• • .- -. -28' .•-:-•:..•.'..'.-, -..:.-
-------
29870 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 / Monday, May £4, 1993 /Rules and Regulations
TABLE 111-1 .—REGULATED CONSTITUENTS AND STANDARDS—Continued
Constituent
Wastewater (mg/l)
Nonwastewater (mg/kg)
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propylnltrosoamlne
Diphenyl anlne
1,2-Dipnenyl hydrazlne .....
Dlphonylnitrosanine
1,4-Dloxane
DteuHoton .....
Endosulfan I
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrln Aldehyde
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl cyanide
Ethyl ether
Ws-{2-Eihylhexyl) phthalate
Ethyl mathacrylata
Ethylone oxide
Famphcir
Ruoranthene
Fluorena
Ruorotrfchloromethane ;
Heptachlor
Heptachtor epoxlde
Hflxachlorobenzene .'.
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadlene
Hexachtorodjbenzo-furans
Haxachlorodibenzo-p-dioxlns
Hexachloroethane
Haxachloropropene
Indano (1,2,3-c.d) pyrene
lodomethana
Isobutanol
Isodrin
Isosafrola .'
Kepone
Methacrylonitrile
Methano)
Methapyrilene
Methoxychlor
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4-Motlhylene-Bls-(2-chloroaniline)
Mothylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl tsobutyl ketone
Methyl melhacrylate
Methyl methansulfonate
Methyl parathlon
Naphthlalene
2-Naphthylamine
p-Nitfoaniline
Nitrobenzene
S-Nitro-o-toluldine
4'Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nilroso-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholina
N-Niirosoplperidine .....
N-NJtroK)pyrro!idine .•:...
Paralhlon
Pentachtorobenzene
Pentachlorodibanzo-furans
Pentachtorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Pentachloronitrobenzene ....
Pentachtorophsnol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phonol
0:017
0.40
0.52
0.087
0.40
0.12
0.017
0.023
0.029
0.029
0.0028
0.025
0.34
0.057
0.24
0.12
. 0.28
0.14
0.12
0.017
0.068
0.059
0.020
0.0012
-0.016
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.000063
0.000063
0.055
: 0;035"
0.0055
0.19 '
5.6
Q.021
0.081
0.001 i"
0.24
5.6
0.081
•0.25
0.0055
0.50
0.089
0.28
0.14
0.14
0.018
0.014
0.059
0.52
0.028
0.068
0.32
0.12
0.40
0.40
0.040
0.040 -
0.040
0.013
0.013
6.014
0.055
0.000063
0.000063
0.055
0.089
0.081
0.059
0.039
28
14
NA
NA
NA
170
6.2
0.066
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
33
6.0
360
160
28
160
NA
15
8.2
4.0
33
0.066
0.066
37
28
' '3.6
0.001
0.001
'28
28
8.2
65'
170
0.066
2.6
0,13 '
84
NA
1.5
0.18
15
35
33
36
33
160
NA
4.6
3.1
NA
28
14
28
29
28
NA
17
23
2.3
35
35
4.6
37
0.001
0.001
4.8
7.4
16
3.1
6.2
-------
-No< 9^ /.Mon4ay..May 24, 1993;-/ Mies ; and Regulations j;29871:
TABLE HM.—REGULATED CONSTITUENTS ANp;STANDARDs-T-Cpntinued
.--_ ''.-...-.-. - , . Constituent '.-.'.-. -V ,.^. ,
Phorata ..~...;....;.......,.:^...;......,...».;. :. ....,!.....„ ....... ...„
Phthalic anydride ........; .„;.„......,..„..;....
Proriamlde .......:..r. ..; ...,...........^........
Pyrene ....; ....;.;.....;..............„;.,.. '. .
Pyrfdine - ... ;
• Safroia [[[ . .
Siivex (2,4,5-TP) ......!
2,4,5-T
1,2,4,5-TetrachIorobenzene ;.......,......... ..:.... .' . ;
Tstraehlorodibenzo-furahs ...'.'. . .
Tetrachlofodibenzo-p-dioxins ., ..;........;...,.. • ^
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ?............. -..
1,1,2,2-TTetrachloroethana '.--
Teirachioroethylene „...„...;....„..,."...;. ..:....„........„
2,3,4,6-Tetrachiorophenol ............;..." .
Toluene ....;...„ .i.,.;.:.:............................^;.;... .:'.... '--',
Toxaphehe _.....;........„....„.„.,........,
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ............!...„ .;. . '.
1 ,1 ,1-f richloroethane .....;. .'... ......,..............:.....
1,1,2-Tfichloroeihana .. ,.-„-. . •
Trichloroethylena ..„ .... ......„...;. .. ' '"••• •
2,4,5TTrichforciphenol ..".........
2,4,6-Trichk)r6phanol ................... ' •"
1,2,3-Trichloropropana ...C.....
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-triftuoroathana ......:.....;
Tris(2,3,-dibromopropy!) phosphate ,...„......'.. ...........I.... .
Vinyl chloride ......;„...:... . . .
Xy!ene(s) ;:..;...... .."...„.;.... ..... •
Cyanides (tola!) ....;„.. .-. ..„ „. •
Cyanides (Amenable) .....
Fluoride .„ .......„.;.......:..„..........; •• "L
Suifida ........... .
Anflmony :. .'. "
Arsanic .;.„..„ ...'......... . : ' / •-
Barium ..........;..... .. _.„-.."
Beryllium „> •
Cadmium ..„ „. ;t., ......C...... •
Chromium(Total) ....1...................... . ' •' . -
Copper ....;«....:....................„........„.; ............ . .
Lead • --• •••''•'-
Mercury ;...„. ,........._>........'..;.
Nickel .x. ...............v. ;. • ' -
Selenium... .; .;.........
Silver .....:........ ......
Tnalpum .....,.........;..... ....:....;„......
Vanadium ................... . '•. '- -
Zinc ............ •• - -. ., -.•' - " ' ;" •- "
Wastewater (rng/lj ; ':-
002t
•'-•'•'••'.. 0069
"•-'•' 0 093
•0067" •
n Old
008t
072
072
0055
---'•'' oonnnfi'?
" 0 000063
0 057
" 0 057
0056
o rnn
0 080
' n nno1?
0 055 •
0054
••'•- •"•-" ' ' o fWA
: 0054
• . 0 18
0 035
"o'ss •
0057
0 il
027 •-"'"'
n "w
' • ''• ; t'2- " • :
o as
- -'-' . ' ' '•-.."-'•-. •ae "• ' •- ' -
14 '
,..-.-. . J" - _
• • "- . •- .••---•- t Q - - " '
----'• --•.--.--- ^ 4 / , "-• •'
-:' '. " •'•'.: - -t'y ..'•-- - W. -
•- • ''^ -. • .
' -f\ R9 '
- •' ~- (X20
u,^/
1 , - - -
'--•.. -.••-'••••• vr :-'
.'.•• • .. - •;-::•. *! - -, •' -•'
'-• . - ' ' . '•-• "57 • ''-•
• •••' : •: -••- ha ;' -' -' '
; .- - *° :••:.-. '.--.:
.--- - : - ' '.- • MA"-"' " " ""' .' --
••--•-- •"-' " ' '' -isa ' •• ' '- '
-- - .-•, • oa ' '- "•---"
-' '"' * • -- 1 fl ' ' '
= KlA.'
- ••: ._--,- •.-,-.- NA • ;-• _ -
. ' » " • fa A
,'""-" "'. -= Ve:--fi -- ' •
' " ' •"'•"--' 1 co
*j£. - .
--- '•--.- - - / • • *.- NA' -. - • • • • =
- ' 1 c*>i
------ :^ - ..- --; .,5.2 - -.--.- -,
'•/-.• O.oi
• •-'. ?0025- 7
. .-; •- • -• ' ••' . '032.vK .,- • -•".
-:- • . . - ••- *.•-. 15.7- . . - . • '
'0072
. -.. •. • •- • . '-- • ,---NA ' . : - .-.--.
'.--,-. .' ,--•: • .NA •""- • -
analysis*
,E, Changes in TreaiabilityG?pup Are
Not a New Point of Generation for
'Purposes of Today'^Rule '•:,"-.
Treatment of a wastewater often
geEserates a nonwastewater sludge as.
well as aitreated wastewater. Similarly,:
incineration of a wastewater can
generatela nonwastewater lash) as well:
-as a wastewater tscrubber water)
residue. The issue under discussion
here is whether these residues that are
different treatability groups require
further treatment--The Agency has
approached this issue differently for ,
:• listed and characteristic wastes. Under
the.'',derived-frorn" rale, residues
generated from the treatment, oflisted
wastes are,subsequently managed as ther
listed waste; thus treatment inust
continue until the LDR treatment " '-:
standards are_.a"chieved as measured in
the treatment residue. ; :
No derived-from rale applies to
characteristic wastes, however. In the
Third Third final rule, EPA stated that
for characteristic wastes, each change of
treatability group in a treatment train
marked a new-point of generation for
determining if a characteristic waste '
was prohibited from land disposal (55
FR 22661-623. Thus, if a characteristic
"wastewater were treated and generated
a sludge "(a nonwastewaterlthat .did not
exhibit a characteristic, the sludge
/would not be subject torany prohibition.
This issue was discussed in the
"Supplemental Information Report
prepared for the Notice of Data :
: Availability published on January 19,
1993 (see. Supplemental InformatioTi .- "•
Report, pp. 41-2). It was explained that
this principle made sense iii the context:
of the Third Third rule where the
treatment standard for most '• -'"
characteristic wastes was deactiyatiqn. :
Now that the court has directed EPA to
set standards for the underlying
hazardous constituents in wastes thai
are deactivated, the Agency is
reexamining this principle. EPA-
, solicited comment in the Supplemental
-------
29872 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 / Monday, May 24J 1993 / Rules and Regulations
principle retains after the court's
opinion.
Several commenters addressed this
issue by saying that EPA should reaffirm
its prior pronouncements on the rules
governing changes in treatability groups.
Some suggested that if changes were
necessary, they would be better made in
the context of changes in the dilution
provisions of 40 CFR 268.3, when the
remanded portions of the court opinion
are considered in the future.
On the other hand, other commenters
argued that the only way to be
consistent with the court's direction to
minimize threats to human health and
the environment from hazardous
constituents is to apply BDAT standards
to treatment residues. They said that
such an approach would remove
subjectivity and questions about
compliance with the LDR treatment
standards.
For wastes addressed in this interim
final rule and treated in combustion arid
other devices, the Agency is adopting an
approach where the LDR treatment
standards attach at the point of
generation of the original ignitable or
corrosive waste. Residues that derive
from the treatment of the original
ignitable or corrosive waste would be
subject to either the wastewater or •
nonwastewater F039 treatment
standards, based on the physical form of
the residue. (There is no requirement,
however, to measure residues for D001
wasto when a method of treatment has
been established as an alternative
standard and that method has been
used.)
The Agency is taking this approach in
today's rule in part because of the
exigent need to issue an emergency rule,
and the consequent lack of time to try
and develop an alternative. In addition,
EPA expects that combustion processes
will be the principal type of technology
utilized to comply with the wastes
affected by today's rule, and the
principal treatment residue left from
combustion treatment is an ash (a
nonwastewater), leaving that ash as the
only logical thing to test to determine
that the treatment standards have been
satisfied. To the extent that an ignitable
or corrosive wastewater is being
disposed in a land disposal unit that is
not part of a system regulated under the
CVVA, a zero discharger that is not
treating the wastewater by CWA-
equivalent treatment, or injecting in
other than a Class I underground -
injection well system, this also should
not be an issue since the treatment
standards, including those for the
underlying hazardous constituents,
must be met before the wastewater is
land disposed.
EPA emphasizes that it is making no
decision, and establishing no precedent,
on the issue of whether nonwastewater
residues from wastewater treatment,
such as wastewater treatment sludges,
require further treatment when such
nonwastewater residues are not
hazardous waste when they are
generated (see Supplemental
Information Report, pp. 23-5). As a legal
matter, the court did not directly decide
the issue, and the Agency's rules
established in the Third Third rule were
not challenged. In addition, the '•
effectiveness of a wastewater treatrnent
system is most appropriately
determined by monitoring the effluent
wastewater, unlike the 'situation with
combustion technology where treatment
of a wastewater or nonwastewater is
most appropriately measured by testing.
an ash (a nonwastewater). •
F. Minimize Threat Levels
The treatment standards adopted
today are based on the performance of
available treatment technologies. This -
approach to establishing treatment
standards was upheld in Hazardous
Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, B86 F.
2d 355, 361-62 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert.
denied, 111 S. Ct. 139 (1990) (HWTC
III). The levels .of the treatment
standards are, of course, constrained by
the requirement that the standards! not
be lower than the level at which threats
to human health and the environment
are minimized. Section 300,4(m)(l);
mVTCIII, 886 F. 2d at 363; Third Third
Opinion, 976 F. 2d at 14. It was not
possible to develop such levels in!
today's rule because of the need tci issue
this as an emergency rule. However, the
Agency will continue to evaluate i .
various approaches for setting such
minimize threat levels and, as i
appropriate, propose them in future
rulemakings. The Agency solicits j
technical arid factual information Jhat
could aid in defining the minimize
threat levels. , j
G. Compliance Monitoring \
Requirements !
•• As noted in the Supplemental ; '-
Information Report; one concern with
implementing numerical treatment .
standards for the ignitable (D001) and
corrosive (D002) wastes is which I
hazardous constituents must be j .
monitored to determine compliance and
the frequency of such monitoring, |The
treatment standards that are being,
promulgated (in addition to the existing
deactivation treatment standard) fpr
D001 wastes (other than the'DOOl high
TOC subcategory, which is unaffected
by today's rule), and D002 wastes, set
numerical limits for over 200 ;
constituents. Since each facility's
ignitable or corrosive wastes likely will
contain only a subset of these hazardous
constituents, it seems unnecessary.and
wasteful to routinely require monitoring
of all constituents. Therefore, .
compliance with the treatment
standards promulgated in this rule for
ignitable and corrosive wastes must be
monitored for only for. those hazardous
constituents "reasonably expected to be
present" in the hazardous waste.
The determination of "reasonably
expected to be present" for compliance
purposes may be based on knowledge of
the raw materials used, the process, and
potential reaction products, or the
results of a pne-time analysis for the
entire list of F039 hazardous
constituents that may be present in the
untreated hazardous waste. If a one-time
analysis of the entire list of F039
hazardous constituents is conducted,
subsequent analyses would be required
for only those pollutants which would
reasonably be expected to be present in
the waste as generated, based on the
sampling and analysis results.
T This approach is similar to that". .
developed in the Third Third final rule
for measuring compliance with multi-
source leachate (F039) standards (55 FR
22620, 22621). (However, this approach^
for determining which constituents are
present in the waste is not necessarily
the approach that will be taken in future
rulemakings when the remanded rules
are addressed.) If the facility is
permitted under RCRA, and the
facility's Waste Analysis Plan requires
modification to accomplish this, the
Plan may be modified through a Class
1 permit modification with prior
approval. (See amendment-to 40 CFR
270.42 promulgated as .part of today's
rule. See also 55 FR 22621 explaining
why it is reasonable to use Class I
modification procedures.) If the facility
is not permitted under RCRA, the
results of the one-time analysis for all
hazardous constituents and any other
relevant information should be kept in
the facility's files. See 40 CFR 268.9,
268.7(b)(5), and discussion at section I
below. Generators covered by the rule
utilizing § 262.34 tanks for treating the
wastes may also amend their waste
analysis plans prepared pursuant to
§ 268.7(a)(4). Changes in waste
generation shouldlje documented in the
facility files; furthermore, it is
recommended that another analysis of
the F039 list of hazardous constituents
be made. Commenters generally
supported such an approach
-------
_.<-:"•••; '•> •'.,•'•' -.•:•. -• •••••',>?'»; eT^l 'i,1:* ',,•',,tjf • »fi,»,;,j..iL<'*• ^',s A''*'••->•> f-.V? \ "-->,.'*;'."'.. ,-.**-* ...».'l <,**••' '. '•• ?«»;»^si
Federal Register/ Vol. 58, No. 98 /Monday. May 24,: 1SQ3 / Rules and Regulations ,29873
H. Addressing 'potential VOC Emissions
and Violent Reactions During Dilution
of Ignitable and Reactive Wastes
1. Potential VQC Emissions During ;'
,_-. Dilution of Ignitable Wastes—
. Background and Comments
The court held that EPA must address
, the problem of VOC {volatile organic
constituents} emissions from igpitable
waste during dilution. The;court
pointed out that the Agency had
initially proposed in the Third Third to
prohibit dilution of all ignitable wastes
because, of the risk of VOG emissions-
during dilution. Furthermore, the court
- stated feat EPA had presented .'-:.
inadequate justification in the final rule
not to .control emissions during dilution
of ignitable wastes. Thus, in vacating
the standard, fee courtinvitedthe;
Agency to justify non-regulation with
evidentiary support or require actions to
. minimize the risk. 976 F.2dat-17,
As.was explained in the '-,-'.. ,
Supplemental Information Report, the
Agency has reconsidered its premise set
forth in the proposed Third Third rule
(see Supplemental Information Report,
pp. 34—5). In most cases, whatever the
risk of VOC emissions from ignitable
wastes is, it is not increased during the
dilution process. Nor does dilution
normally pose-a risk of VOC emission
greater than feat posed by other
methods of treating these wastes. In the
Supplemental Information Report, the
Agency also pointed out, however, that
there ar« instances where diluting
certain wastes could cause exothermic
reactions that would increase
volatilization or add misting. Id.. .
Furthermore, even in situations where
, emissions ara not increased during the;
dilution process, the wastewater
treatment system may still pose risks
due to emissions. EPA solicited
comments on these issues. •'..."
• A few crammenters responded. The
Chemical Manufacturers Association '
and others agreed with EPA that in most
cases the risk of VOC omissions from
ignitable wastes is not increased during
the dilution process. No cpmmenter =
disagreed wife EPA
-------
29874 Federal Register /Vol. 58, No. 98 / Monday, May 24,
1993 /Rules and Regulations
only be required to address those
constituents which are in the ignitable
or corrosive wastes as generated, prior
to any subsequent mixing with other
wastes, and the generators should
monitor only for those hazardous
constituents reasonably expected to be
present in the I/C waste. This is the
approach being adopted for this interim
final rule (see section III.G above). The
determination of which underlying
hazardous constituents are in the waste
may be made based on a one-time
analysis of the waste to determine
which of the F039 hazardous-
constituents are present, or it may be
made based on knowledge of what
constituents are reasonably expected to
be present in the waste. Supporting
documentation for the determination
must be kept hi the generator's on-site
files. This approach for determining
which constituents are present in the
wasto is not necessarily the approach
that will be taken in future rulemakings
when the remanded rules are addressed.
2. Management in Subtitle C—Regulated
Facilities
The Agency has information that
many of the ignitable and corrosive
wastes that are not managed in CWA or
SDWA systems are being treated in .
hazardous waste management units
(primarily incinerators) subject to RCRA
subtitle C. In such a case, the
notification, certification, and
rocordkoeping requirements set out in
40 CFR 268.7 apply. This means,
generally, that a notification would be
Eroparod for each waste shipment sent
'om the generator to the treatment
facility, in the same manner that such
paperwork follows a listed waste from
"cradle to grave." Once the waste is no
longer hazardous, however, the only
further recordkeeping and
documentation required is set out in 40
CFR 268,9. Section 268.9 requires that
the generator/treater (including
generators who treat, see 51 PR at
40598, November 7,1986) prepare a
one-time notification which is sent to
the EPA Region or authorized state and
also kept in the generator or treater's
files. The notification must include the
name and address of the subtitle D
facility receiving a waste shipment, a
description of the waste initially
generated, and the treatment standard to
which the waste is subject (see § 268.9
(d), as amended at 57 FR at 37271 (Aug.
18,1992)). For wastes covered by
today's rule, these treatment standards
would be the numerical standards for
ignitable and corrosive wastes. These
treaters must certify that they are
familiar with the treatment process used
at their facility and that the process can
successfully treat the waste to meeit the
treatment standards without I
impermissible dilution. See
§ 268.7(b)(5), which applies to persons
who treat formerly characteristic wastes
(see § 268.9(d)(2)). The Agency believes
that, normally, at least some waste
analysis is needed to make a good [faith
showing for the treatment standards in
today's rule, given the number of
hazardous constituents covered bj
those
standards.
It is important to state that in addition
to other waste codes that are currently
required to be included on notifications
under § 268.7, generators of ignitable
and corrosive wastes that are managed
innon-CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-
Class I SDWA systems must identify the
underlying hazardous constituents! (as
defined in § 268.2) along with the ;
corresponding constituent treatmer
standards,4
3. Management of Deactivated Ignijtable
or Corrosive Wastes at a Subtitle D
Waste Management Facility
In Certain cases, a generator, afte^1 .
removing the .characteristic, may send
the deactivated ignitable and corrclsive
waste off-site to a subtitle D waste
treatment facility for treatment to
address the underlying hazardous
constituents. Such a situation points out
a gap in the current regulations.
Although the initial generator of lie
waste would have to comply with
§ 268.9 as explained above, there is no
current requirement that the generator
notify a subtitle D nonhazardous vjaste
treater of what the treatment standards
are, or for the subtitle D treater to verify
compliance with those standards c r to
notify the ultimate disposal facility as to
what the_standards are. The Agencjr is
aware that these are deficiencies iri the
notification; certification, and
recordkeeping requirements in this
interim final rule as they pertain to
nonhazardous waste (non-subtitle C)
treatment facilities.
EPA is not creating new requirements
in this rule to redress these deficiencies
because the Agency believes it is
unlikely that decharacterized ignitpble
and corrosive wastes would be treated
sequentially at different facilities, fin
addition, the same problem already
exists for other Third Third wastes!. See
55 FR at 22663, column 1.) It seems
4 An important issue that was discussed atjthe
January 13-14,1993, LDR Evaluation Project
Rbundtable meeting was the notification/ j
recordkeeping requirements that are currently in
place. Today's rule adds certain requirements to the
existing notification/recordkeeping system. In
response to the concerns expressed by Roundtable
participants, however, the Agency will examine all
the notification/recordkeeping requirements of the
program to see if they can be simplified.
much more likely that generators that
must send their waste off-site will send
it to a subtitle-C hazardous waste
management facility to have both the
characteristic property removed and to
treat the underlying hazardous
constituents. Generators who
decharacterize their ignitable waste on-
site may also be equipped to treat the
. waste to meet the treatment standards
for the underlying hazardous
constituents. The Agency solicits
comment, however, on whether •
generators will send their
decharacterized wastes to a
nonhazardous waste treatment facility
for treatment of underlying hazardous
constituents. If so, additional comments
are solicited on what requirements
should be imposed on the generator and
on the nonhazardous waste treater to
adequately document "cradle to grave"
waste management or on whether
existing liability and contractual
agreements will lead the treater to
obtain complete information about each
• waste shipment. For example, if EPA
determines that additional federal
regulation is necessary, one option that
EPA is considering is to require a
generator that decharacterizes an
ignitable or corrosive waste and sends it
off-site to a nonhazardous waste facility
for treatment of the underlying
hazardous constituents to provide a
notification (see 40 CFR 268.7(a)) to
inform the treater of the underlying
hazardous constituents in the waste and,
the applicable treatment standards that
must be met. Once the waste is treated
to meet the treatment standards for-the
underlying hazardous constituents, the
" nonhazardous waste treater would
provide a one-time notification and
certification to the EPA Region or
-Authorized state (see 40 CFR 268.9, as
amended on August 18,1992, 57 FR
37194). This would include a
recordkeeping requirement that a copy
of the notification and certification be
maintained in the facility's files.
Comments are solicited pn such an
approach. ,
The disposer of a waste that was
hazardous at the point of generation and
prohibited from land disposal has the
ultimate responsibility for land
disposing only wastes that meet LDR
treatment standards (see § 268.37 in this
interim final rule which implements the
RCRA section 3004(g)(5) prohibition).
This applies to both subtitle C and
subtitle D disposers. The Agency
assumes that the nonhazardous waste
treater is also likely to be the disposer
of the waste. Therefore, EPA
recommends that generators provide to
the nonhazardous waste treater
-------
Federal ;jRggisteff //Vol.' 58; No. 98' / Monday, -May 24, 1993 •• / -Eules; and Regulations ^ '29875
information on what underlying
hazardous constituents are present in
the decharacterized waste, along with
the ^treatment standards. Furthermore,
the ndnhazardbus treater may want to
ask the generator for such information
' as a condition of doing business, . -
particularly if-they are also disposing
the waste and so are responsible for
meeting the LDR treatment standards
before disposal. .
J.De Minimis Losses of Characteristic
Materials Are Not Prohibited
l.De Minimis Losses of ignitable
' (D001), or Corrosive (D002) Commercial
Chemical Products or Chemical
"Intermediates Containing Underlying
Hazardous Constituents - " •.
, "Another issue demanding attention as
a result of the court's opinion is that of
the status of de minimis losses to
wastewater treatment systems of
commercial chemical products or
chemical intermediates that are
ignitable (D001), or corrosive (Dpp2),
arid that contain underlying hazardous '
constituents. , V •'.'.'' .-•.-. '
The Supplemental Information Report
discussed whether an approach, similar
to the mixture rule exception in 40 CFR
261,3(a)(iv)(D) should apply to these o'e
minimis losses. The Agency stated that
it would seem incongruous for minor
leaks of an acid to a wastewater
treatment system, which leaks are
inevitable as a practical matter and can
most responsibly be handled by
management in the plant's wastewater
treatment system (46 FR 56583, Nov. .17,
1981), to potentially trigger all of the
potential consequences of the Third
Third opinion (see Supplemental .
Information Report, pp. 39-40).
Moreover, this result would be more
stringent than for de minimis losses of
listed wastes (which tend to be more
concentrated, 976 F.'2d at 30), since the
mixture rule does not apply to such
losses. The Agency stated further that it
did not believe that the court considered
this type of incidental Joss when writing
' its opinion. .'••.-"' ,
; . Commenters supported the approach
discussed in the Supplemental
information Report. Therefore, for the
reasons'stated in the Report, the Agency
is promulgating an approach whereby
de minimis losses to wastewater
treatment systems of ignitable (D001), or
corrosive (D002) commercial chemical
products or chemical intermediates
"containing underlying hazardous
constituents are not considered to be
prohibited wastes. De minimis is
defined as losses from normal material
handling operations (e.g. spills from the
unloading or transfer of materials from
bins or other containers, leaks from
pipes', valves'or other devices used to
transfer materials); minor leaks of
process equipment, storage tanks" or •
containers; leaks from well-maintained
, pump packings and seals; sample
purgings; and relief device discharges.
2. Wastewaters From Laboratory
-Operations , , .
. The Agency also solicited comments
; on whether the exclusion for ' ':.,
wastewaters from laboratory operations
presently applicable to listed •'•'.'.'
wastewaters (see ~4d CFR , -
- 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(E))-should also applyto
ignitable and corrosive wastes covered
by this interim final rule,'As. stated in
the Supplernental Information Report, it
seems logical that this same type of
, exception is needed for ignitable and •'.
corrosive wastes. The mixture rule
exception for listed wastes has not been
seriously questioned'since it was :
adopted in 1981, and these .
characteristic wastes:will;typically<
contain lower concentrations of '
hazardous constituents than listed
wastes. CF. 978 F. 2d at 29-3~0. Thus, .
the .Agency believes, qfortiorari, that
the same .exception should apply for/
these characteristic laboratory wastes.
Commenters bri this issue all favored
such'an approach. , •-.-..-.''- -
The Agency, therefore, is
promulgating in 40 CFR 268.1 an
. exclusion that says that land disposal ;
. prohibitions do not apply to ignitable
"and corrosive laboratory wastes" :that are
commingled with other plant
wastewaters under designated
circumstances: ignitable and-corrosive ,
laboratory wastes containing underlying
hazardous constituents from laboratory "
operations, that are mixed with other
plant wastewaters at facilities whose
ultimate-discharge is subject to
regulation under the CWA (including
wastewaters at facilities .which have
eliminated the discharge of wastewater),
provided that the annualized flow of
laboratory wastewater into the facility's '
headwork does not;exceed one percent, •
.or provided that the wastes' combined
annualized average concentration does -
not exceed one part per million in the -
facility's headwork (the same condition
that applies to the existing exemption in '
40CFR261.3(a)(2)(iv)(E)3. " '-
K. Status of Impoundments and
Landfills Receiving Decharacterized
Ignitable and Corrosive Wastes Subject
to a Capacity Variance .-.',•-'-.-• '-
Although prohibited wastes that are
subject to a national capacity variance
that are going to be disposed- in landfills
or surface impoundments can ordinarily
only be disposed in landfills and •'""-'
impoundments that satisfy minimuin
technology requirements-(MTR) '
(§268.5(h)(2)), this does not apply to
decharacterized prohibited.wastes
; subject to a capacity variance that are
disposed in subtitle D units. As the
Agency explained in the Third Third
rule, the MTR only apply to subtitle C
units, and consequently do not apply to
subtitle D'landfills and impoundments
receiving decharacterized wastes. 55 FR
at 22664. ' • . , r '•''. ;
TV. Capacity Determinations .
This section presents the capacity '
analysis for ignitable (D001 or I wastes)
and corrosive wastes (D002 or C wastes)"
for which the deactivatiori (DEACT)
treatment standards-promulgated in the ,
Third Third rule were vacated by the
- court and for which new treatment
standards are being promulgated today.
A. Data Sources and Limitations
In" conducting this analysis, EPA
became aware of several limitations m
its data. First, data from the 1989
Biennial Report reflect generation and •
management of 1C wastes prior to the .
Third Third rule coming in to effect.
Second, the quantities of wastes from
thel989 Biennial Reporting System
(BRS) may be underestimated if .
disposed wastes were diluted very
shortly after generation arid not reporteu
in the survey, (commenters have noted
that these wastes'have'not generally
been considered 1C wastes). Triird, data.
on constituerit concentrations in waste
- Streams and in the residuals from the "
treatment of 1C wastes are very limited.
Finally, while the Agency expects that.
much of the unreported diluted 1C , .
wastes are disposed in CWA arid -
SDWA-regulated systems, the Agency
has very little information on
urirepprted quantities of 1C wastes . - ...
affected by this rule. ..-. . '
In addition, the Agency is
promulgating alternative treatment
standards expressed as required
methods of treatment (incineration, fuel. '.
•substitution, and solvent recovery) for
po'01 wastes. These methods are the ;
same as those prorriulgated in a previous
rule for the pool High TOG subcategory.
In the Third Third rule capacity
analysis, EPA assigned the:entire '.'
volume of DOOl ignitable liquid :
nonwastewaters tblncineration (both
'high TOG arid'low TOG) (55-FR 22635).
because these categories could not be
distinguished in ayailable data. For. this-,:
analysis, EPA is able to distinguish , '
between liquid and solid .? , -".;..'
rionwastewaters using BRS data.
.However; the Agency is still unable to
distinguish between high and low TOG•,
DOOl ignitable liquid nbnwasteWaters.
-------
20876 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 / Monday, ttay 24, 'lijJ93'."/ Rules 'anct Regulations
Therefore, by assigning the entire
quantity of D001 ignitable liquid
nonwastewaters subject to this rule to
the D001 wastes covered by this rule,
the Agency may be overestimating the
required capacity for these wastes.
J3. Comments on Capacity From the
Notice of Data Availability
'SPA has received approximately 60
public comments on the Supplemental
Information Report prepared for the
Notice of Data Availability. Of these, 40
commenters dealt with capacity issues
raised in the Supplemental Information
Report. However, few commenters
addressed issues related to the wastes
covered in this rule (i.e., deactivated
wastes whose discharges are not
regulated under CVVA, CWA-
equivalence, or Class ISDWA).
Many commenters expressed the need
for a capacity variance for wastewater
treatment systems in which 1C wastes
are deactivated. As discussed above, the
Agency will address 1C wastes managed
in CWA/SDWA systems in future
rulomaklngs and will make variance
determinations at that time.
Some commenters (e.g., Texaco, Ethyl
Corporation} expressed concern that the
impact of this rule on Class V injection
wells will have significant economic
and capacity impacts. Several
commenters (e.g., CMA, PMA, Dupont)
confirmed that the Biennial Report
Survey is likely to underestimate the
number of facilities and quantities of
wastes potentially affected by this rule
because many respondents aid not
report wastes managed in non-
hazardous systems.
C. Methodology and Analysis
In conducting its capacity analysis for
this rule, the Agency relied primarily on
data from the 1989 Biennial Reporting
System (BRS), comments to the Notice
of Data Availability and discussions
with EPA regional and state officials as
well as other knowledgeable persons.
The 1C wastes potentially affected by j
this rule are deactivated wastes that a;re
not disposed of in CWA centralized
wastewater treatment systems involving
impoundments or injected in SDWA-
permitted Class I deepwells, or zero
discharge facilities performing CWA
equivalent treatment of 1C wastes before
final disposal of those wastes. EPA's
capacity analysis thus focused on
treatment and treatment residuals of 1C
wastes that may not meet the standards
promulgated in today's rule, which
wastes are currently being deactivated
in systems that are not regulated under
the types of CWA, SDWA, or CWA-
equivalent systems described above.
1. Treatment and Treatment Residuals
Treatment and residuals from the
treatment of 1C wastes may be affected
by today's rule and require additional.
treatment. Tables IV-1 and IV-2 shovjr
the quantities of D001 and D002 wastes
going to on- and off-site incineration, j .
reuse as fuel, stabilization systems, j
solvent recovery and evaporation, I
according to the 1989 Biennial Report.
These tables are organized to show the
quantities of wastes potentially affected
by this rule. Whether 1C wastes are I
affected depends on whether they are
managed alone or with other codes amd
on how they are currently treated. [
Table IV—1 shows wastes treated in
off-site systems, while Table IV-2 shews
wastes treated in on-site systems. The!
first row of these tables contains the
quantities of wastes carrying only the
D001 waste code. The second row "..
contains the quantities of wastes
carrying only the D001 code, and any
D004—11 codes. These waste streams do
not carry any listed codes, or other
characteristic codes. The third row
contains the quantities of wastes
carrying the D001 code, any D004-11
code, along with any listed or
characteristic codes the stream may also
carry. The fourth row shows the
quantities of wastes carrying the D001
code, and a solvent code (F001-5), but
no other codes. The fifth row shows the
quantities of wastes in wastes streams
carrying the D001 code, a solvent code
(F001-5), and any other code. The sixth
row contains .the quantities of wastes
only carrying botii D001 and D002
codes. The final three rows are similar
to the first three, reporting quantities of
wastes carrying only D002, D002 with
any D004-11, and all streams with D002
and D004—11 as well as any other listed
or characteristic codes. It should be
noted that the Biennial Report only
allows one system code to be checked
per waste stream. Therefore, wastes that
are incinerated prior to being stabilized
are not likely to appear in the
stabilization totals. The Agency believes
that the majority of D001 waste streams
are being treated in combustion systems,
and will not be affected by today's rule.
Tables IV-1 and IV-2 show that
approximately 7,000 tons of D001
wastes are reported to be stabilized as
their primary treatment. By today's rule,
these wastes may require incineration,.
reuse as fueli or solvent recovery as
their initial treatment.
.Table IV—2 shows that relatively large
quantities of D002 are reported in the
Biennial Report as being treated in
combustion systems (D001-2 Only, and
D002 & D004-11 mixed with other
Codes). Approximately 300,000 tons of
D002 wastes are managed oh-site in - ..
combustion systems. Of these wastes,
, 70,000 tons are mixed with metal wastes
and other cpdesl Assuming a 10 percent
residuals to waste ratio, EPA expects
that approximately 10,000 tons of D002
wastes mixed with metal codes may
require additional treatment, provided
the constituent concentrations in the
ash exceed today's treatment standards.
TABLL IV-,.—QUANTITIES OF WASTES TREATED IN OFF-SITE INCINERATION, REUSE AS FUEL, AND STABILIZATION,
SOLVENT RECOVERY AND EVAPORATION SYSTEMS
,, , I11!,: •<••,' •' ,,,..,*»,,
[tons/year] j ,
2D001Only ....„
D001 and D004-11 Only
D001 and D004-11 Mixed with other
codes
D001 and F001-5 only .. „
D001 and F001-5 mixed with other
codes
0001-2 .. ....
D002 Only «
D002 and D004-11 Only
Incineration
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5,066
23,647
1,119
Reuse as fuel
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
566
370
663
Stafai
izatton
2,379
429
462
118
11
' 923
5,768
4,177
Solvent recovery
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,230
13,894
239
Evaporation
0
0
NA
NA
NA
0
42
88
-------
Federal^ Register /Vol.' 58 ife. -98 /Monday, May 24, 1993.1 Rules/and; Regulations
TABLE IV-1 .—QUANTITIES OF WASTES TREATED IN OFF-SITE : INCINERATION, REUSE AS FUEL, -AND STABILIZATION, '.
-•'• , : , ' ., SOLVENT RECOVERY AND EVAPORATION SYSTEMS— Continued ,
••-,••• •- .'..'•'•'--.. •.••-•.-'.'• ''."-• ::..-'"' ".• •' ••'.•.-':'-. »-'•'" [tons/year] •';'"'..'..-• ••'"•'•'•. • .•.•..•••.-• . " :,-: -••-.••'" .;-- .-':,
-• _;•-..• .M, . ....; . •...,.'.•
D002 send D004-1t . mixed with other
codes .......„.;> .................
• Incineration
.— ;. -.
. .'.-,•• 9,054
Reuse as fuel
1,779
Stabilization
: ./ 9,017
Solvent recovery
.•'•' " •-.".' -. 45
•Evaporation
NA
Source: 1989 Biennial report: ' '• , . ; .. • '• ' .
NA=Not applicable. .;, ;.''--.-'•:'•. _-; : ... / \ "
TABLE IVT-2.—-QuANTiT>Es OF WASTES TREATED IN'ON-SITE INCINERATION, REUSE AS FUEL, AND STABILIZATION,
•„.,.'.'; .,'.-'.. SOLVENT/RECOVERY ANP EVAPORATION'SYSTEMS
'•• '•''. '"'"--• •"•• ..:-'"'-• '•' ".'•••• ..'-:• . lions/year] "•-...'. -'", - •';;-.-'.• - •"•
D001 Only ..:.....,. ......:.,
'D001 and D004-11 Only .;..... ......
D001 and D004r-11 Mixed with other
codes
D001 and F001-5 only '
.DOC1 and F001 -5 mixed with other
D001-2 ...............^
D002 Only
D002 and D004-1 1 Only
,0002 and 0004^11 mixed with other
• codes ............;,...... .....................
. Incineration.
NA
NA
NA
• NA
NA
108518
' 5,287
• '-•• 16
26,484
Reuse as fuel
NA
' NA
NA
NA
•-•"•'"•' NA
124807
3 372
0
46,638
Stabilization
420
">
1 266-
*~ f\&
'•'-:•. :
1 5>R
' h A
NA
. - - • , ' . 0
... lOl
. •• '; IMA'
, Source: 1989 Biennial report.
NA=Not applicable.
'2.1C Wastes Currently Deactivated
Covered By This Rule
.In'order to estimate the potential ,
quantities of 1C wastes affected by this
rule, EPA extracted data from the BRS
on 1C wastes managed in surface •?'
impoundments whose discharges are
not regulated under CWA or SDWA (as
explained above). Data from the BRS
indicates that 99.9% of all waste . ;
quantities .disposed of iii surface :
impoundments are discharged under
CWA or in SDWA Class I wells. EPA :
believes that 1C wastes are land :
disposed in-the same proportions as'
other wastes; therefore, EPA believes
that most 1C wastes that are placed in
surface impoundments are part of a
CWA system or sent to Glass I wells. •
Hie Agency estimates that
; approximately 1,000 tons of DOOl
. wastes may be managed in evaporation
systems—that is, wastes that are subject
' to today's rule. These wastes may
require alternative treatment capacity if
the underlying hazardous constituents
in these wastes are above F039
standards. EPA has not assigned these
quantities to treatment technologies
because of the lack of data on
constituent composition in these
evaporation systems; . . _
The Agency has also become aware of
wastewater treatment systems that are
not regulated under CWA/SDWA and
that may be impacted ,by this rule. (As
described earlier,":only those zero-
discharge facilities that do not provide
. CWA^equivalent_treatmi8nt would be ,
impacted by today's rule.} These
systems are generally state-regulated ,
through zero discharge, land
application, or ground-water protection
permits. State data received by EPA did :
not indicate whether the wastes'
discharged under these systems are 1C
wastes or contain decharacterfzed 1C
wastes or what constituent levels are
allowed in the state permits. .
Furthermore, state standards exist either
on a case-by-case basis or in general
form and are not necessarily consistent
across states.
States generally require treatment of
wastes regulated through no-discharge
permits. EPA has determined that many
• of these facilities-are providing
treatment similar to other facilities
whose discharges are regulated under
CWA. As_explained above, the Agency'
has determined that-such zero discharge
systems will be addressed at a future
date, along with similar CWA discharge
systems. The Agency believes that most,
of the wastes regulated by states through
: no-discharge, land application, or
ground-water protection permits receive
treatment similar to GWA discharge
systems and are therefore not covered
by this rule.
: In addition, deactivated 1C wastes that.
currently are disposed without CWA- :
equivalent treatment into UIG program1 /
: injection wells other than Class I wells
would be affected by today Vrule to the,;:
extent that these wastes do not mpet''.
F039 standards. In particular; • ^
comnienters to the Notice of Data
Availability voiced concerns about Class;
II and Class .V wells.-. . ':.'' •"''•
, As described in section I.F aboye, :
after an examination and evaluation of
the comments received on the Notice of
Data Availability, the Agency believes
that Class II UIC wells reinjecting'oil
and gas primary production wastes are
not newly impacted by this rule. .
"Data available, to EPA indicates that
there may be up to 200,000 industrial,
Class V wells. Because of the lack of
waste characterization data, it is not *
known how many of these wells receive
deactivated IC'wastes or would meet
F039,treatment standards before '
injection. Typical quantities of.wastes
injected'in these wells vary widely :
between 35 and 1,000 gallons per week. ,
EPAestimates that approximately . :
15,000 tons per year, of wastes injected
in Class V wells may contain ;
deactivated 1C wastes. This estimate
takes into account that some of these
wastes receive treatment prior to Class
V injection and are either likely to-meet
F039 standards or -to be CWA^ equivalent
-------
29878 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 / Monday, May 24, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
zaro dischargers (and thus not be
impacted by today's rule).
The Agency suspects that many of
those Class V wells fall under the Small
Quantity Generator (SQG) exclusion and
are conditionally exempt from RCRA
requirements, including the LDRs (see
268.1(e)(l)J. From the information
gathered, and comments received on the
Notice of Data Availability, EPA further
believes that a number of the deep Class
V wells treat their wastes prior to
injection, and thus would not be
affected by this rule if such a practice
would qualify them as a CWA-
equivalent facility.
3. Affected Facilities
Table IV-3 shows the number of
facilities which indicated in the BRS
that they treated D001 and D002 wastes
in incineration, reuse as fuel, solvent
recovery, stabilization, and evaporation
systems. The table shows both the
number of facilities managing 1C wastes
on-site and those treating wastes
received from off-site. These include
commercial treatment and company-
captive treatment facilities.
The first two rows of Table IV-3 show
the number of facilities which reported
sending waste streams carrying a D001
code, and any other D codes, but no
listed codes, to stabilization and
evaporation systems. The next three
rows show the number of facilities
which reported sending waste streams
carrying both the D001 and D002 codes,
and any other D codes, but no listed
codes, to incineration, reuse as fuel, and
solvent recovery systems. The last five
rows show the number of facilities
which reported sending waste streams
carrying a D002 code, and any other D
codes, but no listed codes, to
stabilization, incineration, reuse as fuel,
evaporation, and solvent recovery
systems.
Overall, Table IV-3 indicates that 73
facilities with on-site treatment systems
and 279 commercial and company-
captive facilities may be affected by this
rule. On-site treatment facilities may
have to reconfigure their current [ .
treatment systems to include additional
technologies. Commercial facilities i^re
also included as potentially affected
although EPA recognizes that these |
facilities have some discretion in their
decision to accept or reject wastes for
treatment.
EPA contacted state officials to obtain
information on non-CWA/SDWA
systems that are state-regulated through
zero discharge land application permits,
as discussed in the previous section!
Based on professional judgement, EPA
estimates that approximately 100
facilities regulated under these state;
programs may manage deactivated 1C
wastes.
Following discussions with regional
and state officials, EPA has determined
that the types of Class V industrial vlrells
that may be impacted by this rule are:
• Industrial process water and waste
disposal wells that are used to dispose
of a wide variety of wastes and
waste waters from industrial,
commercial, or utility processes.
Industries include refineries, chemical
plants, pharmaceutical plants,
laundromats and dry cleaners,
tanneries, laboratories, petroleum
storage facilities, electric power
generation plants, car washes,
electroplating industries! etc.
• Automobile Service Station
Disposal Wells that inject wastes from '
repair bay drains 'at service stations,
garages, car dealerships, etc.
However, the Agency believes that
many 'of these facilities are either Small
Quantity Generators (SQGs), or generate
1C wastes from de minimis losses of
ignitable or corrosive products, as
described in this rule, or treat their
wastes in CWA-equivalent systems •
before permanent disposal, and are
therefore not covered by this rule. Based
on contacts with regional and state
officials, EPA estimates that fewer than
100 facilities with Class V wells maybe
impacted. These include primarily
wastes from industrial facilities that are
not treated prior to injection, and wastes
from large repair/maintenance facilities.
, .The Agency solicits comment on
estimates, as well as additional
information on the numberof Class V
wells, the types of wastes, and the
volumes of such wastes injected.
TABLE IV-3.—NUMBER OF FACILITIES POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY THIS RULE
Type of waste
• . , • -
Waste streams carrying at least a D001 code, may have any other D code but no
Beted codes.
Waste streams carrying at least a D001 code, may have any other D code but no
feted codes.
Waste streams carrying at toast a D001 and D002 code, may have any other D
cods but no Hstod codes. . •
Waste streams carrying at least a D001 and D002 code, may have any other 0
coda but no listed codes.
Waste streams carrying at least a D001 and D002 code, may have any other D
cods but no listed codas.
Wasts streams carrying at least a D002 code, may have any other D code but no
Hstod codas.
Waste streams carrying at toast a D002 code, may have any other D code but no
listed codes.
Waste streams carrying at least a D002 code, may have any other D code but no
feted codos. •
Wasts streams carrying at toast a D002 code, may have any other D code but no
Bstod codes.
Waste streams carrying at toast a D002 code, may have any other D code but no
listed codas.
*ota! fiicititos affected on-slte and off-site ...-,..•. ....
Tyi
>e of treat-
ment
Stabilization
Evaporation
Incln
Raus
Solv
Stab
aration
a as fuel ...
mt recovery
lization
Incineration
Reusie as fuel ...
' I
Evaporation ,
Solvent recovery
All oil the above
,
Number of facili-
ties reporting on-
site treatment
4
3
22
9
i
8
44
11
7
4
73
'~: :; • .. '' •,:•!•••; :'••:.:.,•;• : •• >{.' V"
,•&.•"'.'•. .• '-!'.; ,.:.. .;:>".v • ' /-t'i'.
Number of facili-
ties receiving
wastes from off-
site -.-
64
3
89
31
27
93
206
67
2
78
279
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 / Monday, May 24, 1993-/ Rules and Regulations : 29B7&
TABLE IV-3.—NUMBER OF FACILITIES PoTBiriALLY IMPACTED BYjHjs/RULE-^oritinued
. "• •-• ." '•},•'. •'-•,"•••" ': :. Type pf waste ••••"•'- :- _ ' .-". -: • '..-". .-" ."'
Total numbar of unique facilities affected ..i........:...;..............,.....-. .
type of treat-
ment.
All of the above ,
Nurnber'of facili-
ties reporting on- i
site treatment
'•' .-'-. • '•• : ..' •''•• •'
Number of facili-
ties receiving
wastes frorn off-
site-
'338
1 This total, does not add up to the totals of the two columns because it includes facilities that report they treat wastes generated on-site as well
as received from off-site. Source of data; 1989 Biennial report. ;: : " ; ;
D. Variance Determinations • •
The Agency's analysis indicates that
the quantities of wastes potentially
affected by this rule is relatively small,
'*." approximately 30,000 tons per year.
EPA estimates that there is 750,000 tons
: of combustion capacity for liquids and
solids, and over 1,000,000 tons of
stabilization treatment capacity.
Therefore, a capacity extension is not
generally warranted. However, capacity
to provide additional treatment for these
wastes may not be immediately
available.Therefore, in order to allow
all generators and off-site treatrnent
facilities the time necessary to install
• additional treatment equipment that
" may be needed, and to perform the
necessary testing procedures to .
. ^determine whether their wastes are
affected by this rule, the Agency is "
granting a 90-day national capacity
variance from the effective date of this
rule to ignitable (Dobi) and corrosive
(D002) wastes covered under this
rulemaking. , ,
. As noted above, the Agency believes
that most of the Class V wells which
could be potentially impacted by this
rule either fall under the Small Quantity
- Generator (SQG) .exclusion and are
conditionally exempt from RCRA
requirements, including the LDRs (see
268.1(e)(l)), or have CWA-equivalent
:. 'treatment systems and are therefore not
affected by today's: rule. As an interim
measure, however, the Agency is
granting a national capacity variance :
.extending the effective date of today's "
rule for nine months from the date of
signature for decharacterized ignitable
and corrosive wastes injected into Class
V wells in order for the facility to .-'-•
determine: (1) If it is impacted; (2) to
develop appropriate on-site J
modifications for alternative treatment;
(3) to obtain off-site treatment; and, if
necessary, submit petitions for case-by-
. ; case capacity variances (see section IV
of this preamble); The Agency also
• solicits additional information on the
number of Class V wells, the types of
. wastes, and the volumes of such wastes
injected.-The Agency believes that it
would be prudent for these Class V
wells to apply for caserby-case
extensions' of the effective date during -r
this nine-month extension period.
The Agency wishes to emphasize that
deactivated 1C wastes regulated under
CWA/CWA-*quivalent/SDWA will be
addressed in future rulemakings.
Current-treatment standards for wastes
.- managed in these systems remain in
effect. ''•'": • -: . ;
V. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States • ••'".-' ;
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to '.'-•..
administer arid enforce .the RCRA
program within the State.^Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 3013,
and 7Q03.pf 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, niore stringent Federal
requirements were promulgated or
enacted, the State was obliged to enact
.equivalent authority within specified -
time frames. New Federal requirements
didnot.takeeffect as RCRA .."•'.'••
requirements in an authorized State
until the State adopted the requirements
as State law, and EPA approved the
State's revisions. '-.' •
In contrast, under RCRA section'
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new. •'_
requirements arid prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effectin 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 -.-
Federally authorized States in the : .-'••
interim.. •••' _•• ' ; !'..; .,:.;;./'
Today's rule-is being promulgated
pursuant to sections 3004 td) 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 thbir.
authprization 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 selMmpJementhig v
^provision of HSWA. '•_,• '
B. Effect on State Authorization .."--..-
As hoted,above, EPA is today
finalizing an interim rule that will be
implemented in non-authorized and
authorized States until their programs •
are modified to adopt these rules and '
the modification is approved by EPA.'
Because the rule is promulgated
pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a
program modifipation may apply to
receive either interim or final' • _ .
authorization, under RCRA section
,3006(g)(2)-or 3006(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 authorization are ,
described in 40 CFR 27i;21.
.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 1,1994,;
because this rulemaking was finalized
on or before June 30, 1993. This."
deadline can be extended in certain-
cases (see § 27i.21(e)(3)). Once EPA ' ,
approves the modification, the State
requirements'become Subtitle CRCRA
requirements, and the State assumes
responsibility for this implementation.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have "
-------
29830 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 / Monday, May 24, 1393 / Rules and Regulations
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
and enforce their standards as a matter
of Stato 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 take separate
actions under Federal authority.
States that submit their first official
applications for final authorization less
than 12 months after the effective date
of those 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
§ 271.21 (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 finalised today
need not affect the State's Underground
Injection Control (UIC) primacy status.
VI. Regulatory Requirements
A, Economic Impact Screening Analysis
Pursuant to Executive Order 12291
Executive Order No. 12291 requires
that a regulatory agency consider for
each regulation the potential benefits as
compared to the potential costs to
society. To this end, for all major rules,
a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
must be conducted. An RIA is a
quantification of the potential benefits,
costs, and economic impacts of a rule.
A major rule is defined as a regulation
estimated to result in:
• An annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more; or
• 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 on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
The Agency conducted a screening
analysis to learn whether the costs
incurred under the today's rule exceed
$100 million annually, thus making it a
major rule. EPA determined that the
incremental cost of the rule is between
$8 and $13 .million per year. Because
today's rule is a minor rule, the Agency!
has prepared an Economic Impact
Screening Analysis (EIA), analyzing the|
costs and economic impacts of the rule,
The Agency has not performed a
quantification of the benefits
attributable to today's rule.
The discussion which follows
addresses the methodology and results
of the EIA. The methodology section
summarizes the approach taken for
determining the volumes, costs and
economic impacts associated with
today's rule. The results section
describes the results for the volume,
cost and economic impact estimations,
A more detailed description of the
methodology and results sections may
be found in the "Economic Impact
Analysis for the Interim Final Rule in
Response to the Third Third Court
Case," which has been placed in the
docket for today's rule.
I. Methodology
a. Estimation of Affected Volumes—
Overview. The volume addressed in
today's rule covers the ignitable (D001).
and corrosive (D002) (1C) wastes with
hazardous constituents at levels greater
than the F039 treatment standards that
are managed at facilities other than
those whose discharge is regulated
under the CWA, zero-discharge facilities
engaging in CWA-equivalent treatment
prior to land disposal, and facilities
injecting these wastes into Class I deep
injection wells regulated under the
SDWA. Because of differences in
baseline and post-regulatory
management practices for D001 and
D002 liquids and treatment residuals,,
EPA considered these three subsets of '
affected wastes separately in its
analysis.
The Agency relied heavily on three
sources of information to develop an
estimate of the waste volumes affected
by today's rule. The 1989 BRS provided[
D001 and D002 quantities as reported to
EPA by large quantity generators. EPA |
used the 198S Treatment, Storage,
Disposal and Recycling Facility Survey
(TSDR) and 1989 telephone survey
update performed by OSW to help
estimate the proportions of (1) liquid
wastes discharged directly (i.e., without
placement in a land based unit) under |
the CWA, and (2) liquid wastes placed
in a surface impoundment with no
discharge. Thirdly, EPA used responses:
to the Questionnaire for Facilities that j
Land Dispose Newly-Identified Organic
TC Wastes (referred to hereafter as the
1992 TC Survey) to update wastewater
management information collected for
the TSDR and the subsequent 1989
telephone update. A more detailed
description of the Agency's volume
estimation process is described in the
background document in the docket for
today's rule.
It should be noted that in estimating
the affected volumes for today's rule
there is a volume of D001 and D002
never reported as hazardous waste in
the Agency's survey data. While the
Agency performed a sensitivity analysis
to determine how this imreported
quantity may increase the impact of
today's rule, the lack of data presented
limitations to the analysis.
b. Estimation of Affected Volumes—
Liquids. The Agency employed the BRS
to identify, using information on
treatment practices for liquids, which
liquids could potentially be managed on
the land. EPA then used factors to
approximate the quantities of liquids:
(1) that could be placed on the land, and
(2) that would not be managed in
systems regulated under the CWA/
CWA-equivalent/SDWA not affected by
today's rule. To determine these factors,
' the Agency reviewed waste management
information from the TSDR, as modified
by the 1989 telephone update. The
Agency then employed information
collected as part of the 1992 TC Survey
which indicated that 8 of the 10 largest
generators of potentially land-disposed
liquids, as reported in the 1989 BRS, no
longer had surface Impoundments. EPA
linked this information to the
management information contained in
the TSDR, and determined that in
general only 13 percent of liquids are
managed in surface impoundments
during treatment, storage or disposal.
. Therefore, EPA multiplied all the D001
and D002 liquid volumes it obtained
from the BRS by 13 percent to estimate
the quantities of D001 and D002 likely
managed on the land.
In developing a generic factor to
estimate quantities of D001 and D002
liquids affected by today's rule, the
Agency first assumed that any liquids in
the 1986 TSDR survey denoted as being
managed in treatment or storage
impoundments were being managed in
those units temporarily, and would
eventually be discharged pursuant to
CWA regulations. Furthermore, EPA
assumed that liquids denoted in the
TSDR as being managed in surface
impoundments with no discharge were
• managed in those units permanently
and would not be regulated under these
two statutes. Based on these two ' •-.'.-..
assumptions of surface impoundment
-------
federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 98 / Monday. May 24, 1993 / Rutes and Regulations \ 29881
management, EPA estimated that one
percent of the liquids managed in land-
based units are permanently managed in
these units, and are not subsequently
discharged through systems regulated
under the CWA or SDWA, or receiving
CWA-equivalent treatment. Therefore,
by combining its two factors (i.e., 13
percent and 1 percent), EPA estimated
that, in general, only 0.13 percent of
potentially land-disposed liquids in the
1989 BRS would be affected by today's
rule, EPA applied this percentage
generically to all 1C waste to determine
the waste quantities for its cost analysis.
c. Estimation of Affected Volumes—.
Residuals. As EPA has specified
; treatment methods for D001 wastes,
which if used remove the burden of
testing for compliance, .the Agency is
assuming that the only costs incurred
under today's rule for the treatment of
residues will be incurred for those
residues generated from the treatment of
D002 wastes. To determine the quantity
of residuals affected by today's rule, the,
.Agency used the 1989 BRS data to
identify the volumes of D002 liquids,
sludges, and solids currently going to
three categories of treatment:
incineration, fuel substitution, and
recovery of organics. EPA then
developed residual factors for the
combinations of waste, forms and . • .,• • ,
treatment categories.-EPA assumed, as
an upper bound, that at least one
.constituent concentration in the
residuals would exceed the treatment
standards in every case. However,
because the treatment technologies
currently being employed to treat DOQ2
. are effective in destroying or removing
organics,'EPA assumed that these .;
residuals would only require -
/stabilization to reduce leachable levels
of metals, mother words, EPA assumed
that all residuals would fail the
treatment standards, but only for metals,
and therefore would require treatment
in the form of stabilization in all cases, •
EPA considered the solid fraction of
waste only, expecting that any facility
with substantial liquid residuals will
already have a treatment system .
regulated under the CWA or SDWA.
d. Estimation of Affected Volumes-^-
Affected Class V Wells, To estimate the ."
volumes of waste from the .affected Class
V wells, the Agency drew from volume
estimates prepared by the Office of
Waiter for work on a Class V injection
well,proposed'rule. The volume ""••;-
estimating process is described in
greater detail in the "Economic Impact
Analysis for the Interim Final Rule in
Response to the Third Third Court
Case," which has been placed in the
docket for today's rule; :
The Agency used estimates of the
number of wells affected, and the
disposal rate of waste for model wells in
order to develop an estimate of the total
annual disposal rate of waste in tons, per
years for the Class V wells. Next, EPA
approximated the percentage of this
total volume which would be 1C waste,
and thus potentially covered under
today's rule. This approximation was
derived using the 1989 BRS Summary
Report and the 1990 RIA for the Third
. Third LDR. This interim result
represents the total annual amount of 1C
waste disposed in Class V wells. Using
this result, the Agency estimated those
volumes which are managed under the
small quantity exemption, and therefore
would not be affected by today's rule.
Further, EPA estimated the volumes
which have hazardous constituents
below F039 levels, and so would also
not be affected by today's rule. The
resultant volume represents the total :
amount of Class V injected 'waste ,
affected by today's rule.
e. Estimation of Costs Incurred—
Liquids, Residuals and Affected Class V
V/ells. To estimate the range of costs
expected to .be. incurred as a result of .
today's rule, the. Agency developed ^
baseline and post-regulatory ' \ '
management assumptions for 1C wastes.
The incremental costs of the rule are.'..
"derived by comparing baseline costs
with the costs resulting under the post- ,
regulatory scenario.
The baseline waste management
scenario for all 1C waste is assumed to ;
be deactivation followed :by subtitle D .
disposal. Treatment to comply with .
.standards set in; today's rule will vary
widely, depending on the chemical
composition and physical form of the
waste. Because of data limitations, it is
.impossible to predict exact treatment
technologies which would be employed
by waste management facilities; thus,
the Agency relied on assumptions to -
estimate the upper-bound of the post^
regulatory compliance cost.
The Agency employed an;upper-
bound estimate that all facilities .'.-[
managing wastewaters in non-CWA/
nori-:CWA-equivalent/non-SDWA
systems would incur the cost of ;
switching from land-based units to ,
tanks. This approach overestimates the
true cost for those facilities that choose •
rather to employ treatment and testing-
where found to be less costly than
replacement with tanks. For certain :
facilities where replacement with tanks
is not an option.-however, this approach
may not be overestimate. The Agency
developed cost-functions for "
replacement with-tanks. These detailed ,
assumptions are presented in the .
"Economic Impact Analysis for the :; \_ .-
Interim Final Rule in* Response to the
Third Third Court Case.""
For the residuals from thermal
treatment (e.g., incineration, reuse as
fuel, solvent recovery), the Agency
assigned stabilization treatment to the
total volume of residual, followed by
subtitle D disposal of the stabilized
mass. The Agency used a range of ' .
/stabilization unit costs between $108/ •
ton and $210/ton, to estimate the cost of :
residuals management under today's
rule. However, as the $2lO/ton cost '
. includes subtitle C disposal, it should
be viewed as a high bound cost.
For the last category of wastes :-
address'ed under today's rulerthe wastes
attributed to Glass V wells, the Agency
used the. total volume estimate
developed above with a unit.cost of
. $240 per ton-of waste treated to produce
a total cast estimate for the rule. This
approach was required due to the lack
of data and time for the analysis of Class
V wells, The $240 per ton is for the
post-regulatory treatment technology,
and is equivalent to many technologies
which might be chosen, such as: • :
chemical precipitation', carbon
absorption or biological treatment. As
the Agency has not been able to focus -.'.--
on the exact volume affected by today's
rule, nor does the Agency have, ,
knowledge on the possible treatments
used in the post-regulatory scenario,;
this estimate is a high-bound estimate
.for the Class V wells. . : .
f..Estimation of Costs Incurred-—
Testing, Costs. There could lie analytic
costs incurred under today's rule for
residues from treating D002 wastes, and -
for D001 wastes not treated by -.--••-'
combustion or reclamation technologies.
While some managers of potentially
affected DOp land D002 wastes and
residues may ultimately use
professionalknowledge to determine
whether they meet the treatment ,
standards^ testing -will "-.likely be
necessary for-a short period following .
promulgation of today's rule."
The Agency believes that the testing
costs in the long-term will be negligible, :
as it is believed that facilities \vill.shift ;
• to using professional knowledge .
following initial testing. In addition, the
facilities not using a specified method,
and thus require testing, may only •", .
, require testing for the .presence of•••-,-
metals. However> the Agency has • .
. estimated a high-bound cost for testing
. assuming that half of the affected :
facilities would perform testing, rather i
than using professional knowledge.
With the cost of testing for all;F039 .;
constituents estimated to be:$30pO per ,:
test, the Agency determined-a total; :•-•'.'...
annual testing cost figure of-" •/:. -\:..•<'. ••.,•--•••'
approximately$lnii}libn. ^ •-••'.* vi-v^ i.-/
-------
•'•' •'Li1'- ' '''U •'|'i>'' -''I,' .*'i
-------
Federal Register f Vol. 58, No. 98 /.Monday, May 24, 1993 / jlules and Regulations 29383
Given these three factors.lhe Agency
was unable to frame a series of small
entity options from which to select the
lowest cost approach; rather^ the Agency
was legally bound to one approach. It
can only be stated that minimal impacts
are i anticipated for small entities under
the approach employed in dealing with
the issues in today's rule. ,.
C, Paperwork Reduction Act
With the exception of the requirement
to include the underlying hazardous
constituents on the notification, the \
information collection requirements in
this rule have been approved by the
Office of Management and Budget,
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and have
been assigned control number 2050-
0085. '•--•-_ " , .
, The information collection':
requirements associated with the -
amended notification requirements,
.requiring generators and treaters of
certain D001 and D002 wastes to-
include the underling hazardous
constituents on the notification, have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. These
requirements are not effective until
OMB approves them and a technical
amendment to that effect is published in
the Federal Register. An Information
Collection Request document has been
prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1442.05) and
a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer, Information Policy Branch,
EPA, 401 M Street, SW,(PM-223Y),
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling
(202)260-2740. • "" ^~. " .
Publie reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
average about 3 to 6 hours per response
for .generators and 3 hours' per response
for treaters, including time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the
required data, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
. Send comrnents regarding the burden
estmate 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."
VII. Interim Final Rule Justification
EPA finds that there is good cause to
issue this rule as an interim final rule,
without having first proposed it. (The
Agency notes, however that the Notice
of Data Availability and the ::
accompanying Supplemental . ;
Information Report did provide
substantial notice to affected parties of,
and an opportunity to comment on, the .-•
types of action the Agency is taking
.here, and specifically put persons on
notice that there might not be any ' ;
further opportunity for public comment
before the Agency took final action.
Thus, it is not clear that EPA is required
to invoke the good cause exception to
the Administrative^Procedure Act's -
notice and comment requirement's. (5
U.S.G, 553 (b)(3)(B).), Because the, '
treatment standards'for certain ignitable.
and corrosive wastes were vacated, once
the courts mandate issues, .a situation
will exist whereby those wastes cannot
be land disposed (except in no-
migration units) unless EPA
repromulgates a treatment standard.
This.creates a bonafide: emergency, .'".
because without a legal means to
dispose of wastes, production would
have tp stop. It is impractical to follow
notice and.comment rulemaking
procedures in time to "avoid this result,
and thus the good cause exemption is.'.
justified. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B);
It has been.argued that EPA could stay
the prohibition to prevent this situation
from arising. The Agency disagrees.,In
the first place, EPA believes that the'. _
prohibition that is operating is not
merely regulatory but statutory as well,,
since it involves wastes that were
covered (for this purpose) by RCRA
section 30p4(g)(5) and the absolute
grohibition (generally termed the hard
ammer) in RCRA 3004{g)(6)(C).s See
976 F.2d at 18-19 ("[Congress] has ,
chosen to enforce Jthe statutory .
deadlines] by decreeing that any
hazardous waste that is not covered by
a valid regulation within the dale
specified will be denied land disposal"
(emphasis added).) Second, even
5 For reasons discussed below in the preamble
text, the Agency reads the hard hammer as applying
to characteristic as well as listed wastes. This has
been the Agency's position on the issue, see, e.g.,
56 FR at 41165 (Aug. 19,1991), and,reflects
Congressional intent. Hi Rep. No. 1133, 98th Gong.
2d Sess. at 88 (Conference Report). The Agency is
aware of arguments that the hard hammer provision
need not apply here, either because the Agency has
'already met its obligations by issuing rules for .
characteristic wastes, or because the hard hammer
can be read as not applying to characteristic wastes.
The Agency does not find these arguments •'
persuasive. In the end, there'is no reason that
prohibitions should operate differently for
characteristic arid listed wastes. Furthermore, the
necessary consequence of these arguments is that
characteristic wastes <;ould be disposed for a :
relatively indefinite period without>aving to be
treated to satisfy the RCRA 3004(m) standard, even
though the section 3004(g)(5) prohibition date has
passed. The Agency does not believe that the statute
can reasonably be interpreted to give this result.
without invoking the hard hammer, EPA
does not believe the statute allows a
situation whereby a prohibition date has
passed, and wastes covered by that
prohibition cari be land disposed
without ^treatment (unless, of course, the
•wastes are subject to some type of -
capacity variance or are beirig disposed
in a no-migration unit). Yet this is the :
necessary consequence, of arguing that
EPA may permissibly stay a prohibition
,once the prohibition date has passed.
Consequently, it is the Agency's view,
that,unless it issues treatment standards-
to replace those vacated by the court, -
there would be an, absolute prohibition
of land disposal of the affected wastes,
and that in light of this, there is good
, cause to; issue the/present interim final
rule restoring treatment standards for '
those wastes^6 , , .. ;•'. • (,
List of Subjects :
,40CFRPqrt264 : '.; . •
Hazardous waste; ^Packaging and
containers,'Reporting and recordkeaping
requirements. • . - -;.. :
40 CFR Part 265 -•'.'..-
Hazardous waste. Packaging and
^containers. : ' _ ,\. '-,-"-.' '•
40 CFR Part 268 , -', -'.'."-
Hazardous waste, Reporting and •
recordkeeping requrrements. .-'-.:.
40 CFR fart 270 '" ' .:'
Administrative practice and >••-'•
procedure, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Reporting and recprdkeeping
requirements. • ; , '' "' :.
40CFRPgrt271 —v f ':•:..'.. •
Administrative practice and
procedurej Hazardous materials •
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements., _, • ,:
Dated: May 10,1993: '1 '. '
Carol M. Browner, ' ,i ; : ;
Administrator. ' , -
'• For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows: :. •
'At the least, this is a permissible 'interpretation',
of the land disposal statutory provisions, which in
essence command that prohibited wastes be .
pretreated before land disposal, and make this a
paramount statutory objective (R031A sections
1002(b)(7.) and 1003(a)(6)) ;, •
-------
29884 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 / Monday, May 24, 1993 / Rules and Regulations
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR OWNER
AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
and 6925.
2. Section 264.1, paragraph (g)(6) is
rovisod to read as follows:
1264.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
******
(g) * * *
(6) The owner or operator of an
elementary neutralization unit or a
wastowator treatment unit as defined in
§ 260.10 of this chapter, provided that if
the owner or operator is diluting
hazardous ignitable (D001) wastes (other
than the D001 High TOG Subcategory
defined in § 268.42, Table 2, of this
chapter), or corrosive (D002) waste, to
remove the characteristic before land
disposal, the owner/operator must
comply with the requirements set out in~
§264,17(b) of this part.
PART 265-1NTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
3, The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6924,
and 6925.
4. Section 265.1, paragraph (c)(10) is
revised to read as follows:
% 265.1 Purpose, scop* and applicability.
******
(c) • * -
(10) The owner or operator of an
elementary neutralization unit or a
wastewater treatment unit as defined in
§ 260.10 of this chapter, provided that if
the owner or operator is diluting
hazardous ignitable (D001) wastes (other
than the D001 High TOG Subcategory
defined in § 268.42, Table 2, of this
chapter), or corrosive (D002) waste, in
order to remove the characteristic before
land disposal, the owner/operator must
comply with the requirements set out in
§265.17(b).
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
5. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921,
and 6924.
6. In § 268.1, paragraphs (e) (4) and (5)
are added to read as follows:
§268.1 Purpose, scope/and applicability.
(e) * * •
(4) De minimis losses to wastewa
er
treatment systems of commercial
chemical product or chemical
intennediates that are ignitable (D001),
or corrosive (D002), and that contain
underlying hazardous constituents as
defined in § 268.2 of this part, are mot
considered to be prohibited wastes. De
minimis is defined as losses from
normal material handling operations
(e.g. spills from the unloading or |
transfer of materials from bins or other
containers, leaks from pipes, valves or
other devices used to transfer materials);
minor leaks of process equipment, .
storage tanks'or containers; leaks from
well-maintained pump packings and
seals; sample purgings; and relief device
discharges.
(5) Land disposal prohibitions do not
apply to laboratory wastes displaying
the characteristic of ignitability (D0lj)l)
or corrosSvity (D002), that are
commingled with other plant
wastewaters under designated
circumstances: ignitable and corrosive
laboratory wastes containing underlying
hazardous constituents from laboratory
operations, that are mixed with other
plant wastewaters at facilities whose
ultimate discharge is subject to
regulation under the CWA (including
wastewaters at facilities which have;
eliminated the discharge of wastewtfter),
provided that the annualized flow of
laboratory wastewater into-the facility's
headwork does not exceed one percent,
or provided that the laboratory wastes'
combined annualized average
concentration does not exceed one part
per million in the facility's headwork.
7. In § 268.2, paragraph (i) is added to
read as follows:
§ 268.2 Definitions applicable in this port
* * * * . * I
(i) Underlying hazardous constituent
means any regulated constituent present
at levels above the F039 constituent-
specific treatment standard at the point
,of generation of the hazardous wasto.
8. In § 268.7, the introductory text of
paragraph (a), and paragraphs (a)(l)(ii)
and (b)(4)(ii) are revised to read as
follows:
§ 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeeplng.
(a) Except as specified in § 268.32 if
a generator's waste is listed in 40 CI[R
part 261, subpart D, the generator must
test his waste, or test an extract using
the test method described in part 261,
appendix II of this chapter, or use
knowledge of the waste, to determine if
the waste is restricted from land
disposal under this part. Except as
specified in § 268.32, if a generator's
waste exhibits one or more of the
characteristics set out at 40 CFR part
261, subpart C of this chapter, the ,
generator must test an extract using the
test method described in appendix IX of
this part, or use knowledge of the waste,
to determine if the waste is restricted
from land disposal under this part. If the
generator determines that his waste
displays the characteristic of ignitability
(D001) (and is not in the High TOG
Ignitable Liquids Subcategory or is not
treated by INCHN. FSUBS, or RORGS of
§ 268.42, Table l), or the characteristic
of corrosivity (D002), and is prohibited
under § 268.37, the generator must
determine what underlying hazardous
constituents (as defined in § 268.2 of
this part), are reasonably expected to be
present in the D001 or D002 waste.
(1)
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-F005, F039,
wastes prohibited pursuant to § 268.32
or RCRA section 3004(d), and for
underlying hazardous constituents (as
defined in § 268:2 of this part), in D001
and D002 wastes if those wastes are
prohibited under § 268.37 of this part.
Treatment standards for all other
restricted wastes must either be
included, or be referenced by including
on the notification the applicable!
wastewater (as defined in §268.2(0) or
nonwastewater (as defined in § 268,2(d))
category, the applicable subdivisions
made within a waste code based on
waste-specific criteria (such as D003. ,
readtive cyanides), and the CFR ,
sectiori(s) and paragraph(s) where the
applicable treatment standard appears.
Where the applicable treatment
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in § 268.42, the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of § 268.42 (e.g., INCIN, WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification.
* '*'•*, * * , . ' • ;
(b) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-F005, F039,
wastes prohibited pursuant to § 268.32
or RCRA section 3004(d), and for
underlying hazardous constituents (as
defined in § 268.2 of this part), in D001
and D002 wastes if those wastes are
prohibited under § 268.37 of this part.
Treatment standards for all other
restricted wastes must either be ;
included, or be referenced by including
on the notification the applicable
wastewater (as defined in § 268.2(f)) or
nonwastewater (as defined in § 268.2(d))
-------
Federal Register / yd•/58.^!ife.:1^•6:•y•rMQad^;i-:Ma^./24,.^l993^'•y R&es anH:Regulations 29885
category, the applicable subdivisions
made-.within.' a waste code based on
waste-specific criteria (suehasDOOS
reactive cyanides), and the CFR
section(s) and paragraph(s) where the
applicable treatment standard appears.
Where .the applicable treatment .
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in § 268.42, the.applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of §268.42 (e.g., iNON. WETOX) also
must be included on the notification.
'.*- * * * * "'• '•' . I1'"'.
9, In § 268.9, paragraph (a) is revised
to read as follows:
-: ->./.' . . .'- -
§ 268.9 Spaclal rules regarding wastes that
exhibit a characteristic.
(a) The initial generator of a solid
waste .must determine each EPA.
Hazardous Waste Number (waste code)
applicable to the waste in order to
determine the applicable treatment
standards under subpart D of this part.
For purposes of part 268, the wast? will
carry the waste code for any.applicable
listing under 40 CFR part 261, subpart
D. In addition, the waste will carry one
or more of the waste codes under 40
CFR part 261, subpart C, where the
waste exhibits a characteristic, except in
the case when the treatment standard
for the waste code listed in 40 CFR part
261, subpart D operates in lieu, of the
standard for the waste code under 40
CFR part 261, subpart C, as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section. If the
generator determines that his waste
displays the characteristic of ignitability
(DOOl) (and is not in the High TOG
Ignitable Liquids Subcategory or is not
treated by INCEN, FSUBS, or RORGS of
§ 268;42, Table 1), or the characteristic .
of corrosivity (D002), and is prohibited
tinder § 268.37 of this Part, the generator
must determine what underlying
hazardous constituents (as defined in
§ 268.2 of this Part), are reasonably
expected to be present in the D001 or
D002 waste.
'. * *_•-"*•'-'"• *. ' *' .- ":,-.
10. Section 268.37: is added to read ais
follows:
§268.37 Waste specific prohibitions—
ignitabte and corrosive characteristic >
wastes whose treatment standards were
vacated. " • "•. ••;•-"' •"•--.. .
(a) Effective August 9,1993, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.21 as
DOOl (and is riot in the High TOG.
Ignitable Liquids Subcategory), and -
specified in §261:22 as D002, that are
managed in systems other than those •
whose discharge is regulated under the
Clean Water Act (CWA), or that inject in
Class I deep wells regulated under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SOWA), or ,
that are zero dischargers that engage in
CWA-equivalent treatment before
ultimate land disposal, are prohibited
from land disposal. CWA-equivalent
treatment means bi ologieal treatment for
organics, alkaline ehlorination or
ferrous sulfate precipitation for cyanide,
precipitation/sedimentation for metals,
reduction of hexavalent chromium, or
other treatment technology that can be
demonstrated to perform equally at
greater than these technologies. .-
(b) Effective February 10,1994, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.21 as
.DOOl (and is not in the High TOG
Ignitable Liquids Subcategory), and
specified in §261.22 as D002, that are
managed in systems defined in 40 CFR
144.6(e) and 146.6(e) as Class V ,
injecjion wells, that do not engage in,
CWA-equivalent treatment before
injection, are prohibited from land
disposal. * •• ••-.'•." ""• - ,
11. In §268.40, paragraph (b) is.
'revised to read as follows: •
§268.40 Applicability of treatment
standards. .-•'.' -' .
'*. * . '• ;* _.-*-•*"",' ' ':
(b) A restricted waste for which a
treatment technology is 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). For waste
displaying the characteristic of
ignitability (DOOl) and reactivity (D003),
that are diluted to meet the deactivation
treatment standard in § 268.42(a) Tables
1 and 2 (DEACT), the treater.must
comply with the precautionary
measures specified in 40 GFR 264.17(b)
and 265,l7(b) of this chapter. :
*",' * • "' * _•.'*.-:.:'.* ' _ ";'-. -. '-.. ;.
li.In§268.41{a),TableCCWE,:the ;
entry for F039 is amended by revising
the "Waste code",and the "See also"
columns to read as follows: -
§268.41 Treatment standards expressed
as concentrations In waste extract.
268.41 TABLE CCWE,—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS;IN WASTE/EXTRACT
Waste code
Commercial
chemical See also -
name :..-
Regulated
hazardous
• , . -
CAS No. for
regulated.
'". -, Wastewaters
Concentra-
"tion (mg/l) ,
Notes
Nonwastewaters .- -.
Cohcentra-
tjoh (mg/l)
• - , ; "' ' "
Notes
F039 (and D001
and D002
wastes prohib-
ited under •
§268.37). :
Table 2 in 268.42,
and Table CCW
in 268.43.
13. In § 268.42,(a) the entries for DOOl
and D002 in Table 2 are revised to read
as follows: . . •
§ 268.42 .Treatment standards expressed
as specified technologies. :
'(a) '*•* * :" ..-• ';. • ---•';'' ;; ...
-------
29883 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 98 /Monday, May 24J 1993 / Rules .and Regulations
268.42 TABLE 2.—TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS BY RCRA WASTE CODE
Waste
code
.. ,. •
See also Waste descriptions and/or treatment subcategory
CAS No.
feted haz-
ardous
constitu-
ent
Technology code
, Wastewaters Nonwastawaters
DOOt .. Table CCWE In 268.41 A|! descriptions based on 40 CFR 261.21, except
and Table CCW In for the,§261.21 (a){1) High TOG subcategory,
268,43. managed in. hon-CWA/non-CWA-eqglvalent/
non-Class I SDWA systems.
D001
NA .................................. All descriptions based on, 40 CFR 261.21, except
for the §261.21(a)(1) High TOG subcategory,
managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, or Class I
SDWA systems. . . • '
All descriptions based on 40 CFR 261^1(a)(1)—
High TOG Ignitable Liquids Subcategory—
Greater than or equal to 10% total organic car-,
bon. '
Acid, alkaline, and other subcategory based on
261.22 managed in non-CWA/non-CWA-equlv-
alant/non-Class I SDWA systems.
D002 .. NA ..... . ............................ Acid, alkaline, and other subcategory based on
261.22 managed In CWA, CWA-equivalent, or
Class I SDWA systems.
NA .......
D001
D002..
Tabls CCWE In 268.41
and Table CCW In
268.43.
NA
NA
NA
NA
DEACT, and DEAGT, and meet F039;
meet F039r or or FSUBS; RORGS;
FSUBS; . or INCIN.
RORGS; or
INCIN.
DEACT DEACT.
NA
DEACT and
meet F039.
DEACT
FSUBS; RORGS; or
INCIN.
DEACT and meet F039.
DEACT.
Note: NA means Not Applicable.
14. In §268.43{a), Table CCW, the entry for F039 is amended by ^revising the "Waste code" and the "See also"
columns to read as follows: j . .
% 268.43 Treatment standards expressed as waste concentrations.
(a) - • -
268.43 TABLE CCW.—CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTES
Waste coda
*
F039(and
DOOIand ,
D002 wastes
prohibited
under
§268.37).
*
Commercial
chemical
name
*
* • *
*
Regulated
See also hazardous
constituent
* '
Table 2 In
268.42, and
Table
CCWE in
268.41.
*
CAS No. for
'Wastewaters, Nonwastewaters
hazardous Concentra- tjnto~ Concentra- Mnfoa
constituent tfoi^ (mg/l) N0les tion (mg/1) Moras
"-.-. ' ' ~;
...
" ^.:->. -!;:. '••'•^' . • - '••;,:' ' •• ' ; \ ..•.••'
* * ' »''*.«' ''.**'*', "" ''**».
PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT PROGRAM
15. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as follows: . . . ' ,
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912. 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and 6974. | -
16. In §270.42, Appendix I is amended by redesignating item B{l)(c) as B(l)(d), removing the seconcl item B(ij(b),
and adding item B(l)(c) to read as follows: • ,,[ ,
-------
Federal Register / VoL 58, No; 98 / Monday, May 24, l993; / Rules >and Regulation^ ;; 29887
Appendix I to Section 270.42— i
Classification of Permit Modifications
Modifications .'. =
Class Authority: 42 U.S.G, 6905.6912(a),^rid ;
6926. ••-',.-.'
Modifications
Class
B. General Facility Standards: '
•<••*** . . ."',"*"-•.' ,. - ., . '
c. To incorporate changes associ-
ated with underlying hazardous
constituents in ignltable or corro-
• sive wastes .',........ ......,..„ ;;
,*i ^:-., . '. _..."- ,- '. -"" "• —— Subpart A—Requirements for Final
:v 'Class 1 Modifications requiring prior Authorization
Agency approval. . - . ,
." '' , . -;.'"•' 18, Section 271.1(j) is amended by
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR adding the following entries in -
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE chronological Order to Table 1 and'.Table-
HAZARDQUS WASTE PROGRAMS 2: : ^ : 1
17. The authority citation for part 271 .* '„
continues to read as follows: : ,';. .- »
- • ,.• -.-..."..-- ; :--..•..•••.-. -0)
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promuli
Honda
Title of regulation
Federal Register reference
Effective date
May 24,
1993.
Land djsposal restrictions for characteris- ..{Insert Federal Register page numbers] August 9 1993
ticwastes whose treatment standards :. . , ' :
-werevacated. : . " .' " A •'-.••
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Self-implementing provision .:RCRA citation. : Federal Register reference
Effective
date
August 9,
1993.
,--. t' • - • S
Prohibition on land disposal of char- 3004(g)(6){c)
acteriste, wastes' whose treatment
standards were vacated.
-•'--"-. *.
May 24, 1§93 [insert FR page nurnbersj.
IFRDoc. 93-J1877 Filed 5-21^93; 8:45 am]
BILUNQ CODE eS60-50-p • • •
-------
\
------- |