28506 FederaJ Register / Vol. 58, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 1993 / Rules tod Regulations SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 29,1992, proposed rules regarding designated bicycle routes within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area were published in the Federal Register (57 FR 3392). After consideration of public comments, the final regulation was published in the FederalRegister on December 11,1992 (57 FR 58711). In both the proposed and final rulemaking documents, the location description of the Alta Avenue trail, designated as open to bicycle use in the "Supplementary Information" section of the rule, was incorrect. This notice corrects the location description of this trail, found on page 56712, middle column, of the December 11, 1992 issue of the Federal Register, from "Alta Avenue between Wolf Back Ridge Road and Marin City", to "Alta Avenue between Bobcat Trail and Marin City." This correction neither changes the total of 46.9 miles of trail currently designated as opened to bicycle use, and published on page 58712 of the preamble to the final regulation, nor changes the location of designated trails as marked on the maps in the Trail Use Designation Plan on file in the office of the Superintendent In addition, this correction does not affect the final regulatory text, and neither increases nor diminishes the superintendent's authority to designate routes on which bicycle use is permitted, pursuant to 36 CFR 7.97. Designation of this open trail by the superintendent shall be accomplished pursuant to 36 CFR 7.97(c) of the final regulation, as published at 57 FR 58716. Dated: April 30,1993. John H. Davis, Associate Director. Operations. [FR Doc. 93-11522 Filed 5-13-93; 8:45 am] MUMO CODE 4310-70-M NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 36 CFR Part 1232 RIN309S-AA18 Audiovisual Records Management AGENCY: National Archives and Records Administration, ACTION; Final rule. SUMMARY: This final rule corrects the title of the National Audiovisual Center in 36 CFR 1232.6 to the Multimedia and Publications Distribution Division to reflect a reorganization. No substantive changes are made to the section. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on May 14,1993. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Ann Palmos or Nancy Allard on 202-501-5110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is being promulgated as a final rule without a prior notice of proposed rulemaking as allowed by section 553(b)(A) of the Administrative Procedures Act for rules pertaining solely to agency organization. This rule is not a major rule for the purposes of Executive Order 12291 of February 17,1981. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, it is hereby certified that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on small entities. List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1232 Archives and records. For the reason set forth in the preamble, NARA is amending 36 CFR part 1232 to read as follows: 1. The authority citation for part 1232 continues to read as follows: Authority: 44 U.S.C 2904 and 3101. §1232.6 [Amended] 2. In § 1232.6, in the first sentence, remove "(NAC)" and, wherever else they appear in the section, remove the titles "National Audiovisual Center". "NAC". and "Center's" and add, in their place, the title "Multimedia and Publications Distribution Division", the title "the Multimedia and Publications Distribution Division", and "Division's" respectively. Dated: May 10,1993. Trudy Huskamp Peterson, Acting Archivist of the United States. (FR Doc. 93-11510 Filed 5-13-93; 8:45 am] B4LUNQ CODE 7S1I-01-F ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 268 [FRL-4655-1] Hazardous Waste Management System: Land Disposal Restrictions; Renewal of the Hazardous Debris Case-By-Case Capacity Variance and Renews! of Variance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION; Final rule. SUMMARY: On May 8,1992, EPA granted a one-year case-by-case capacity variance of the Land Disposal * Restrictions (LDR) to persons managing certain hazardous debris (see 57 FR 20766, May 15,1992). In that document, EPA indicated that persons desiring a subsequent renewal of the variance— that is, past May 8,1993—would need to submit an individual application. EPA has received almost 200 applications to date. Confirmed by a capacity analysirconducted by EPA, the large number of applications indicates that a lack of treatment capacity for hazardous debris continues to exist Therefore under 40 CFR 268.5, EPA is hereby renewing the extension of the case-by-case capacity variance to May 8, 1994, for all persons managing certain hazardous debris in lieu of responding to the individual applications. (Elsewhere this document explains more fully which hazardous debris is covered by the extension.) No further individual applications will be required from persons granted the extension by this action. However, information provided to EPA indicates that some capacity may exist, at least for some forms of debris. Therefore, EPA is requiring that generators submit a report demonstrating a good-faith effort to locate treatment capacity to quality for the extension. EPA wishes to make clear that no further variance or extension of the LDR effective date for hazardous debris can be given after May 8,1994. By statute, EPA may extend the fDR effective date for a waste for a total of four years, two years by national capacity variance and up to two years for a casa-by-case variance. With this renewal, the four years of statutory variance time for hazardous debris will end on May 8, 1994, and therefore no further extensions can be granted. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule and the extension become effective on May 8, 1993. ADDRESSES: The official record for this notice is identified as Docket Number F-93-DCVN-FFFFF, and is located in the EPA RCRA Docket, room 2427, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. The docket is open from 9 ajn. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. The public must make an appointment to review docket materials by calling (202) 260-9327. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory document at no cost. Additional copies cost $0.20 per page. FOR FURTHER MFORMATON CONTACT: For general information contact the RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 toll-free or (703) 412-9810 locally. For information ------- Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 92 / Friday, May 14, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 28507 on specific aspects of this notice, contact Nicholas R Vizzone, Analysis and Land Disposal Restrictions Section, Capacity Programs Branch (OS-321W), Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8477. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline L Background A. History B. Revised Treatment Standards for Hazardous Debris . C Paperwork Reduction Act n. Justification for this Extension A. Demonstration under 40 CFR 268.5 * B. Consultation With the States C Conclusion m. Requirements for this Extension I. Background A. History Congress enacted the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, which amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Among other things, HSWA required EPA to develop regulations that would impose, on a phased schedule, restrictions on the land disposal of hazardous wastes. In particular, sections 3004(d), (e), and (g) of RCRA [42 USC 6924 (e), and (g)] prohibit the land disposal of all wastes identified or listed as hazardous as of November 1984, unless the wastes are treated (or meet treatment standards) in a manner that "substantially diminish(es) the toxidty of the waste or substantially reduce(s) 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." The alternative to satisfying these treatment standards is disposal in a unit from which there will be no migration of hazardous constituents for as long as the waste remains hazardous. In developing such a broad program, Congress recognized that adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or protective disposal capacity might not be available by the applicable effective dates. Therefore, section 3004(h)(2) authorized EPA to grant a national capacity variance (based on the earliest date that such capacity would be available but not to exceed two years) that delays the effective date for new treatment standards. In addition, under section 3004(h)(3), EPA can grant an extension of the deadline on a case-by- case basis for one year (renewable for one additional year); however, variances and extensions are limited to a four year total time period from the effective date. On June 1,1990, EPA published a final rule (55 FR 22520) establishing prohibitions and treatment standards for wastes in the final third of the scheduled prohibitions. Among other things, the rule established prohibitions and treatment standards for debris contaminated with all hazardous wastes subject to the LDRs (except for the solvent and dioxin wastes covered by section 3004(e) and California List wastes prohibited under section 3004(d)J. Because of a lack of treatment capacity in 1990, EPA granted a two- year national capacity variance that expired on May 8,1992 (40 CFR part 268.35 (e)). This variance included, not only debris for Third Third wastes, but also debris for First Third and Second Third wastes that had been deferred to the Third Third rule (see 55 FR 22649). EPA stated that it was not uie intent of the Agency to penalize generators of First Third and Second Third wastes by allowing less time (i.e., 28 months and 37 months, respectively) for the development of needed capacity, while generators of Third Third wastes in the same treatability group were allowed the maximum 48 months. Therefore, the capacity extension that became effective on May 8,1990 included First, Second and Third Third wastes. Then on May 8,1992, EPA, citing a continuing lack of treatment capacity for the same debris wastes addressed in the May 8,1990, extension, as well as other nctors, granted a one-year case-by-case capacity variance of the LDR effective date for most hazardous debris that expires on May 8,1993. B. Revised Treatment Standards for Hazardous Debris The Third Third final rule stated that debris contaminated with a listed waste was subject to the same treatment standards as for the contaminating waste. However, EPA also stated in the preamble that problems did exist with regulating hazardous wastes in debris matrices that could make it difficult for hazardous debris to meet those treatment standards. Therefore, EPA indicated in the Third Third rule that treatment standards specific to hazardous debris would be promulgated in a separate ralemaking. On January 9.1992. EPA published proposed treatment standards for hazardous debris. Among other things, comments received on this proposed rule indicated that there would be inadequate capacity for hazardous debris as of May 8,1992. The shortfall in treatment capacity coupled with the fact that the final rule for the hazardous debris treatment standards would not be promulgated by May 8, created the need for an extension of the effective date for hazardous debris. (The final hazardous debris rule was published in the Federal Register on August 18,1992, (see FR 57 37194-37282) and was effective on November 16,1992.) The hazardous debris capacity variance required that any facility desiring a further extension of the variance to May 8,1994, would be required to submit an individual application before November 8,1992. At that time, EPA anticipated that by May 1993. treatment capacity, in compliance with the new hazardous debris treatment standards, would generally be in place, or that generators could obtain contracts for future capacity still under construction. However, EPA has received almost 200 case-by-case applications fromgenerators for renewal of .the extension. The applicants have all stated that treatment capacity in compliance with the August 18,1992, debris rule is still lacking, and that the length of time to permit these treatment and storage units are preventing them from providing the necessary treatment capacity to be in compliance with LDR restrictions. This has resulted in a continuing capacity shortfall. A capacity analysis conducted by EPA has shown that a general lack of treatment capacity for hazardous debris does exist. (The results of this analysis have been placed in the official record for this notice located in the EPA RCRA Docket.) In addition, the physical and chemical properties for debris from remediation projects is unknown; this information is necessary in order to evaluate the type(s) of available treatment processes and to estimate existing treatment capacity. It is also difficult with existing knowledge to determine which, if any type of preprocessing is necessary prior to treatment (for example, the amount and type of sizing equipment needed), along with the need and availability of mechanical separation equipment to remove the debris from other contaminated media that may be generated with the debris during remediation. Additionally, the applicants have also stated that once permitting is complete, a construction and start-up period of 6-12 months will be necessary further delaying available capacity. At the same time EPA has received a letter from the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council (HWTC), dated March 19,1993, that discusses available treatment capacity for hazardous debris.1 The letter indicates that the >TlM Hazardous WMte TmtoMnt Council U • national association that raptMents certain CoatiBiMd ------- 28508 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 92 / Friday. May 14. 1993 / Rules and Regulations HWTC believes that certain capacity is available for hazardous debris excluding debris wastes affected by permitting delays for treatment units, oversized debris requiring specialized size reduction equipment, or specialized materials handling/separation capabilities. The HWTC states that capacity exists for: (1) Small objects that are transportable in containers and do not require sizing prior to treatment (e.g. metal objects, paper and cloth, wood materials); (2) cyanide contaminated debris using chemical oxidation; and (3) debris sized so as to be easily treated in an existing tank or container systems. Treatment volumes were provided for managing cyanide contaminated debris using chemical oxidation technology and solids incineration capacity. Subsequent to that letter, HWTC provided additional information in a letter dated May 4.1993 to EPA on hazardous waste treatment capacity. In particular HWTC stated that 300,000 tons/year of combustion treatment capacity exists for certain debris types {i.e., wood, cloth, PPE, rubber, plastic, etc.) contaminated with organics. In addition, 175,000 tons/year of chemical oxidation treatment capacity is available for debris contaminated with cyanide. Furthermore, HWTC stated that 320.000 tons/year of metals treatment capacity exists in the form of water washing and spraying, high pressure water washing, acid/alkaline solution extraction, chemical oxidation, chemical reduction, abrasive blasting and microencapsulation. Based on the available knowledge of debris characteristics, it js difficult for EPA to project the amount of combustion or metals treatment capacity that will be necessary to treat currently generated debris because EPA only has very general information on the hazardous constituents that are in debris. For example, the facilities that * submitted applications for an extension did not provide detailed information on the types of hazardous constituents contaminating their debris; therefore, it is impossible to know whether the types of capacity that HWTC states is available could be used to treat such debris. Furthermore, the amount of hazardous debris treatment necessary is difficult to accurately estimate before the generation of debris from remediation projects because of uncertainty in knowing what actually commercial hazardous treatment facility owners and operators. EPA notes that information on' available commercial hazardous debris treatment facilities may be available from the HWTC. The address for HWTC is 915 15th Street NW.. Fifth Floor. Washington, DC 20005; Telephone (202) 7*3-0870; FAX Number (202) 737-2038. will be generated. The volume of debris that the applicants anticipate generating could exceed the total capacity that HWTC believes to be available, depending upon the nature of the debris. EPA also believes that it would be difficult to determine which debris could be treated in tanks and containers based on the physical size of the debris; therefore, EPA believes it would be inappropriate to limit the extension renewal based on the size of the debris, as HWTC suggested. Thus, EPA*s information indicates that there is still a general shortfall of capacity, although some treatment capacity is available for some kinds of debris. Because a shortfall appears unavoidable considering the urge volumes of hazardous debris that will require treatment, EPA believes that a conditional one-year renewal of the hazardous debris case-by-case variance for all persons managing such debris is appropriate. However, as will be discussed in greater detail below generators will be expected to make a good faith effort to locate and use such treatment capacity as may be suitable for their debris. As under the original extension, debris contaminated with the following wastes are not covered by this extension: (1) A listed solvent or dioxin waste covered by the section 3004 (e) prohibition, and (2) a non-liquid "California list" waste pursuant to section 3004 (d) because the statutory time for granting an extension for the wastes has elapsed. EPA notes that the final rule establishing revised treatment standards for debris (see Fed. Reg. 37194 (Aug. 28, 1992)) defined debris to consist of solid material having a particle size of 60 mm or larger and intended for land disposal. This definition excluded process residuals such as smelter slag and residues from the treatment of waste, wastewater, sludges or air emissions residues. The excluded process residuals will, however, be included within the scope of today's renewal of the hazardous debris extension to the extent the residuals fall within the previously applicable definition of debris and are not excluded from the extension as indicated above. C. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this notice 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 OMB control number 2050-0085. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 25 hours per response, including time for reviewing * instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering the required data, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM- 223Y, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 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." n. Justification for This Extension A. Demonstration Under 40 CFR 268.5 40 CFR 268.5 specifies seven demonstrations that musi be made for the approval of a case-by-case extension to a treatment standard of the prohibition effective date. From comments and information submitted, EPA has made an evaluation of these seven required demonstrations as follows: Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(l): The applicant must demonstrate that he has made a good-faith effort to locate and contract with treatment, recovery, or disposal facilities nationwide to manage his waste in accordance with the effective date of the applicable restriction established under subpart C of this part. The applicants indicated that they are unable at this time to locate and contract with treatment, recovery, or disposal facilities. Response letters from commercial sites submitted with the applications indicated that future plans to develop and construct treatment capacity exist but the length of time required to issue new permits or modifications of existing permits is delaying current construction of treatment capacity. Permits to allow construction of these new units have not been issued yet and may require additional time. Permitting and construction of many new debris treatment units will probably not be completed when the existing variance expires on May 8,1993. In addition, information received by EPA indicates a general lack of capacity for treatment of debris. For example, information from the 200 applicants indicates that from 1.2-1.8 million cubic meters of hazardous debris will be generated during the period of May 1993, to May 1994. The applicants indicating that capacity was unavailable did not generally distinguish between ------- Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 92 / Friday. May 14, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 28i categories of debris, and in light of their submission, EPA is reluctant to assume that sufficient capacity does in fact exist for those wastes. In addition. EPA is not confident that the categories of debris . for which capacity is most likely to exist can easily be identified. At the same time, the information provided by HWTC does indicate that significant capacity may exist, at least for certain categories of debris. Therefore, it is a condition of this extension that generators make a good faith effort to find treatment capacity, and if capacity is found, to use it to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, the extension will not apply to any wastes for which capacity is or becomes available. The report required under 40 CFR 268.5(g) will document each generator's good faith effort to locate capacity. Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(2): The applicant has entered into a binding contractual commitment to construct or otherwise provide alternative treatment, recovery (e.g., recycling), or disposal capacity that meets the treatment standards specified in subpart D or, * where treatment standards have not been specified, such capacity is protective of human health and the environment. The applicants have shown that the availability of treatment technologies to meet the proposed treatment standards is limited and will require substantial • capital investment to bring such technology on-line. EPA believes, however, that there will be no ultimate difficulty in constructing or otherwise developing the needed treatment technology because the types of treatment technologies involved all exist and should be available given time. As of May 8,1994, EPA may not. by statute, grant any further extensions of the LDR effective date for hazardous debris. Therefore, it is to the generators' advantage to enter into a contractual agreement for treatment of hazardous debris as soon as possible to ensure adequate treatment capacity for compliance by the May, 1994, deadline. Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(3): Due to circumstances beyond the a jlicant's control, such alternative u. acity cannot reasonably be made available by the applicable effective date. This demonstration may include a showing that the technical and practical difficulties associated with providing the alternative capacity will result in the capacity not being available by the applicable effective date. The applicants provided numerous examples regarding logistical difficulties associated with providing the alternative capacity—among them that EPA guidance on the hazardous debris rule has not been issued and the delay in the permitting process. Applicants stated that issuance of new permits or modifications to existing permits for storage and treatment facilities along with approval of treatment processes has taken longer than planned, causing delays in planning and construction schedules. Also, the applicants stated that it will take time for industry to adapt the available technologies identified in the August 1992 debris treatment standards to the various types of hazardous debris to achieve BOAT. These circumstances are beyond the control of the generators who need to treat or dispose of their hazardous debris, and the information provided to EPA suggests that these circumstances affect most if not all debris generators. EPA regional offices have indicated that interim status for treatment facilities is generally not available. Therefore, new permits or modifications to permits will have to be issued. EPA believes there to be valid concerns and agrees that additional time is needed to resolve the issues. These circumstances are beyond the control of the generators who need to treat or dispose of their hazardous debris. Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(4): The capacity being constructed or otherwise provided by the applicant will be sufficient to manage the entire quantity of waste that is the subject of the application. Some of the applicants have indicated that they have difficulty in determining at this time the types of treatment technologies to use for certain debris wastes. EPA believes that this uncertainty makes it difficult for some owners and operators to determine their capacity requirements at this time. The unpredictable nature of debris generation also makes predicting future needs difficult. A critical timing concern relates to the time needed for permit modifications, plus (in some cases) time needed to construct specialized debris treatment units like containment buildings. As noted previously in the discussion of needed contractual commitments, EPA believes that adequate treatment capacity will be provided once these elements are achieved. Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(5): He provides a detailed schedule for obtaining required operating and construction permits or an outline of how and when alternative capacity will be available. A detailed schedule outlining the amount of time required to obtain operating permits and construction time for on-site facilities or outlining the amount of time required to enter into a binding contractual agreement for off- site treatment can be developed, and EPA does not anticipate that generators will have any problems in the development of a schedule. However. submission of a detailed schedule is not a requirement of this variance. Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(6): The applicant must demonstrate that he has arranged for adequate capacity to manage his waste during an extension and has documented in the application the location of all sites at which the waste will be managed. The applications received by EPA indicated that hazardous debris generators will continue to store or dispose of their wastes onsite or contract for offsite storage or disposal with a permitted facility. EPA believes that generators will be able to find adequate capaci^ to manage their hazardous debris during the extension period. Demonstration 40 CFR 268.5(a)(7): Any waste managed in a surface impoundment or landfill during the extension period will meet the requirements of paragraph (h)(2) of 40 CFR 268.5. It is an absolute legal requirement of this renewal that any generator or owner or operator who intends to manage hazardous debris in a surface impoundment (which is highly unlikely) or landfill during the one-year extension must ensure that the unit meets the requirement of 40 CFR 268.5(h)(2) (see RCRA section 3004(h)(4)). This requirement includes, among other things, that that unit be equipped with a double liner system with a leachate collection system and adequate ground-water monitoring. B. Consultation With the States In addition to the above seven demonstrations, EPA is required under 40 CFR 268.5(e) to consult with appropriate state agencies in all affected states. Before issuing the case-by-case capacity variance on May 8,1992, EPA consulted with several state agencies which supported the need for an extension of the LDR effective date for hazardous debris. After May 8,1992, EPA has consulted with the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials f ASTSWMO) regarding the state's opinions on the hazardous debris issue. ASTSWMO has indicated that the states are in favor of a renewal of the hazardous debris capacity variance since many of the generators are unable at this time to determine which treatment methods are required for th«ir debris. ------- 28510 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 92 / Friday. May 14, 1993 / Rules and Regulations C. Conclusion Based on its evaluation of the demonstrations required under 40 CFR 268.5, and for the reasons stated above, EPA is renewing the case-by-case extension to the Land Disposal Restrictions for hazardous debris as described elsewhere in the preamble. This renewal is effective from May 8, 1993, to May 8,1994. EPA is taking this regulatory action because of the unique circumstances which have resulted in the lack of treatment, recovery, and protective disposal capacity for hazardous debris, and EPA's conclusion that treatment capacity meeting the recently promulgated standards is inadequate, or not available due to logistical problems such as permitting delays, but can ultimately be provided. EPA believes that granting this renewal (conditioned upon a requirement to seek available treatment capacity) is the most environmentally protective option because it will eliminate a regulatory obstacle that could otherwise force cleanup projects to be postponed. III. Requirements for This Extension To receive the benefit of this renewal, a generator or owner/operator must provide the following information to EPA in a report under 40 CFR 268.5(g) by August 12,1993, or 90 days after the hazardous debris is generated: (1) The name, mailing address, location and EPA identification number (if assigned) of the facility. The term "facility" includes any site, whether permanent (such as a manufacturing plant), or temporary where hazardous debris will be generated; (2) A description of the hazardous debris waste stream, including the RCRA waste code(s); (3) Waste generation rates (cu. m./yr.), and estimated inventories (cu.m.); (4) The owner/operator or generator must demonstrate that a good-faith effort has been made to locate and contract with treatment or recovery facilities to manage the waste in accordance with the effective date of the applicable restriction in order to utilize this variance. The documentation of this effort must be submitted to EPA. To make the good-faith effort showing, generators must include a summary of their activities that demonstrate that they have contacted treatment or recovery facilities, but they rejected the waste on the basis of its composition or because the facility did not have treatment capacity to handle the waste. Generators must provide a summary of the letters sent to facilities describing the waste and requesting treatment, recovery, or disposal (protective) for the waste. Generators must also include a summary of responses from the facilities rejecting their waste; if the correspondence from a facility does not clearly state why the waste was rejected, generators must provide an explanation. In the report, generators must include documentation demonstrating that they have contacted a substantial number of treatment or recovery facilities (EPA believes that contact with 10 or more facilities would constitute a substantial number), but they rejected the waste on the basis of its composition or because the facility did not have treatment capacity to handle the waste. This report must be submitted to EPA by August 12,1993 or within 90 days after the generation of the hazardous debris. Generators must contact facilities that provide appropriate treatment services for their wastes, if possible. If capacity is found to be available during the extension period, the owner or operator must use the treatment capacity for as large a portion of its waste as possible; and (5) Certification as required under 40 CFR 268.5(b). Two copies of the above information should be sent to the following address: Chief of Training and Technical Assistance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OS-520), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460, Attn: Debris Case-by-Case Progress Report. . Finally, EPA notes that the regulatory amendment promulgated today contains a technical amendment to 40 CFR 268.35(e)(2), which relates to the case- by-case renewal for contaminated soils. This amendment clarifies that the extension granted for soils on October 20,1992 applied only to soils regulated under the Third Third rule. List of Subjects in 44) CFR Part 268 Hazardous waste, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: May 7.1993. Richard J. Guimond, Assistant Surgeon General. USPHS, Acting Assistant Administrator. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OS-200). For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS 1. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921 and 6924. 2. In § 268.35 paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows: * 1268.35 Wssts specific prohibitions— Third Third wastes. ***** (e) Subject to applicable prohibitions in §§ 268.30, 268.31, and 268.32, contaminated soil and debris are prohibited from land disposal as follows: (1) Effective May 8,1994, debris that is contaminated with wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.12, and debris that is contaminated with any characteristic waste for which treatment standards are established in subpart D of this part, are prohibited from land disposal. (2) Effective May 8,1994, mixed radioactive hazardous debris that is contaminated with wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.12 and mixed radioactive hazardous debris that is contaminated with any characteristic waste for which treatment standards are established in subpart D of this part, are prohibited from land disposal. (3) Paragraphs (e) (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply where the generator has failed to make a good-faith effort to locate treatment capacity suitable for its waste, has not utilized such capacity as it has found to be available, or has failed to file a report as required by 40 CFR 268.5(g) by August 12,1993 or within 90 days after the hazardous waste is generated (whichever is later) describing the generator's efforts to locate treatment capacity. Where paragraphs (e) (1) and (2) of this section do not apply, all wastes described in these paragraphs are prohibited from land disposal effective May 8,1993. (4) Effective May 8,1993, hazardous soil contaminated with wastes specified in this section having treatment standards in subpart D of this part based on incineration, mercury retorting or vitrification, and soils contaminated with hazardous wastes listed in 40 CFR 268.10, 268.11 and 268.12 that are mixed radioactive hazardous wastes, are prohibited from land disposal. (5) When used in paragraphs (e) (1) and (2) of this section, debris is defined as follows: (i) Debris as defined in 40 CFR 268.2(g); or (ii) Nonfriable inorganic solids that are incapable of passing through a 9.5 mm standard sieve that require cutting, or crushing and grinding in mechanical sizing equipment prior to stabilization, limited to the following inorganic or metal materials: (A) Metal slags (either dross or scoria). (B) Classified slag. (C) Glass. ------- Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 92 / Friday. May 14, 1993 / Rules and Regulations 28511 (D) Concrete (excluding cementitious or pozzolanic stabilized hazardous wastes). (E) Masonry and refractory bricks. (F) Metal cans, containers, drums, or tanks. (G) Metal nuts, bolts, pipes, pumps, valves, appliances, or industrial equipment. (H) Scrap metal as defined in 40 CFR [FR Doc 93-11322 Piled 5-13-93; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE (MO-M-P 40 CFR Parts 712 and 716 (OPPTS-82040; FRL-4182-1) Preliminary Assessment Information and Health and Safety Data Reporting; Addition of Chemicals AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION; Final rule. SUMMARY: The Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) in its Thirtieth Report to EPA revised the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 4(e) Priority List by recommending for testing two chemical groups. There are no designated or recommended with intent-to-designate chemicals. The ITC recommendations must be given priority consideration by EPA in promulgating test rules. EPA is adding the two categories to two model information- gathering rules: The TSCA section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment Information Rule (PAIR) and the TSCA section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule. Tiese model rules will require .anufacturers, importers, and processors of the listed members of the categories to report production, use, exposure-related, and unpublished health and safety data to EPA. EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective on June 14,1993. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Hazen, Director, TSCA Environmental Assistance Division (TS- 799), Office of Pollution Prevention arid Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Rm. E-543, Washington, DC 20460, Telephoned (202) 554-1404, TDD: (202) 554-0551. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule adds two categories of substances to both the PAIR and the section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule. Manufacturers, processors, and importers of these chemicals will be required to report unpublished health and safety data and/or end use, exposure, and production volume data to EPA. This rule also corrects the CAS numbers of two substances listed under the section 8(d) rule. Under the phenylenediamines category of § 716.120(c), the CAS number for 1,2- benzenediamine, 5-chloro-3-niuŁ- is incorrectly listed as 042389-30-0. It should read 42389-30-0. Under the alkyl phosphates category in § 716.120(d), the CAS number for phosphoric acid, dibutyl ester is incorrectly listed as 07-06-4. It should read 107-66-4. I. Background Section 4(e) of TSCA established the ITC and authorized it to recommend to EPA chemical substances and mixtures (chemicals) to be given priority consideration in proposing test rules under section 4. For some of these chemicals, the ITC may designate that EPA must respond to its recommendations within 12 months. In this time, EPA must either initiate a rulemaking to test the chemical or publish in the Federal Register its reasons for not doingsp. On May 29,1992, EPA announced the receipt of the Thirtieth Report from the ITC. It was then published by EPA on July 9,1992 (57 FR 30608). The Thirtieth Report revises the Committee's priority list of chemicals by recommending two categories to the section 4(e) priority list (for a total of 60 chemical substances). This rule adds two categories of substances to both the PAIR and the section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule. These two rules are model information gathering rules which assist EPA in responding to the ITC recommendations. EPA issued the PAIR under section 8(a) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2607(a)), and it is codified at 40 CFR part 7*12. This model section 8(a) rule establishes standard reporting requirements lor manufacturers and importers of the chemicals listed in the rule at 40 CFR 712.30. These manufacturers and importers are required to submit a one- time report on general volume, end use, and exposure-related information using the Preliminary Assessment Information Manufacturer's Report (EPA Form 7710- 35). EPA uses this model section 8(a) rule to gather current information on chemicals of concern quickly. EPA issued the model Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule under section 8(d) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2607(d)), and it is codified at 40 CFR part 716. The section 8(d) model rule requires past, current, and prospective manufacturers, importers, and processors of listed chemicals to submit to EPA copies and lists of unpublished health and safety studies on the listed chemicals that they manufacture, import, or process. These studies provide EPA with useful information and have provided significant support for EPA's decision making under TSCA sections 4. 5, 6, 8, and 9. These model rules provide for the automatic addition of ITC priority list chemicals. Whenever EPA announces the receipt of an ITC report, EPA may, at the same time without further notice and comment, amend the two model information- gathering rules by adding the recommended chemicals. The amendment adding these chemicals to the PAIR and the Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule becomes effective 30 days after publication. The ! "'* is currently revising the recon nded chemicals identified in the 2tiri list rf ITC chemicals (56 FR 41212, August 19, 1991). The PAIR/8(d) rule adding these chemicals will be published as soon as EPA receives the amended list of chemicals. II. Chemicals To Be Added In its Thirtieth Report to EPA, the ITC recommended for priority consideration two categories of substances; there are no designated or recommended with intent-to-designate chemicals. More specifically, the ITC is recommending for testing two categories of chemicals. The two categories are siloxanes and chloroalkyl phosphates. For a complete listing of the substances, see the FTC's Thirtieth Report published in the Federal Register at 57 FR 30608 (December 30,1991). EPA will not add to the section 8(d) Health and Safety Data Reporting Rule one substance listed in the ITC report because the substance is already on the section 8(d) rule and subject to a 10-year reporting period. This substance is: octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (CAS No. 556-67-2), (49 FR 46741, November 28, 1984). III. Reporting Requirements A. Preliminary Assessment Information Pule All persons who manufactured or imported the chemical substances named in this rule during their latest complete corporate fiscal year must submit a Preliminary Assessment Information Manufacturer's Report (EPA Form No. 7710-35) for each manufacturing or importing site at which they manufactured or imported a named substance. A separate form must be completed for each substance and submitted to the Agency no later than August 12,1993. Persons who ( ive previously and voluntarily sub v/led a Manufacturer's Report to the IIC or EPA ------- |