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   •       •   •

-------
\

-------