Tuesday
September 14, 1993
Part II
Environmental __
Protection Agency
; y '*' *
40 CFR Parts 148, etal.
Land Disposal Restrictions for Newiy
Identified and Listed Hazardous Wastes
and Hazardous Soil; Proposed rule
-------
r, If" ,.,
48092Federal'Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 C^R Parts 148, 260, 261^ 268 and
27f ni .
JEPA 1530-7-83-011, FRL-4725-q
RIN2050-AD37
Land Disposal Restrictions for Newly
Identified and Listed Hazardous
' wastes arid fiazardous Sol .....................
I1!1' i, 'i, ' ' ...... ' i'"' I ""i ' "! "" "? , , ''! ,j 1' ill'lilllli ..... I'liiJil'", "i ! ' " ......
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
^CTOtl; Proposed rule. *
t^UMMARY: EPA is proposing treatment
Maridards for the newly identified
organic toxlcity characteristic wastes
(except those managed in Clean Water
Act (CWA) systems, CWA-equivalent
systems, or Class I Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) injection wells), and
treatment standards for, all pewly listed
cojje by-product and chlorotoluene
production wastes that must he met
before these wastes are land disposed.
EPA is also proposing to require
ignitable characteristic wastes with a
high total organic carbon (TOC) content
and toxic characteristic pesticide
wastes, that are being disposed in Class
I nonhazordous waste injection wells, to
either be injected into a well that is
subject to a no-migration determination,
or bo treated to meet the LDR, treatment
standards prior to injection. These
treatment standards and the dilution
prohibitions for high TOG ignitables and
pesticides are being proposed in order
to comply with a proposed consent
decree with the Environmental Defense
?und. This proposal also contains ,,
alternative standards for soil
contaminated with prohibited
hazardous wastes that will encourage
llse of npncornbustion treatment
technologies in treating hazardous soil.
In addition, EPA is proposing several
revisions to previously promulgated
treatment standards and requirements in
order to simplify the implementation of
t|io land disposal restriction rules,
including setting "universal treatment
standards". Finally, EPA is proposing to
modify the hazardous waste recycling
regulations which will allow
streamlined regulatory decisions to be
madt regarding the regulation of certain
types of recycling activities,
DATES: Comments and data must be
Submitted on or before November |ง,
1993. ...... 'ซ- ' "" "'" """ .......... ....... '. ' '
, : ,,, , ..... , ,
s&Eg: The public must send an
original and two copies of their written
comments to EPA RCRA Docket (OS-
305), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M St., SW, Washington, DC
20460. Place the Docket Number F-92-
CS2P-FFFFF on your comments, The
RCRA Docket islocatgdJn EOSIB 2gig at
the above address, and is open from. 9
am to 4pm Monday through Friday,
except for 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 $.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information, contact the RCRA
Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll-free) of
(703) 412-9810 locally. For technical
information on treatment standards,
contact the Waste Treatment Branch,
Office of Solid Waste (OS-322W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW., Washington* DC. 20460,
(703)308-8434. For technical
information on capacity analyses,
contact the Capacity Branch, Office of
Solid Waste (OS-321W), (703)308-8440.
For technical information on Hazardous
Waste Recycling, contact the Regulation
Development Branch, Office of Solid
Waste (OS-332), (202)260-8551.
I. Background
A. Summary of the Statutory Requirements
of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments
B. Pollution Prevention Benefits
C. Relationship of Developing LDR
Treatment Standards to Levels Being .
Considered in Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule
IL Summary of Proposed Rule
A. Improvements to Existing LDR Program
B. Treatment Standards for Toxic
Characteristic Wastes
C Prohibition of Dilution of High TOG
Ignitable and of TC Pesticide Wastes
Injected into Class I Deep Wells
D. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed
Wastes
E. Soil Contaminated with Hazardous
Waste ''-'
F. Compliance Monitoring and Notification
.G. Solicitation of Comment Regarding
Exclusion of Hazardous Debris
H. Modifications to. Hazardous Waste
Recycling Regulations
III. Improvements to the Existing Land
Disposal Restrictions Program
A. Proposed Universal Treatment
Standards
1. Universal Standards for Organic
Hazardous Constituents
a. Nonwastewaters
b. Wastewaters
c, Comments on the Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
d". Other Revisions to Existing Treatment
Standards ,
2. Universal Standards for Metal
Hazardous Constituents
a. Nonwastewaters
b. Wastewaters
c. Comments on the Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
' d. Request for Data
3. Universal Standards for Cyanide
a. Wastewaters
b. Nonwastewaters
4. Universal Standards for Petroleum
Refining Wastes
5. Universal Standards Will Not Apply to
F024
B. Incorporation of Newly Listed Wastes
into Lab Packs and Proposed Changes to
, Appendices
C. Proposed Changes in the LDR Program
In Response to the LDR Roundtable
1. Background
2. Consolidated Treatment Table
3. Simplified LDR Notification
. Requirements
4. Demonstrating Acceptable Knowledge of
One's Waste
a. Background
b. What Constitutes Acceptable
Knowledge?
c. When Might Acceptable Knowledge be
Used?
d. Why Provide Evidence to Support
Acceptable Knowledge?
e. How Can A TSDF Verify Data Supplied
by a Generator?
5. Advance Notice of Possible Changes to
the LDR Program Resulting from the LDR
Roundtable
a. Waste Code Carry Through
b. Use of Health-Based Levels'Versus
. Technology-Based Levels in Establishing
Treatment Standards
c. Inconsistency of Standards
d, Capacity-Related Issues
e. Generator Knowledge
f. Constituents : . .
g. Detection Limits
E Waste Analysis Plans (WAPs)
i. Paperwork
j. Complexity of the Regulations
IV. Treatment Standards for Toxicity
Characteristic Waste
A. The Third Third Court Decision, The
Emergency Interim Final Rule, and Then-
Applicability to TC Wastes
1. Background
2. Applicability of This Approach to TC
Wastes and Hazardous Soil Covered by
This Proposed Rule
3. Future Response to Issues Remanded by
the Court
4. Request for Comment on Petition from
Chemical Manufacturer's Association
Regarding Deep Well Injection of
Ignitable and Corrosive Characteristic
Wastes
B. Background
1. Legal and Policy Background
2. Background on Toxicity Characteristic
C. Treatment Standards for New TC
Organic Constituents
1. General Approach for Establishing
Concentration-based Treatment
Standards
a. Nonwastewaters :
b, Wastewaters
2. Radioactive Mixed Waste
D. Treatment Standards for TC Pesticide
Wastes (D012-D017)
1. Newly Identified Pesticide
Nonwastewaters
2. Pesticide Wastewaters
E. Proposed Exemptions for De Minimis
Losses of TC Wastes and for TC
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 /Proposed, Rules 48093
Laboratory Wastes Discharged to CWA
Wastewater Treatment , ' ,
V, Deep Well Injection Issues ...
A. Pfohibitipn of Dilution of High TOG
~ Ignitable and of TC Pesticide Wastes
, Injected into Class I Deep Wells
B. Request for Comment on Petition from
.' Chemical' Manufacturer's Association,
Regarding Deep Well Injection of
. Ignitable and Corrosive Characteristic
Wastes . . ;' .". ,
VI. Treatment Standards for New|y Listed: ,
Wastes - '
A. Treatment Standards for Coke By-
., Product Production Wastes , ,
1. Proposed Treatment Standards
2. Potential Future Revisions tO(Treatment
' Standards for Existing Coking Wastes
K087, K060, and K035 'I
B. Treatment Standards fqr Chlorotoluenes
VII. Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soils
A. Introduction , , , .
B, Applicability, Regulatory Status of
Treated Soils, and Definitions
1. Applicability '
2. Regulatory Status of Treated Soils
3. "Contained-in" Determinations
, 4. Definitions . . ' ,
"'a. Hazardous Soil ~ .
b. Constituents Subject to Treatment ,
. ,c. Illegal Contamination of Soil
d. Nonanalyzable Constituents
C. Proposed Approaches for Establishing
Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soils
1. Technology-Based Treatment Standards
. for Hazardous Soils , "- -\ '
a. Range of Standards With A "Ceiling"
One Order of Magnitude Above, the
Universal Standard, Prpvided,;90fo
Treatment Occurs ' : ' ''
b. Range of Standards With' A "Ceiling"
One Order of Magnitude Above the
Universal Standard : - !
c. Achieving 90% Treatment With No .
"Ceiling"
2. Explanation of Numeric Treatment
Standards for Hazardous Soils
3. Treatment Standards for Residues from
Soil Treatment
4. Treatability Variances
D. Contained-in Determinations
. E. Soil Treatment Database
1. Treatment Technologies " . .'
2. Development of the Database ,
3.'Analysis of the Database . . '
.a. Consideration of Innovative
Technologies ' ' '
b. Rationale for Not Using the
"Traditional" BOAT Approach to
Develop Hazardous Soil Treatment
Standards '."....
c. Graphical Analysis of Data
d. transfer of Proposed Universal
Standards to Constituents without Data
4. Request for Additional Data'and
Comment
F. Sampling and Analysis ProtocolsGrab
vs. Composite Samples
G. Relationship to' Other Regulations and
Programs : " ... ',._,. .--'
1. RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
Program "
_ a. Existing LDR Treatment Standards
b. Soil Contaminated .With Newly Listed
Wastes Which Have Final Treatment
Standards '.-''"' -
c. Soil Contaminated With Newly Listed :
, 'and Identified Wastes Which Have
Proposed Treatment Standards ,
2. RCRA Corrective Action
3. Voluntary RCRA Cleanups
4. Phase'-ILDR Rule: Hazardous Debris,'
5. CERCLA as amended by SARA
6. Soil Contaminated by Underground
: Storage Tanks .'-..-..'
7. Other Petroleum Contaminated Soil
8. Radioactive Mixejd Wastes.
a.'Definition of Mixed Wastes
b. RCRA Requirements .
. 9. Special Provisions for Soil Containing
. Asbestos - .
H. Related EPA Activities on Contaminated'
-Media .:.- .-.'-.' .-. - :. . ;. .
.1. Contaminated Media Cluster
2. Weathered Sludges. ; ' '
3. EPA Lead Strategy
> 4. Bioremediation.
VIII. Compliance Monitoring and Notification
A. Compliance Monitoring.
B. LDR Notification
1. Constituents To Be Included on the LDR '.
Notification . -
, 2. Management in Subtitle C^Regulated
Facilities
3. Potential Management of
Decharacterized Wastes at a Subtitle D
Waste Management Facility
IX. Further,Solicitation of Comment
Regarding Exclusion of Hazardous Debris
that has been Treated by Immobilization
Technologies .
"A. Background '._':' -
B. Roundtable Discussion
C. EPA Investigations ^ :
D. Conclusions . . :
,X. Modifications to Hazardous Waste .
Recycling Regulations
A. Introduction .>',...:.
B. Modification of the Existing "Closed-
Loop" Recycling Exclusion and Related
Case-Specific Variance -
1. Existing "Closed-Loop" Recycling
Exclusion.and Related Variance
2. K069 Wastes Recycled Back into the
" Secondary Process
,. 3. Storage Prior to Recycling
XI. Implementation Issues
XII. Capacity Determinations - ; , ,,
A. Capacity Analysis Results .Summary"
'. B. Analysis of Available Capacity
C Surface Disposed Newly Identified and
Listed Wastes ;
1. Required Capacity for Newly Identified
TC Organics (D018-D043)
2. Required Capacity for Other Newly
Listed Organic Wastes' . ,'.'-..
a. Surface, Disposed Coke By-Product J
. ; .Wastes - . ,: ' .....' .;
b. Surface Disposed Chlorinated Toluene
Wastes , .
3. Newly Identified TC Wastes That Were '
Not Previously Hazardous by the Old EP
Leaching-Procedure
D. Required and Available Capacity for
Newly Identified Wastes Mixed with
Radioactive Components
E. Required and Available .Capacity-for -
High TOC Ignitable, TC Pesticide, and
Newly Listed Wastes Injected into Class
I Deep Wells
F. Required and Available Capacity, for
Hazardous Soil and Dt-bris Contaminated
with Newly Listed and Identified Wastes
1. Waste generation
a. Hazardous soil
b. Hazardous debris ,
2. Current management practices
3. Available.capacit.y and capacity
'implications , , .
a; Hazardous soil ' ' -\
b. Hazardous debris -
XIII. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
B; Effect on State Authorization ::
XIV. Regulatory Requirements '..-..
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to
Executive Order 12291. ; : , .-.-.-
1. Methodology Section . ; . ,...
a. Cost Methodology . .-.. ,
" b. Economic Irnpapt Methodology ,
.c. Benefits Methodology ':
2. Results Section , ...
. a. Cost Results ''-
b; Economic Impact Results ; .
c. Benefit Estimate " . . ,' .
' 3. Regulatory Impact Analysis .
Underground Injection Wastes
' B. Regulatory'Flexibility Analysis
, G. Paperwork Reduction Act .
Appendix A to the Preamble: Description of
Hazardous Spil Treatment Technologies
and Performance Stapdards ; . .." ' .
I. Background
A. Summary of the Statutory
Requirements oftlie 1984 Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments
The Hazardous and Solid Waste .
Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)>
enacted on November 8,1984J largely
prohibit the land disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes. Once a hazardous -
waste is prohibited from land disposal,
the statute provides only two 'options:,.
Meet the treatment standard for the .
waste prior to land disposal, or dispose
of-the waste in a land disposal unit that
. has been found to satisfy the statutory
no migration test. The treatment
standards EPA establishes may be
expressed as either levels or methods, .-
and musfrsubstantially diminish the
tqxicity 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. RCRA section ..
3004(m)(l). A no migration unit is one
from which there will be no migration
of hazardous constituents for as long as
the waste remains hazardous. RGRA
sections 3004(d), (e), (g)(5). For
purposes of thej restrictions, 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 30p4(k).
-------
48094 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
The land disposal restrictions are
affecjive upon promulgation. RCRA
Section 3004(h)(l). However, the
Administrator may grant a national
capacity variance from the immediate
effective date and establish, a later
effective date (not to exceed two years)
based on the earliest date on which
adequate alternative treatment,
recover^, or disposal capacity which
protects human health and the
environment wilj be available. RCRA
Section 3004(h){2). TheAdministrator
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). See 55 FR 22526
(June 1,1990) fora more detailed
dSsgussion on national capacity
variances and case-by-case extensions.
In addition. Congress prohibited
storage of any waste which is prohibited
from land disposal unless such storage
!s solely for the purpose of the
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposal. RCRA section 3004(j). For
storage up to one year, EPA bears the
burden of proving that such storage was
riot solely for the purpose of
accumulation of quantities necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
""'disposal.40 CFR 268.50(b). For storage
beyond one year, the burden of proof
shifts to the generator or owner/operator
of a treatment, storage or disposal
facility to demonstrate that such storage
was iolely for the purpose of
accumulation of quantities necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposal. 40 CFR 268.50{c). The
provision applies, of course, only to
storage which is not also defined in
section 3004(k) as land disposal.
EPA was required to promulgate land
disposal prohibitions and treatment
standards by May 8,1990 for all wastes
that wora either listed or identified as
hazardous at the time of the 1984
amendments, a task EPA completed
within the statutory timeframes. RCRA
sections 3Q04(d), (e), and (g). EPA is also
required to promulgate prohibitions and
. treatment ..standards for wastes
identified or listed as hazardous after
the date of the 1984 amendments; within
six months after the listing or
Identification takes effect RCRA section
3(Xfc(gK4)>%e Agency di^ln'bf meet
this latter statutory deadline. As a
result, a suit was filed by the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to
compel agency action. In response to the
suit, EPA filed with the District Court a
proposed consent decree (not yet
ratified by the Court) that would
establish a schedule for adopting
prohibitions and treatment standards for
newly identified and listed wastes. (EDF
v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-0598, D.D.C.)
Treatment standards proposed for the
TCwastes (including TC soils) managed
in non-CVVA7non-CWA-equivalent/non-
Class ISDWA well systems, and newly
listed coke by-product and
chlorotoluene production wastes are
covered by this consent decree. The
final treatment standards must be '
promulgated by July 1994.
None of the modifications to the
existing land disposal restrictions rules
proposed today are required by the EDF
settlement. However, the Agency
believes it important to review its
regulations on a periodic basis and
make changes, as appropriate, where
such will improve or update our
technical knowledge or improve or
simplify the implementation of the
program. In today's notice, EPA is
proposing to modify the existing ~
treatment standards for soil
contaminated with prohibited
hazardous waste(s), is proposing to
develop a set of treatment standards
(called universal standards) that would
apply to most hazardous wastes, is
E reposing changes to the requirements
jr land disposal of lab packs containing
prohibited hazardous wastes, and is
proposing to modify the paperwork
requirements so as to simplify the
implementation of the regulations.
B. Pollution Prevention Benefits
. EPA's progress over the years in
improving environmental quality
through its media-specific pollution
control programs has been substantial.
Over the past two decades, standard
industrial practice for pollution control
concentrated to a large extent on "end
of pipe" treatment or land disposal of
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes.
However, EPA realizes that there are
limits to how much environmental
improvement can be achieved under
these programs which emphasize
management after pollutants have been
generated. EPA believes that eliminating
or reducing discharges and/or emissions
to the environment through the
implementation of cost-effective source
reduction and environmentally sound
recycling practices can provide
additional environmental
improvements. Examples of treatment
standards proposed today that are based
on the performance of a recovery
technology are the universal standards
for metals, which are based on the
performance of.high temperature metal'
recovery (HTMR). The Agency is
requesting comment on whether other
recovery technologies or source
reduction activities are appropriate as
the Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for the wastes
included in today's proposed rule.
The Agency has previously outlined
the legal basis for waste minimization
and source reduction as a potential type
of LDR treatment standard, to be
available as an optional choice for
persons managing prohibited wastes.
(See 56 FR 55162 (Oct. 24,1991) and
Supplemental Information Report pp.
30-31 prepared for the Notice of Data
Availability (January 19,1993).) Briefly,
RCRA section 3004(m) requires the
Agency to establish treatment standards
so that short-term and long-term threats
to human health and the environment
are minimized. Waste minimization and
source reduction potentially meet these
criteria. They are a type of treatment,
namely "a method, technique, or
process* * * designed to .change the
physical, chemical, or biological
character or composition of any
hazardous waste so as to neutralize such
waste or so as to render such waste
nonhazardous, safer for transport,
amenable for recovery, amenable for
storage, or reduced in volume/' RCRA
section 1004(34). Put another way,
wastes ultimately generated will be less.
hazardous or reduced in Volume by a
process designed to change the
composition of the hazardous waste
being generated. Arguably, these process
changes could apply to activities prior
to the generation of the hazardous
waste. Waste minimization and source
reduction techniques also potentially
further the ultimate statutory criteria of
minimizing threats to human health and
the environment. The endorsement of
waste minimization and source
reduction in the statute (see RCRA
section 1003(6)) is a direct indication
that these techniques further the
statute's protectiveness objectives. See
S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 17
setting out the concept of a preferred'
waste management hierarchy in
describing LDR requirements. It should
also be noted that the D.C. Circuit has
recently stated that one of the objectives
of the section 3004 (m) treatment
standards is to reduce the mass loading
of hazardous constituents, Chemical
Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d at
23-6, and this goal is perhaps best
served by waste minimization and
source reduction techniques.
This is not to say that there are no
drawbacks to including these
techniques as a type of section 3004(m)
standard. The Agency would need to
assess such factors as-how these -
techniques affect: Production decisions;
waste management costs and other
market efficiencies; development of new
:,, 111.....!!'
-------
Federal Register / Vol-_5g,No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules ; 48935
technologies; concentrations of ; - ; .
.hazardous constituents in the remaining
residues; and, implementation
difficulties noted in the Supplemental
Informatipn'Report in making a decision
ito specify source reduction arid waste .
minimization as a treatment standard. In
addition, the Agency may also need to
consider the applicability of the
techniques to facilities which differ in
processes used, size, age, and other
factors.
To better understand these tradeoffs,
the Agency solicited comments in the
Supplemental Information Report (pp.
30-31) on allowing source reduction/
waste minimization 'as an optional site- ,
"- specific means of satisfying the LDR ,
treatment standard. EPA is continuing
to evaluate those comments, and :
requests further comment on.this issue.
On May 18,; 1993, the EPA
Administrator announced new steps, to
protect public health arid the
. .environment by encouraging reduction
in the amount of hazardous wastes
generated in this country and
strengthening federal controls governing
hazardous waste incinerators and other
combustion devices.-Qne of those steps-
involved calling fora national-review of
the relative roles of waste combustion
and" waste reduction in hazardous waste
management. The Agency .is using
today's proposed rule to solicit
comment on the role of combustion and *
wake reduction in establishing: BOAT.
.-, In particular, today's proposed rule
specifies a series of new treatment'
standards that must be:met before ... ]
hazardous wastes are land disposed.
These standards, which in many cases '
are based on combustion performance,
specify:numerical limits which allow ;'
the use of any treatment technology, and
thereby recognizes the appropriateness
.of alternatives to combustion. The
Agency specifically solicits comment
and data on whether other treatment
technologies, especially recycling
technologies, can achieve these limits. If
not, the Agency seeks comment and
data-on whether the levels should be :'
modified so as to allow and encourage
the use. of non-combustion treatment
technologies; As an example, the ;
1 prbp'osed standards for hazardous soils ;
'' identify opti'dns-which allow slightly;
; higher Bevels of contaminants.to remain
jin'the treated soil so that innovative, x
non-combustion technologies may be .,
used; In keeping with the call for a ;
national review of the relative role of ;
combustion, the Agency is soliciting ':
c&ihment on whether there are Other
, actions that should be taken to achieve
a reduction in, waste generation, an
increase in recycle/reuse, or greater use
of non-combustion technologies. For
example, land disposal restrictions have
previously identified highly
concentrated wastes that must be treated
by recovery technologies. Are there
contaminant levels for TC organics
above which recbvery should be
required? With regard to non-
combustion technologies, the Agency
will attempt to encourage their use in
the LDR program, to the extent that
performance of such.technologies satisfy
the requirements of section 3004(m).
C. Relationship of Developing LDR
Treatment Standards to Levels Being
Considered in Hazardous Waste
Identification Pule , .
A recurring debate throughout EPA's
development of the land disposal
restrictions has been whether the RCRA
section 3004{m) treatment standards
should be technology-based (i.e. based
on performance of a treatment
technology) or risk-based (i.e. based on
assessment of risks to human health and
the environment posed by the waste);
By law, the treatment standards are to ''.
result in destruction, removal, or
immobilization of hazardous.
constituents in the waste "so t^at short-
term and long-term threats to human
health and the environment are
minimized." Section 3004(m). In
making this determination, the Agency .-.
is directed to take into account the
. "long-iterm uncertainties associated with
land disposal."Sections 3004 (d)(l)(A),
; (e)(l)(A) and (g)(5)(A). Technology-: "...
based standards achieve the objective of
: minimizing threats by eliminating as
:much of the uncertainty associated with.
disposal of hazardous waste as possible;
and were upheld as legally permissible
for this reason. Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d
355, 361-64 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert.
denied 111 S.'Ct. 139 (1990); see also 55
FR at 6642 (February 26,1990).
However, the court also held that
treatment standards cannot be -
established "beyond the point at which
there is no 'threat* to man or nature," id.
at 362, ; ."' -
EPA has indicated that its ultimate
policy preference is to establish risk-
based levels that represent miriimize
threat levels and so cap the.extent of '-?
hazardous waste treatment: 55 FR at
6641. The difficulties involved hi: this. ,
task, however, are formidable and very
controversial. The technical issues
include assessing exposure pathways
other than migration to ground water,
taking environmental, risk into account,-
and developing adequate toxicplpjgical
information for the hazardous *
constituents controlled by the
hazardous waste program. 55 FR at
6642. ; ; :
..EPA is currently working on a "\ -:" ' :-.
rulemaking that will define hazardous -
constituent-concentration levels below -
which a waste is no longer considered
"hazardous." Discussions concerning
these levels are taking place in the
context of the recently chartered Federal
Advisory Committee on the Hazardous
Waste Identification Rule (HWIR). The
Committee chose to initially discuss
how to provide greater flexibility for the
remediation of contamination at
.hazardous waste sites. It has also begun
discussions by focusing on
'concentrations below which waste
-mixtures'and treatment residuals would
no longer be subject to.the hazardous
waste regulations ("exit"-criteria), while
also discussing whether there is a
regulatory approach to: relatively ,
quickly bring under regulation clearly
hazardous waste, not now controlled by
the hazardous waste regulations.(an
"entry" rule). To help address the ,;
uncertainties of assessing multiple
exposure pathways, the Agency also has
initiated researph to examine exposure
of humans and'the environment to
hazardous constituents through a Jarge
number and Variety of pathways.
' Because current technology-oased
standards (like those in today's
proposal) impose substantial costs, EPA
has asked the Committee to consider
ways, to reduce the costs of managing "
wastes and remediating sites under
RCRA. In addition, EPA will specifically
ask the Committee to consider by the
end, pf December, whether risk-based "
exit criteria could also serve as -_. . : :
minimize threat levels to potentially cap
treatment standards for the land
disposal restrictions. If the Committee
recoftimeritls that the risk-based exit
criteri.a approach being'developed could
serve as caps on BOAT, treatment ,
standards, EPA will prepare a
supplemental,notice to the current '
prop;osal or otherwise expeditiously
propose such'an approach as a ;
complement to'the current technology-
based standards.' ; !: .
II. Summary of Proposed Rule ;
.On October 24' 1991, EPA published
ari advance notice.of proposed , "
rulemaking (ANPRM) to soliqit
comment on many aspects of what is - '
included in today's proposed rule>.
Comments;and'datareceived'in .; ; .";
response to the ANPSM have been
incorporated into this package. ,
Ai. Improvements to Existing LDR
Prograrn ' :
Th'e land disposal restrictions (LDR)' '.
prdgtam has been in place for over.
seven years. Because the Agency was
involved with promulgating, treatment
-------
48096 . Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 /Tuesday, September 14, 1993 /Proposed Rules
standards in time to meet statutory
deadlines, the program was not
developed under optimum conditions.
As a result^ implementation of the LDR
jprogram"may be quite complex. The
Agency Is considering a number of
changes that could be made to the LDR
prograrh to simplify its implementation,
without sacrificing protection of human
health and the environment. In
particular, the Agency is proposing in
this notice to replace the existing
e^nstUuent-specific/waste-specific
standards for many hazardous wastes
with a common set of treatment
standards, referred to throughout this
proposal as universal standards. Today's
notice also proposes to simplify the
requirements for lab packs containing
hazardous wastes, and to eliminate
s>omง p| the data Uems required on LDR
notifications. Additionally, a clarifying
; chart of paperwork requirements and a
4i'cu*slon of what constitutes
"acceptable knowledge of the waste" are
Included.
'_ ' ' ' ,l ' ', ;; Ij, Ill ;'; ; ;.( ,"-_
B. Treatment Standards for Toxic
Characteristic Wastes
On March 29,1990j EPA promulgated
Additional organic constituents and
levels at which a waste is considered
hazardous based on the characteristic of
toxicity (55 FR 11798). Because these
wastes Were identified as hazardous
after the enactment date of HS\VA in
1984, they are referred to under the LDR
program as "newly identified wastes".
Included are wastes identified with the
codes D018 through D043 based on the
toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP), i.e., TC wastes. EPA
is proposing treatment standards for
each of these constituents as part of
today's rule. In addition, because wastes
exhibiting the toxicity characteristic can
also contain treatable levels of other
hazardous constituents, EPA is also
proposing treatment standards for such
constituents, as well as rules on testing
and monitoring such constituents.
These trfaujient standards and rules are
necessary to implement the court's
opinion in Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2,17-
8 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert denied U.S.
(April 28,1993).
C. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOC
Ignltable and'ofTC Pesticide Wastes
Injected into Class I Deep Wells
inn Pi i,',, ii ' in ' ซ ,'iii',:: ('ป ini.iiiinniin, IT in,i i iinnm, ,/
In its September 25,1992 ruling on
Uio Third Third LDR Rule, the D.C.
Circuit Court remanded the Agency's
determination in that rule that allowed
dilution to remove characteristics of
hazardous waste that are injected into
Class I nonhazardous deep injection
wells regulated by the Safe Drinking
,n,;ji!i ;sjw':,i:1^^
Water Act The Agency is continuing to
develop a response to the court ruling.
As part of that response, EPA is today
proposing to prohibit dilution of two
types of characteristic wastes disposed
in Class I wells: High TOC ignitable
liquids (D001) and halogenated
pesticide \vastes that exhibit the toxicity
characteristic (D012-D017). The Agency
is proposing this prohibition because in
each of the two cases, treatment is the
preferred management option; the
organics in D001 high TOC liquids can
be reused, and D012-D017 pesticide
wastes contain particularly toxic
constituents. The. Agency is therefore
proposing to require that these wastes
be treated before injection in a Class I
well, or that they be injected into a no-
migration well.
D. Treatment Standards for Newly
Listed Wastes ' _ .
EPA has promulgated a number of
hazardous waste listings since the
enactment of HSWA in 1984, referred to
as "newly listed wastes" under the LDR
program. This proposed rule describes
the treatment and/or recycling
technologies identified as BOAT for
several of these newly listed wastes, and
proposes treatment standards based on
,these BDATs. Newly listed wastes
included in today's proposal are K141 ,
K145, K147-K148, and K149-K151
(coke by-product production wastes and
chlorotoluene wastes) (see 40 CFR
261.32.)
E. Soil Contaminated with Hazardous
Waste
This notice also proposes new
alternative treatment standards for
hazardous constituents when they are
contaminating soil (i.e., hazardous soil).
The Agency is proposing these
alternatives in order to consider a full
range of innovative technologies that are
available to treat such hazardous soil. In
particular, under the current regulations
and the "contained-in" policy, soil
contaminated with hazardous waste is
regulated to the same degree as the
contaminating hazardous waste itself,
until such contamination can be
separated from the soil matrix so that it
no longer "contains" hazardous
constituents. The numerical treatment
standards for many of these hazardous .
wastes when they are not found in the
s,oil matrix is based .OJQ the performance
of incineration, a technology not
uniformly appropriate for hazardous
soil, because of the low concentrations
of hazardous constituents often found in
soil. Rather, other technologies may be
more appropriate for the treatment of
lightly contaminated hazardous soils.
The Agency, therefore, is proposing
"liSP"! MM llli
these alternative treatment standards for
hazardous soil based on performance of
technologies more appropriate for soil
treatment. In order to comply with the
LDR's, hazardous soil would have to be
treated either to meet the standards for
.the hazardous waste contaminating the
soil, or the alternative treatment
standards proposed in this notice.
The Agency is proposing three
different approaches to develop .
alternative technology-based treatment
standards for soils. Under these
approaches, the universal treatment
standards (discussed in section HI.A of
this preamble) are proposed for soil as
"base" standards. Each approach allows
for treatment to levels above the
universal standards and differ primarily
in the extent of treatment required.
Under the first approach, the Agency
is proposing a range of standards with
a "ceiling" one order of magnitude
above the universal standard, provided
90% treatment of each constituent
subject to treatment is achieved* The
second approach is a variation of the
first, in that the Agency is proposing a
range of standards with a "ceiling" one
order of magnitude above the universal
standard; however, there is no
requirement that 90% reduction occur. ..
The third approach proposes an ,
unlimited range of values above the
universal standard provided 90%
treatment is attained (i.e., there would
be no "ceiling" value) unless 90%
treatment would treat the waste to a
level below the universal treatment
standards. If such a level would be
achieved through 90% treatment, the
universal treatment standards would be
met.
The Agency is proposing that these
approaches would apply to all
hazardous soils regardless of the type of
contaminating hazardous waste. That is
to say, the proposed approaches would
apply to soils contaminated with listed
hazardous wastes, soils displaying the
toxicity characteristic, and soils
displaying the characteristic of
ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity.
F. Compliance Monitoring and
Notification
In the May 24,1993 interim final rale
(58 FR 29872), the Agency adopted an
approach that allowed facilities
handling ignitable or corrosive waste to
monitor for additional hazardous
constituents "reasonably expected to be
present". The determination of
"reasonably expected to be present"
could be based on knowledge of the raw
materials, process, and potential
reaction products, or the results of a
one-time analysis for the entire list of
constituents subject to treatment. The
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48007
Agency noted that this approach would '
not necessarily be taken in the future
when the remanded rules were
addressed. The Agency is therefore
taking comments in today's proposed
rule on options for modifying this
approach.
EPA is also soliciting comment on
how to limit monitoring for those
constituents subject to treatment in TC
wastes and hazardous soil in subtitle C-
regulated facilities, in subtitle IT
facilities, and at CERGLA or RCRA
remediation sites.
G. Solicitation of Comments Regarding
Exclusion of Hazardous Debris
In this proposal, the Agency is
soliciting data to 'demonstrate whether
immobilized hazardous debris (if treated
properly) should be excluded from
subtitle C control. This proposal
describes a number of activities related
to this issue which the Agency
undertook after the promulgation of the
land disposal restrictions for hazardous
debris on August 18,1992.
H.JMadifications to Hazardous Waste
Recycling Regulations
, The Agency is also proposing
modifications to the current regulatory
framework to the definition of solid
waste that, if promulgated, would
modify the regulation of hazardous
waste recycling by providing
streamlined mechanisms that would
encourage environmentally protective
recycling of specific wastestreams. The
Agency is looking at the definition of
solid waste in a broader sense, and
plans to consider broader changes at a
later date. Today's modifications will,
however, allow environmentally
beneficial recycling operations to
continue without the regulatory
impediments imposed by full RCRA
subtitle C requirements. In turn, this
will allow EPA and the states to
streamline their efforts and better focus
on operations that are part of the
nation's waste disposal problem, rather
. than on those that are not, while the
Agency continues to look at the overall
definition. :
These modifications will broaden the
ง261.2(e)(l)(iii) ''closed-loop" recycling
exclusion from the definition of solid
waste such that the residues of a
secondary process (in addition to
residues oFa primary process, as
currently allowed) are excluded from
being a solid waste if they are reinserted
into the process without prior
reclamation (and also similarly broaden
the related ง 260.30(b) variance for
materials that are reclaimed prior to
reinsertion). , .
The proposed modifications are
based, in part, on two relatively recent
Court opinions (American Petroleum,
Institute v. EPA, 906 F. 2d 726 (D.C. Cir.
1990) (API) and American Mining
Congress v. EPA, 907 F. 2d 1179 (D.C.
Cir. 1990) (AMC H}) which indicate that
the Agency has some discretion to
consider the manner in which a
secondary material Is managed in
determining RCRA jurisdiction (i.e.,
RCRA jurisdiction may be determined,
at least in part, by consideration of ,
whether the material Is part of the waste
management problem, as indicated by
the potential for the material to pose a
hazard to human health and the~
environment when recycled).
III. Improvements to the Existing Land
Disposal Restrictions Program
A. Proposed Universal Treatment
Standards
Facilities that treat and land dispose
hazardous wastes typically must comply
with the LDR treatment standards that
have been established for many different
listed and characteristic hazardous
waste codes. In some cases, a
constituent regulated under the
treatment standard for one waste may
also be a constituent regulated under the
treatment standard for another waste.
These two treatment standards may be
different concentration levels. Such
differences in concentration limits for
the same constituent may cause
confusion to the regulated community
and to enforcement personnel.
In an effort to simplify and streamline
the LDR program, the Agency
investigated the possibility of
establishing a concentration limit for
each constituent that would be its
treatment standard, regardless of the
hazardous waste in which it was
present. This concept of establishing
consistent concentration limits on a
constituent-by-constituent basis Is being
referred to as establishing "universal"
treatment standards. :
Universal treatment standards are
being proposed in this notice forjprganlc
and metal constituentsone set for
wastewaters and a different set for
nonwastewatersthat would replace
most existing limits in previously
promulgated treatment standards for
listed hazardous wastes. These
proposed universal standards Would not -
apply, however, to wastes for which the
Agency has previously promulgated
treatment standards expressed as a
required method of treatment (see 40
CFR268.42).
EPA is also proposing that the
universal treatment standards would not
apply to F024, forreasons that are
discussed later in this section of the
preamble. EPA requests comment on
whether the universal treatment
standards should also apply to F024.
EPA also requests comment on whether
there are other wastes or groups of waste
.for which the universal treatment
standards should not apply.
The primary goal of establishing
universal standards is to provide
technically consistent and equitable
standards that simplify owner/operator
compliance, as well as enforcement and
compliance monitoring efforts. Another
potential advantage is that the universal
standards would provide the regulated
community with consistent constituent-
by-constituent concentration goals for
which the facility can direct waste
minimization investigations.
Furthermore, universal standards could
serve as a performance benchmark for
developing alternative treatment
technologies. ','.
The universal standards will be
particularly helpful in treating and
measuring compliance wheir several
listed wastes have been mixed together
that contain the same constituent of
concern, but under the present system
have different concentration limits:.
Wastes that are amenable to treatment
by the same technologies are, often
appropriately commingled prior to
treatment and recovery. Since under
universal standards the constituent of
concern would have the same
concentration limit no matter what
listed waste code it Is in, the need to
determine and achieve different
concentration limits would be,
eliminated. The development of
universal standards is not intended,
however, to modify current restrictions
on the commingling of incompatible
wastes, impermissible switching of
treatability groups, or impermissible
dilution. The Agency is not reopening
these issues for. comment.
Universal treatment standards, would
also provide EPA with a mechanism to
streamline the development of treatment
standards for future hazardous waste
-listings. In most cases, it could be
assumed that the constituents in newly
listed wastes would be subject to the
universal standards. Facilities could
then challenge these assumptions (if
warranted) during the rulemaking for
the waste listing. EPA solicits comment
on the advantages and disadvantages of
developing universal treatment
standards,
EPA is proposing universal standards
for over 200 constituents. This accounts
for all of the organics and metals that ', ,
can be analyzed consistently in
treatment residuals and that have been
regulated in previously-promulgated
-------
("ill1
48098 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 /Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
il!
treatment standards, The Agency is
proposing that the generator or owner/
operator would not have to analyze for
all constituents in the BDAT list (See
IhpMpAJ, list at "Guidebook for Quality
Assurancp/Quality Control Procedures
for Subniissjpn of Data for the,Land
Disposal Restrictions Program,*' July 3,
1991, p. 8-15 in the docket for this
rule.) Rather, it would only be necessary
to analyze for those regulated
constituents in the listed wastes that are
being treated.
f. IJnSversarStandards for Organic ' .
;|i HaMr^pus Constituents ^ \
a. Afenwqsitevraters.iiT(ie..ma|pnty of
k " rig nbnwastewatef treatmeht
i for organics have been
fd based on data from some
form of thermal destruction, typically
incineration. This is due to the Agency's
"decision to qsiablish methods of
treatment instead of risk based levels
and the ability of thermal devices to
destroy organics to levels at or near the
tffltqction. lirnjt (as measured in the ash).
In fact, incineratipn has been
determined to be BDAT for most of the
wastes containing organics (i.e., most of
the treatment standards for organic
hazardous constituents are based on the
performance of incineration.)
Nevertheless, the Agency believes that
other treafjnfnt technologies, including
lowercost innpyatiyelechnologies, can
also meet lEese standards! In fact, the
Agency has data on the treatment of
these constituents by innovative
technologies (technologies other than
incineration, such as solvent extraction,
thermal desorption) that support the
levels bfiing proposed today. However,
the Agency specifically solicits
comment as to what extent Innovative
technologiescan.meet the standards
proposed today.
In establishing treatment standards in
the First, Second and Third Third
rulemaklngs, the Agency had varying
amounts of treatment data; many of.the
existing nbnwastewater treatment
standards were established based.on the
transfer "of thermal "treatment "data from'"/
similar waste. Because the number of
drganic cxinstituents in existing
treatment"slahdards is so large, EPA
arranged them into thirteen treatability
groups based on similarities in
chemistry, structure, usage, ease of
treatability, detection limits, and waste
generation patterns (many of these
groups are based on treatability groups
used to establish treatment standards in
previous rulemakings.) These
treatability groups are Chlorinated
Vplatiles, Organo-Bromines,
'CSlproben2enes.,,PCBs and. Dipxins,,
ChlorinatediPesticides^ Chlori'nate^i
Phenolics and Derivatives,
Nonchlorinated Phenolics^ Phthalates,
Oxygenated Hydrocarbons, Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Aromatic
Hydrocarbons, Organo-Sulfur
Pesticides, and Organo-Nitrogen
Compounds.
The Agency examined all treatment
data available for each treatability
group. Because the constituents within
each treatability group are generally
treated by the same technology, patterns
of similar treatment levels exist within
each group. In some cases, however,
there are constituents in the group that
are either hard to treat or hard to detect.
These are the constituents that tend to
have higher treatment standards. The
data used to establish the treatment
levels were reviewed and the process
refined, to ensure that the data that was
used was the most appropriate for each
constituent... Treatment performance
data for wastes for which universal
standards will not apply were removed
from consideration. (See later section on
.. waste codes for which universal
standards will not apply.)
The treatment performance data were
further examined to determine trends
within each treatability group. These
trends might have included transfers of
data from specific constituents, similar
treatment standards, and use of
performance data from the same
treatment test. In general, the treatment
standards for the constituents within a
treatability group were comparable in
magnitude. Numbers higher than the
majority of treatment standards
normally indicated a waste harder to
treat or analyze.
Universal standards were chosen on a
const! tuent-by-constituent basis and are
included in a table later in this section.
The derivation of these standards is
based on a number of factors. The
Agency first considered performance
data (i.e., the matrix spike recovery data
and detection limit) transferred from the
same constituent. If this was not
possible, the Agency considered
performance data (i.e., the matrix spike
recovery data) from a constituent in the
same treatability group. The Agency
also preferred to use a matrix spike
recovery value based on actual recovery
rather than an average value. In
addition, the detection limit data for the
constituent were reviewed to see if the
detection limit was reasonable and if it
could be reasonably expected to be
achievedthat is, after the universal
standard was determined for a
constituent, the value was compared to
the detection limits used in the
development of the existing treatment
standards to see if other waste codes
could be treated to meet the universal
standard. (See the background
document for Universal standards for
more information on the development of
these standards.)
In the Third Third rulemaking, the
Agency received comment that some of
the treatment standards being
promulgated at that time were too low
to detect. In response, after reviewing
the submitted data, the Agency decided
as an interim measure that if
incineration ^the technology on which
the standards in question were based)
was used to achieve a "non-detecjt"
level, and if that, "non-detect" level was
within an order of magnitude of the
promulgated standard, it was
considered to be in compliance with the
treatment standard (see 40 CFR
268.43(c).) Because EPA is proposing
that those treatment standards
promulgated.in the Third Third rule be
revised based on the universal
standards, the Agency is soliciting
comment on the continued need for
such a policy. An alternative would be
if the facility measures compliance with
the universal standards and detects at.
least One constituent at or below the
universal standard within each
treatability group, then any non-detects
above the universal standards within
that treatability group would be
considered to be in compliance. In such
cases, waste analysis plans could be
modified to reflect monitoring for
certain constituents within each
treatability group that do not have
detection level problems.
b. Wastewaters. The proposed
universal standards for wastewaters are
taken primarily from the treatment
standards pVomiilgated for F039m'ulti-
' source leachate, and are included in a
table later in this section. These existing
treatment standards for organic
constituents in wastewaters were based
oh a Variety of conventional wastewater
treatment technologies. Information
about these treatment standards can be
found in the background document in,
the RCRA docket.
c. Comments on the Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking. Most
commenters to the Adyance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking supported the
establishment of universal standards for
organic wastes. However, several
disagreed with the approach. In
particular, several commenters were
concerned that they would have to
analyze the entire BDAT list for each
waste to measure compliance with the
universal standards. As indicated earlier
in this section, a treater would only
have to analyze for those constituents
regulated in the listed wastes being
treated.
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 7 Proposed Rules 48099
PROPOSED UNIVERSAL: TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS
[Nonwastewaters] , "-.--'
Regulated constituent
Maximumfof
any grab
- sample
total com-
position (mo/
kg)
1 Several .commenters suppprted the data indicate that, depending en the ;
idea pf universal treatment standards for concentration of the constituent, .other
simplicity, but thought that these, technologies, including innovative
numbers should be health-based and not technologies (i.e., solvent extraction, ;
below the TC levels, JEPA's historic , thermal desorption) can achieve the ;
position, echoed by the D.C. Circuit in proposed universal treatment standards
HWTC y. EPA, 886 F.2d 355, 362 (D.C, in the wide variety of nonwastewater
Cir. 1989) cert, denied 111 S. Ct. 139 matrices. The Agency specifically
(1990), is that characteristic levels for solicits comment on this point.
toxic wastes dp not minimize the threats d. Other Revisions to Existing
these wastes may pose. EPA is , Treatment Standards. The Agency is
considering whether to .establishrisk^ today soliciting comment on whether Acetone...., .,..:............ 160
based levels as part of the Hazardous . we should regulate individual aroclors, Acetophenpne ........ .,.>. 9.7
Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) or total PCBs. EPA is proposing as ; Acenaphthalene ...................... ;3.4
currently being developed. Depending alternatives two different sets of Acenapthene .... .....,.: 73,4 ,
on how this effortevolves and based on standards for both wastewater and 2-Aeetylaminofluorene .....,.. ' 140 .
available data, these levels may be : nonwastewater forms of PCBs. In one , Aniline 0.066
equal, lower, or higher than LDR set, the treatment standard is a single Anthracene "' -- 34. '
treatment levels. ; x number representing the sum of all Aioctor 1016 7777777777. ' Q&2
A few commenters argued that they individual aroclor concentrations. In the Aroclor 1221 .......,.......'.......;...., - 0^92
did not like the idea of universal other set, each aroclor ha& its individual Aroclor t232 .-. ; 0.92
treatment standards for organics. One treatment standard. Total PCBs, which Aroclor 1242 0.92
cpmmenter stated that in order for EPA include seven aroclors, represent Aroclor 1248 0.92
to establish universal standards, the hundreds of isomers of polychlorinated Aroctor 1254 1-8
Agency would have to adopt the highest biphenyls. This approach would be Aroclor 1260 ...........:;. 1.8
treatment standard for any constituent consistent with the regulations of other aS^RHC """:""" """"" ^n nRR
to ensure that all wastes can be treated EPA offices, such as those promulgated beta-^Hb --:-"; " QO&R"
, to conform with the standard. The pursuant to the Toxic Substance Control defta-BHC ".'.".7"" 0066
commenter argued that there is a range Act (TSCA). This approach would also gamrria-BHc"Z".".!!I!.!!!I!Z: 0066
of vafiationampng specific standards eliminate any analytical difficulties in Benzal chloride .................... 6.0
for identical organic constituents in quantifying each of the individual Benzene .....;........!., 10
different wastes. The commenter / aroclors. The current regulations Benz(a)anthracene ...T....... 3.4
indicated that the main reasons for these addressing individual aroclors require a Benzo
-------
' ' " ' (" ,'T !', V^'Vr ซ', r*,'><> ' ,
43100 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR, ORGANICS Con-
tinued ', ' - "
[NonvrastewatersJ
Regulated constituent
*
1.2-Dicblofoethane .................
2,4-Dichtoropheno)
2,6-Oichkxophenol ......
2.4-DichJorophenoxyacetk:
"" acid" .ซ...!.._........,........ ...
ojp'-ODD .... ..... ... .".. . .
p,p'-OOD .........
o,p"-DOE
ftp'-ODE ..... ....................
oj>'-00T
p,p'-DDT
Dio(\i6fod(fluoromethane ". ".
fSSc^oV0^06^'656 """
Jrans^l^oicWorppropene
Dfeklrin ...
n&4hui rvKtfinljtto
2 4Dimsthyt phenol
Dimethyl phihalEite
M-Oinrtrobenzena ..
DJ-0-octyl pWhatate .... .
DN>|5fOpy(nitrosoamlna ,..
i 4-Dioxskto . .... .,
DJphdfiylE&mine
Dipheaylnitrosamine _
EndMutfan 1 1...V.1.....1.....J
Endosutfan II
indosutfah stifata "1...........!
EndrSri .:....... I..................
End/in aktehyde ..".
Ethyl acetate .......
Elhyl benzene ........................
Ethyl ether
Etr$ methacrylate
Famphur .................
HeptechJor . "
H^pt&chJor dpoxkte
Hexachfofobutadteoa
Hexachkxocydopentadiene ...
Baxaditorodibenzc-furans
Hexachtorodtoanzo-p-dioxins .
Hexachtoroettiana ,
"IcJftftoii.i* ^Sftewfthe
jodornethane ........ ".
Isooutanol
Isosaftote .,
Kepooa ..,.,,.,...,..,....,,,.
MflthaovtonlWs
Me'Juno) .. " ., ' .. ' ..
Methaovrifene ....~.1ซ....__
Maximum for
any grab
sample
total com-
position (mg/
kg)
6.0
14
14
10
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
72
6.0
30
18
18
18
0.13
28
14
28
23
160
160
140
28
28
28
14
170
'13
'13
6.2
OJ>66
0.13
' 0.13
0.13
0.13
33
10
160
160
15
3.4
3.4
0.666
0.066
10
5.6
2.4
0.001
0.001
30
30
3.4
65 ' '
170
0.056
2.6
0.13
. 84. :
0.75 !
1.5
PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS Con-
tinued
{NonwastewatersJ
Regulated constituent
Methoxychlor - .. . .
3-Methylchloanthrene
4,4-Methylene-Ws-(2- ,
chloroaniline)
Methyiene Chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Napntnaiene ~
p-Nitroanilซie ..
Nitrobenzene
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
o-NftroDhenol .~.. ..
p-NifrophenoI . .;...
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nttroso-di-n-butlyamine ;
N-Nitrosomethylethylamtne ....
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
ParaWon
Pentachlorobenzene .,
Pentachlorodibenzc-furans .
Pentachtorodibenzo-p-dioxins
PentachJoroethane
Pentachtoronitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene _..ซ.....,.^-.......u
Phorate .........._._................
Phthalic anhydride ...
Propanenitrile .
Pronamkle '.
Pyrene _
Pyridine
Safrote ,
Sซvex (2,4.5-TP)
2,4,5-T .._ ^
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachiorobenzene:
Tetrachtorodibenzo-furans
Tetrachk>rodibenzo-p-dioxJns .
1,1A2-TetracrrioroethaRe
Tetrachtoroethylene
2,3,4,6-TetrachlorophenoI ......
Toluene ..... ....
Toxaphene - .. .. .
1 ^,4-TrteWorobenzene
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichtoroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichtoroethytene .*. ซ._
2,4,5-Trichlorophertol
2,4,&;Trichlorophenol
1,2,3-Trichloropropane .......
trifluoroethane ..i.. ..............
Vmy\ chloride .... ._
Xvlehe(s) _.'
Maximum for
any grab
sample
total com-
position (mg/
kg)
0.18
15
30
30
36
33
160
4.6
5.6
14
28
14
28
13
29
28
" '- . .17 '
35
35
4.6
10
0.001
0.001
6
4.8
7.4
16
5.6
6.2
4.6
28
360
1.5
8.2
16
22
7.9
7.9
' 14
0.001
0.001
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.4
10
2.6
19
6.0
6.0
; 6.0
7.4
7.4
30 .
30
6.0
330
PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS Con-
tinued
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Maximum for
any grab
sample
tola! com-
position (mg/
kg)
Total PCBs ....... 10
i This standard represents the sum of the
concentrations for each of this pair of
constituents.
2 This standard represents the sum of the
concentrations for each of this pair of
constituents.
3 This standard represents the sum of the
concentrations of m-xyiene. o-xylene, and p-
xylene.
PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS .'
IWastewaters]
Regulated constituents
Acetone
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acetonitrile ,
Aorolein
Acetophenone ...
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrylonitrile ..... ...
AWrin ,
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline ,:
Anthracene
Aramite
Aroclor 1016 :...~
Aroetor 1221 ....
Aroclor 1232
Aroclor 1242 ;..
Arocjor 1248
Aroclor 1254 ......:
alnha RWO
beta-BHC .....
delta-BHC
garnma-BHC
Benzal chlorkte ~. ......
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene .,
Benzo(g,h,0perylene .......
Benzo(k)fluoranthene ..
Bromodichloromethane ..
Bromometiiane :
4-Bromophenyl phenyl
etiier
n-Butyl alcohol ...
Butyl benzyl phthalate
2-sec-ButyM,6-
dinitrophenol ...............
Carbon tetrachloride .......
Carbon disulfide .. ..
Maximum for any
24 hr. composite
total composition
(mg/1)
0.28
0.059
0.059
0.17
029
0.010
0.059
0.24
0.021
0.13
0.81
0.059 ป
036
0.014
0.013
0.017
0.013
0.014
0.014
0.00014
0.00014
0.023
0.0017
0.055
0.14
0.059
0.061
10.11
0.0055
'0.11
0.35
0.11
0.055
... 5.6
0.017
0.066 =
0,057
0.014
in i In i ill
-------
Federal Register 7 Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14; 1993 / Proposed Rules 48101
PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS Con-
tinued
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituents
Chlordane .'.
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate ......
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene ...
Chlorodibromomethane ...
Chloroethane '.
bis-(2-Chlproethoxy) ,
methane :....
bis-(2-Chloroethyl) ether .
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether .
Chloroform :.....
. bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl)
ether .....
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Chloromethane (methyl
chloride) .....:...........
2-Chloronaphthatene
2-Chtorophenol -. ......
3-Chloropropene :
Chrysene ;.....
o-Cresol .....
Cresol (rn- and p- iso-
rners)
Cyclohexanone
15-Dibromo-3- .
chloropropahe
1 ^rD.ibrornoethaim .:.....;
Dibrorriomethane ^
2A: '," -'.- '':'
' Dtehtorophenoxyacetlc
O^p'-bDD ... .'..
o.p'-DDE
p.p'-DDE .,...:
P,ry-DDT ...... . .
p.p'-DDT ............. : ...
Dibenzo(a,e)pyrene ...
Dibenzo(a.h) anthracene .
tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl)
phosphate
rn-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dfehlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane .
1,1-Dichlproethane :..-
1,2-Dichlprpethane ;..-
1,1-Dichloroetfiylene
. trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethene .
2^4-Dichforopheh6l :..........
2,6-Dichlorbpheh6i :...
1 5-Dichloropropane ;.......
cis-1,3-bichlbrbpr6pene ..'
transit. 3-Dichlor6propene
Dleldrin ........;...:..........;..
Diethyl phthalate ..... ...
P- , ..-' -' .' .
. Dimethylaminoazoben-
zene
2.4-Dimethyl phenol
Dimethyl phthalate ..'........
Dt-n-butyl phthalate .......;.
'1 ,4-Dinitrobenzene ..-..
4,6-Dinitrocresol
Maximum for any
24 hr. composite
total composition
(mg/l) ;
0.0033
0:46
0.057'
0:10
0.057
.: 0.057
0.27
0.036
0.033
0.062
0.046
0.055
. 0.018
0.19
0.055
0,044
&.036
0:059
0:11 -
6.77
0.36
0.11
0.028
; '."' I '0.11; ;".
0.72
0.023
i ; 0,023
0.031 i
0.031
0.0039
0.0039
0.061
0.055
0.1 1
0.036
0.088 .
0.090 ,
053 :
0.059
,051 ,
0,025:
:; ...- 0.054 :
. , Q.oM
:'.".. 0.044 "'.
0.85
; ;o.ose
0.036
0.017
0.20
0.13 .
0.036
0.047
0.057
0^2
058
PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR ORGANics-i-Con-
tinued ' /
[WastewatersJ ;
. - .
Regulated constituents
2 4-Dinitropheno! ^
2,4-Dinitrotoluene . .
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate .........
Di-n-propylnitrosoamine ..
Diphehylamine .................
1 5-Diphenyl hydrazine ...
Diphenylnitrosoamine ,...
1,4-Dioxane .........:,
Disulfoton .:.
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate ...;.....-..
Endrin .....1...
En'drin aldehyde . ..;.....
Ethyl acetate .............
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether .
bis-(2-Ethylhexyl) phthal-
ate .....:
Ethyl methacrylate ...........
Ethytene oxide ...
Famphur A
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heptachlor .......u.. ...
Heptachlor epoxide:
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene .......
HexacHtoroditenzo-furans '
Hexachlprpdibenzb-p^ '[
Hexachloroethane ...........
Hexachloroproperie '..'
lndeno(1,2,3,-c,d)pyrene .:
lodomethane ..................
Isobutyl alcohol
Isodrin '
Isosafrole ;... :
Kepone
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol .....;.....
Methapyrilene .:..........
Methoxychlor .....
3-Methylchloanthrene ......
4.4-Methyleneป-bis-(2-
chloroaniline) .;-..;........
Methylene.chtoride ..........
.Methyl ethyl ketone .........
Methyl. isobutyljsetpne,.. '..
Methyl Jrriethacryl^te .-_;
Methyl methansulfonate
Methyl Parjathion .......... :
Naphthalene :....;. -
2-Naphthyfarnine ......^'
p-Nitroanilihe ~
Nitrobenzene ...................
5-Nitro-o-toluMine' ...
p-Nitrophenol -. L .
N-Nitrosodiethylamine .....
N-NttrosodimethylaminQ ..
- N-Nrtroso-di-n-butylamine ,
N- . " : :" '- '
Nitrosomethylethylamf-
' ne ........I ;....... ...
Max.imum for any
24 hr. composite
total composition
(mg/1)
6;12
0.32
0.55
0.017
0.40
Z0.92 ;
0.087
. 20.92
, ซ 0.12
0.017
0:023
0.029
0.029
0.0028
0.025
0.34
0.057 .
...' 0.12
0.28
0.14
0:12
0.017
0.068
0.059
0.0012
- 0.016
.- ,' 0.055,
,; . 0.055
:o.oooo63
0.000063
0.055
: 0.035
0.0055
0.19
5.6
0.021
0.081
0.0011
;054
" '' S.6 " '
'0.081
0.25
0.0055
0.50
,0.089
058
0.1.4 .
: i : - : o.i4 ;
.';>' '. 0:01^:
' . "0.014
0.059 :
''-''-. 0.52
0:028
0:068.
: 0.32
, 0.12
0.40
'"".: 0.40
V P:40
0.40
PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS Con-
tinued; :; ; - .. , \
. [Wastewaters]
Regulated constituents-
Peritachlorobenzene .... .
Pentachlor odibenzo-
Pentachlorodtbenzorp-
Pentachloronitrqbenzehe
Phenanthrcne
Phphrtl
Phorate
Cofrnlo
245-T ' , '
15,4,5- , '
' .Tetrachlorobenzene .....
Tetrachlorodibehzo-furans
Tetrachiorodibenzo-p--
dioxins :.....:..;.............;..
1,1,15-Tetrachloroethane ,
1 ,1 5,2-Tetrachlbroethane
Tetrachtoroethene ...".ป..
S.S.'t.erTetrachlorophehol
Toluene ..:..'............
Toxaphene ...'..!..............
Tribromometharie
1 5,4-Trichlorobenzene A
1,1,1-Trichtoroethane ซ...
1,'15-Trichloroethane .....
Trtehloromonofluqrometh-
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoi
2,4,6-Trichloroph6nol ......
'1 2,3-Trichloropropane ..
Sl.l^-trichlorb-l^-
Vinyl chloride I.,.....*.....;.;..
Xytene(s) ...a.:;...,......'........
Total PCBs .....;..;.......
Maximum for any
24 hr. composite
total composition
(mg/l)
0.40
0.013
0.013
0.014
0.055 ~
.. :. --. 0.000035
0.000063
0.055 .
' . . . 0.089
, . o:osi
0.059
0.039
0.021
0.055
0.093
;054
0.067
;-,: 0,014 .
, ,-:, 0.081
0.72
0.72
0.055
0:000063
0.000063
. \0.057
0.057
0.056 ;
" 0.030 -.
0.080
0.0095- .
0.63
- ': 0^055
0.054
0.054
0.054 "
0:020
O.t8
0.035 !
0,85
; ซ 0.057
0.27
30.32
- ; ;. . ..:0;1 !;
. ปThis stahdafd represents trie sum of the
concentrations 'for -each of this 'pair !"df
constttue'nts^ ; :-i- : '... '-, >:' . : .~:.-, \ -
.z.This standard, represents the sum of :the
concentrations for each of this pair of
constituents. '
a This standard represents the sum of the
concentrations of- m-xylene, o-xylene, ahd.p-
xylene.. : : ' - ' ., -.;.- ,.-:-. .-.',.:,-
2. Universal Standarids for Metal . ;
Hazardpus Constituents .
JEPA is also prdposing bpth
wastewater and non waste water '.-%
-------
''!';' 'illftiWIi W!!'1 ":!!!!. I'l'lfi '"iiftiimiinilrilllilli!! Vi j'iiii!1! !H IIS, f\m, f\ '." : ; .%'':,', . "'.i.fti'::":isii -!>
-------
48103
approach. In particular, one commenter
argued that establishing only one
standard for each metal constituent
would cause a problem because it
would not account for the variety of
waste matrices; and the differences in
the ability of stabilization to treat
different matrices. The commenter
' suggested that EPA develop a separate
set of treatment standards for the
following seven different metal-bearing
waste subcategpries: (1) Wastewater
treatment residues, (2) direct process
wastes, (3) biological and organic
containing residues, (4) direct process
dusts and solids, (5) soils and sludges
from remediation projects. (6)
incineration residues, and (7) waste
treatment residues (i.e.,;brines), slags,
' .and refractories.
EPA is not adopting the approach
suggested by the commenter. As stated
previously, HTMR and stabilization are
being proposed as BDAT for metal-
containing nonwastewaters. Because
HTMR is not matrix dependent, and.
where the metal concentrations are
appropriate, stabilization is able to
achieve those levels, treatment
standards for different matrices are not
necessary. While it may be possible to
set lower treatment standards for certain
of the subcategories, one of the major
reasons for establishing universal
treatment standards is to streamline the
LDR program. Establishing different
subcategories could be just as complex
' as the current system. In addition,
questions on how to distinguish
between different subcategories would
- require development of a multitude of
regulatory definitions. Available data
indicate that each of the suggested waste
subcategories can be treated to comply
with the universal metal standards.
. One commenter argued that in order
for EPA to establish universal standards
the Agency would have to adopt the
highest standard for any constituent to
ensure that all wastes can be treated to
conform with the standard. The
commenter argued that there is variation
among the specific treatment standards
for identical metal constituents in
different wastes and treatment groups.
The commenter indicated that the main
reasons for the differences are the wide
variety of matrices treated, along with
the limitations of stabilization.
The Agency does not believe that the
variety of treatment standards is solely
the result of treating different matrices.
For example, analytical laboratories
have different levels of accuracy for
reporting detection limits, and many of
the metal treatment standards are based
on detection limits.
Several commenters submitted data
on the treatability of metal wastes using
stabilization. EPA reviewed the data and
concluded that most metal wastes can
be stabilized to the levels proposed as
nonwastewater universal treatment '
standards; Some concentrated
chromium waste streams were treated to
levels slightly above the universal
standards; however, the Agency believes
HTMR to be a more'appropriate "
treatment technology for concentrated
metal wastes. This is especially true of
wastes with high levels of chromium
which are technically very responsive to
HTMR and have considerable economic
value relative to other common metals.
Moreover, since the inception of the
Land Disposal Restrictions, EPA has
observed that treatment facilities alter
process design and/or operating
parameters to achieve the levels
established as treatment standards.
Consequently, the Agency believes that
there exists a certain degree of flexibility
with most treatment technologies. (In
addition, national and site-specific
variances from the treatment standards
remain an option, (See ง 268.44))
In summary, EPA believes it is
appropriate to base BDAT for the
universal metal standards on HTMR
because it is a matrix independent
technology that reduces the amount of
material ultimately sent for land
disposal. Also, because these standards
could also be achieved by stabilization ,
the proposed levels would not be
technology forcing (i.e., data indicate
that stabilization can achieve the
proposed universal treatment standards
for a wide variety of nonwastewater
matrices.)
d. Request for data. The Agency
requests data and comment on whether
there are any especially difficult to. treat
wastes that cannot achieve the proposed
universal treatment standards. For
nonwastewaters, information provided
should include characterization data on
the untreated wastes, such as total metal
content, TCLP leachate concentrations,
and technical explanations of why the
waste material is inappropriate for
recovery or ineffectively stabilized. '
Stabilization information should
include type of binder, both weight and
volume binder-to-waste ratios, whether
premixing with less concentrated wastes
is used to make the waste more
amenable to stabilization, and TCLP
results for the 14 metals. Information
describing the treatment performance of
stabilization (or other technologies)
should also be submitted.
For wastewaters, information should
include total metal concentrations
(preferably for all 14 metals present) in
the influent and effluent. Information.
should also address any other,
constituents in the waste that may be
interfering with treatment (such as
complexing agents), operating
conditions such as Ph and retention
times, amount and type of precipitating
reagents added, and any other
information needed to assist the Agency
in evaluating the wastewater treatment
process.
: PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR METALS
" [Nonwastewaters]
Regulated Constituent
Antimony ...........
Arsenic .^ '
Barium '.-
Beryllium
Cadmium ;.. .
Chromium (Total)
Lead ......
Mercury ....
Nickel
Selenium
Silver ....;.
Thallium ...........
Vanadium
Zinc
Maximum for
any single
composite
sample TGLP
(mg/l) - ,
n **<*
U.o7
. u.uuy
5.3
PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR METALS
[Wastewaters]
Regulated Constituent
Antimony ...
Arsenic ..........
Barium
Beryllium ....... -
' Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead,. -"""
Mercury *
Nickel
Selenium
Silver ,
Thallium .........
Vanadium ..
Zinc ..,..
Maximum for
any single
composite
sample {mg/l)
1 Q
f\ 00
n OA
n "57
0-iC
1.0
3. Universal Standards for Cyanide -
Both wastewater and honwastewater
universal treatment standards are being
proposed for cyanide in today's rule;
The Agency believes it is appropriate to
regulate cyanide because cyanide is
commonly found in many listed metal-
containing and ^organic-containing
wastes. Furtherrriore, it is common
practice to mix wastes during both
wastewater and nonwastewater
treatment. In developing universal
standards for cyanide, the Agency
reviewed Jhe existing treatment
-------
'illill ill
48104 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14,' 1993 / Proposed Rules
siandards for cyanide as well as the data
Ihnt were used in developing those
standards; some of the standards
include levels for total and amenable
cyanide, while others only regulate total
cyanide.
1'lje existing wastewatef standards are
based primarily on the performance of
alkajirje chlorination. Wet air oxidation
is another treatment technology
supporting treatment siandards for
" aerylonitrile wastewaters (i.e., KOll,
K013, and K014). With regard to
nonwaslewater forms, several of the
existing standards are based on
Incineration (I.e., K048-K052, F037,
F038, and FQlO) while several are based
on treatment of the wastewater to
destroy the cyanide prior to generation
of the nonwastewater residual by
technologies such as alkaline
ehlorination [i.e., F006 and F019) and
electrolytic oxidation followed by
alkaline chlorination (i.e., Foil and
F012). Several of the existing standards
were established based on transfers of
treatment cJata from the treatment of a
similar waste.
The types of wastes in which;cyanide
hns been regulated under the BDAT
program include: Electroplating (D003
Wactive cyanides, F006); aluminum coil
conversion (F019); heat treating (FOlO,
F011, F012); metal cyanides (P013,
P021, P029, P030, P063, P074. P098,
P099, P104, P106, P121J; multi-source
laaphate (F03J}; pigments (K005^ K007);
pelroleum (K048, K049, K050, K051,
K0ง2, F037, F038); coking (K060); and
6r^an5-nitrogen (Kl 04 j. Cyanide is also
8 regulated cpnstituent in acrylonitrile
wastes (KOll, K013, K014J which are
|jbl incjuded under universal standards
(see earlier discussion in this section of
today's preamble.)
p. Was/wafers. In developing the
cyanide universal standards, the Agency
examined the existing data and noticed
certain patterns. In particular, it appears
that regardless of process waste type,
the wastewaters could generally be
treated to levels on the order of 1.9
mg/1 for total cyanidel Thus, the Agency
is proposing for universal standards a
tptfl cyanide limit of 1.9 mg/1 for
Wiifefewaters. Jhis level is widely used
jj fn^astpwltgr Discharge regulations
namely those for th'e Metal Finishing
Industry and the Organic Chemicals,
standard of 0.86 mg/1 foe amenable
cyanide. As such, EPA solicits comment
pi* the need tp regulate wastewaters for
I both total and amenable cyanide, or
whether the amenable cyanide level
should be an alternative to the total
standard as provided in the Metal
Finishing standards, 40 CFR 433.14(p).
b. Nonwastewaters. In developing
universal standards for cyanide in
nonwastewaters, the Agency examined
three options: A-standard based on total
and amenable cyanide concentrations, a
standard based on TCLP concentrations,
and a standard that specifies treatment
methods. Although EPA is proposing
today adoption of the first option,
comments are solicited on all three
options. These three options are .
discussed below. In addition, the
Agency solicits comment on the .
appropriateness of withdrawing the
cyanide treatability variances in the 40
CFR 268.44, if EPA decides to
promulgate the leach or the specified
method option. Also, the Agency
solicits data on any technology
advances in treating iron cyanide
wastewaters that would justify
withdrawing these variances, if EPA
promulgates the concentration option.
/. A Concentration-Based Standard. In
examining the total concentration
option,-the Agency examined several
issues that would affect the ,
development of a universal
concentration-based number. First, there
is a wide range of existing BDAT
treatment standards for nonwastewater
forms of cyanide, ranging from 1.8 to
590 mg/kg (total cyanide) and 9.1 to 30
mg/kg (amenable cyanide). EPA
established these different treatment
levels after concluding that the available
treatment data supported the
establishment of separate treatability
groups as a direct result of waste
characteristics affecting treatment
performance. For example, iron levels,
the presence of organics, or the presence
of complex iron-cyanides can affect the
treatability of cyanide wastes. In
addition, EPA found that some wastes,
as generated, already contained low
levels of cyanide in the waste.
Second, the analytical method for
measuring cyanide in nonwastewaters
allows significant variabilities in the ,
resulting concentrations of total and
amenable cyanides. The specified
methods, SW 846/Method 9010 and
9012; do not specify sample size or
distillation time. By varying these two
factors, reported cyanide concentrations
, may differ by a factor of more than 100.
In the Third Third BDAT rulemaking,
the Agency avoided these kind of
variabilities by specifying a 10 gram
sample and a 1 hour and 15 minute
distillation time in order to comply with
LDRs applicable to nonwastewater
forms of D003, F006, and F019.
However, the 10 gram sample size and
1 hour and 15 minute distillation time
have not been specified in setting other
LDR treatment standafds.and thus,, do
not apply to all LDR cyanide limits
that is, EPA's existing data-base
contains treatability results using
various sample sizes/distillation times.
This basically ensures that we cannot
group and compare these data as though
they were all based on the same
analytical method.
A third issue that EPA is considering
is that much of the treatability variance
activity has been associated with total
cyanide concentrations. There have
been two variances approved allowing
significantly higher levels (see 56 FR
12351, March 25,1991) and three other
treatability variance requests indicating
that the 1.8 mg/kg level of total cyanide
in F039 is unachievable. Again, the
analytical test methods or the presence ,
of iron-cyanide complexes appear to
play some role in these treatability
variance petitions.
In spite of these issues, EPA believes
that it is technically feasible to develop
a concentration based standard
provided analytical variabilities and
treatment of complex cyanides are taken
into account. Electroplating wastes, the
aluminum coil conversion wastes, the
heat treating wastes, and the metal
cyanide P- wastecodes all have high
levels of cyanide in the untreated waste
and/or have cyanide in a matrix (such
as an iron-cyanide complex) that is
difficult to treat. In the June 23,1989
preamble (54 FR 26608), the Agency
agreed with comrrientors .that high
concentrations of iron in the cyanide
wastes (when present as iron-cyanide
complexes) appear to effect the level of
cyanide destruction that is achievable.)
Based on the most difficult to treat
nonwastewaters, the Agency is
proposing universal treatment standards
of 590 mg/kg for total cyanide and 30
mg/kg for .amenable cyanide (as
measured by Method 9010 or 9012).
EPA is also proposing that a 10 gram
sample and 1 hour and 15 minute
distillation time be used for the purpose
of complying with these universal
standards.
Other wastes such ias multi-source
leachate, pigments, petroleum, coking,
ink solvents and orgario-nitrbgen wastes
generally have very little cyanide in the
untreated waste to .begin with, have
cyanide along with organic constituents -
which are routinely incinerated, or have
cyanide in a free form which is easier
to treat by conventional treatment
methods. For these nonwastewaters, the
Agency is soliciting comment on
whether these other wastes need to be
regulated at a level below the universal
treatment standard, namely, at 30 mg/kg
for total cyanide and 1.8 for amenable
cyanide.
-------
";jf%Vf, iWiปrtT-i' "VftVPi" \*.f ' 'ji^i.ff-ife'-iV^MVfcli^K'iiS1 ,\ *;. 1' - fhr.- fir- i'lTfV^A ปซ* i- -'!''
Federal Register /Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993./' Proposed Rules
48105
At this time, the Agency believes that
.' establishing ,a lower limit to address
wastes that contain little to no cyanide
is unnecessary; that control of organic
constituents which are routinely
incinerated provides adequate control,
and that inorganic wastes with cyanide
In a free form are adequately controlled
by the amenable cyanide limit of 30 mg/
kg. However, the Agency specifically
solicits comments on these points.
ii. A Leachable Based Standard. The
leach, option involves specifying a
concentration standard based on the
TCLP or some other leaching procedure.
. "For previous LDRs, the Agency has
selected a total concentration, standard
to best reflect the capabilities.of
destruction technologies. In rare
instances, where there are .analytical
.^difficulties, the Agency has elected to
regulate wastes based on a TCLP
concentration, even though the basis, for
BDAT was a destruction technology. For
cyanide, EPA is faced with a chemical
that has analytical difficulties and can
be effectively destroyed by certain
technologies. Basing the standard on the
TCLP concentration, however, avoids
the analytical difficulties and still
provides the treater with the flexibility
of using a variety of destruction
technologies to comply with the
standard. . .
. After examining the treatment data for
TCLP levels, the Agency solicits
comments on. the following TCLP
cyanide limits: 16 mg/1 for total cyanide
.and 3.5 mg/1 for amenable cyanide. Each
concentration based standard is based
on two data ppints from a data set pi,
three data points (an outlier test on ..
TCLP levels for. the amenable and total
cyanide.rejected one data point.) Thes&
cyanide limits,are based on cyanide
levels measured in residues from EPA's
rotary-kiln incineration test study of
EPA Hazardous Waste NOi K088. These;
hazardous wastes are associated with
spent carbon.electr.odes (spent pot . .
liners) generated by the aluminum ' :
industry. EPA Hazardous Waste No.
K088 wastes-are contaminated with
sodium aluminum fluoride salts, trace, r
. metals, arid heavy concentrations of free
, and iron, complex cyanides. , "
EPA subsequently stabilized these.
K088 incineration resides jn order to
treat leachable fluoride values. None >of
the. stabilizedwastes show, however,
any improvement for the .teachability of
amenable and total cyanide, levels,' To
the contrary, XonF of the" stabilized ,.
K088-4npineratipn wastes show an
increase of fCLP levels for amenable" ".'
and total cyanide. Still, EPA's study,"': '
shows that KQ88 underwent significant.^
destruction of total and amenable/, ':."/
cyanide values by rotary kiln
incineration; concentrations, of cyanide
in untreated wastes ranged from 3,400
mg/kg to 5,240 mg/kg and in treated ;
- residues ranged from 95 to 210 mg/kg
total cyanide and. from 38 to 140 mg/kg
amenable cyanide. , :
An alternative to these levels is an
amenable cyanide level of 36 mg/1 based
on a modified TCLP. The modified,
TCLP is based on a deionized \vater
leach as opposed to an acid leach. This
proposed water leach level is based on
residues resulting from the calcination -
of spent potliners .via a Reynolds .. ,.
process. The Reynolds process carries
out the calcination-of K088 in a rotary
kiln that operates at similar temperature
and residence time conditions to those
of EPA's incineration test study. In
contrast to EPA's incineration study,
Reynolds' process adds up to 35% sand
and, 35% limestone to the calcination of
K08S (KQ88 may comprise up to 30% of
the total feed charged to the calciner.)
Like EPA's incineration, study,
Reynolds' calcination process shows
that substantial destruction of cyanide
values can be achieved by-thermal
processes (in Reynolds' demonstration
study, cjranide values in the"untreated
K088 wastes ranged .from 18.1 mg/kg to
1,110 mg/kg for total :cyanide and from
2.6 nig'/kg to 1,110 mg/kg for amenable
cyanide and in treated KQ88 residues
levels of both cyanide species were
below the detection level of 10 mg/kg.
Taking into account any dilution .
resulting from the addition of lime and
sand, these treated values are more
likely, tp be in the range of 30 mg/kg.)
Other, performance data measuring
cyanide concentrations in.leachate '..
.extracts.include CyanoKem's ..'
stabilization of alkaline chlorinated
cyanide wastes, EPA's stabilization.
study of cyanide wastps from the .,'
aluminum coil industry, and '
stabilization data submitted by, : ,'
commentors tip EPA's second and third .
third rujemakings of cyanide wastes.
EPA has placed all these stabilization
data in the administrative record, of
today's proposal. .(See memorandum .to
Administrative Record on Available
Stabilization Data on Cyanide Wastes.)
Except for CyanQKem's data, these
stabilization studies lack information on
whether any pretreatment step for the
destruction.of the cyanide occurred
prior to stabilization. Of course, a
majority of the RCRA-cyanide wastes.-
are likely to be sludges resulting from
the treatment of cyanide/metal-bearing
wastewaters discharged to PQTWs-or to
outfalls under NPDES.permits; however,
these wastew^ter treatment sludges may
not have been generated from- cyanide
destruction technologies. Some facilities
discharging under NPDES or POTW
permits may simply switch cyanides
"from wastewaters tp.sludges in a ,
cyanide-metal complex form or into a
thlocyanate form for the purpose of
, complying with their water effluent, '
limitations. These matrices may leach
from the;landfill, migrate to surface-
waters, or oxidize when exposed to
sunlight and thus, release free cyanides
into the environment. EPA thus believes
that treatment standards for cyanides
must be based on residues from the
destruction of cyanides prior to any
stabilization or ultimate disposal.
However, the Agency is soliciting
comment on whether there are cyanide,
wastes that are more appropriately
immobilized. Any commentors-
submitting such data should include:
proper justification for why the cyanide
in these wastes cannot be destroyed \ '
(which is the Agency's preference).,
Although 3004(m) pf HSWA gives
regulatory discretion to EPA on whether
to set treatment standards that
substantially reduce the mobility or
toxicity of hazardous constituents prior
to land disposal, the legislative history
, also emphasizes the Congressional
concern that cyanides should^ be treated
by destruction technologies prior to
disposal: "[djestruction of total cyanides
should be required as-a precondition to
land disposal." 130 Cong. Rec. S 9179
(daily ed. July 25,1984) (Statement of
Senator Chaffee explaining the
amendment which became section
3004(m).) ,
CyanoKem's stabilization data ,
submittal may support development of
a treatment standard of 10 mg/1 of
amenable cyanideras measured in an
extract of ah alkaline leach of ' ,
chemically stabilized cyanide wastes.
These cyanide wastes-were previously
treated by alkaline chlorination and
subsequently treated by stabilization,
CyanoKem's data are based on monthly
composite samples. CyanoKem points
out, however, that the amenable
leachate cyanide level can be enforced
with the collection of grab samples.
CyanoKem's data also indicate that a
broad variety of cyanide wastes with -:.-'.
untreated total cyanide concentrations
up to 500,000 mg/kg, including complex
cyanides, were treated by alkaline
.chlorination (to levels below 400 ppm
.total cyanide, as measured by Method
9010) followed by chemical
stabilization. The wastes treated by '
CyanoKem include: D003, F006-F012,
P013, POZi, P029, P030, P098, P106,';
and P12-1. CyanoKem also indicated that
the. addition, of solidification/
stabilization,agents such as fly:ash or'.'
cement does not result in any,further.
.^treatment of cyanide in the final (the
alkaline chlorinated) sludge. EPA :
-------
48i06
Federal Register / VoL' 58, No. 176",/ ''Tuesday, "JSiBptiember 14'!'! 1993""/" Propose
Rules
requests comments on the feasibility of
basing a leochste standard based on
those.CyanoKem data including the
adoption of its leaching procedure. The
Agency also requests comments on
whether amenable, total, or both total
and amenable cyanide should be
regulated under the universal standards.
ill, Specifying Treatment Methods.
The final option is to specify methods.
EPA is soliciting comments on requiring
Use use of incineration, alkaline
ehlorination, or electrolytic oxidation
followed by alkaline chlorination, and
wet air oxidation to treat cyanide. EPA
believes these technologies have been
demonstrated to treat wastes with high
concentrations of free cyanides (over
100,000 ppm) or complex iron cyanides
(the most difficult to treat of all the
cyanide species.)
As part of the First, Second, and
Third Third rulemakings, EPA
examined a broad range of oxidation
toehnologief: that enable the destruction
of cyanides in a diverse universe of
wastewater and nonwastewater forms of
hazardous wastes. C&emical oxidation
technologies enable the destruction of
dissolved cyanides in aqueous
solutions, such as wastewaters from
plating and finishing operations, or of
Inorganic sludges from these operations.
Chemical oxidation technologies
examined by EPA include:
(1) Electrical oxidation, (2)
hypochlorfio or chlorine oxidation
(alkaline chlorination), (3)
permanganate, ozone, of" Sulfur dioxide/
air (Inco process) oxidation, (4) wet air
oxidation, (5) high temperature
(cyanide) hydrolysis, and (6) UvV
Ozonolysis,
One, or combinations, of these
technologies can reduce the
concentration of cyanides in the wastes.
Jndneratiqn, peroxide treatment,
alkaline chlodnation, or electric
oxidation followed by alkaline
ehlorinatiqn, high temperature
hydrolysis, or UV/pzonolysis appear to
effectively destroy amenable cyanides,
cyanide-metal complexes (to varying
degrees), or chelating agents. EPA has
data in today's docket showing that high
concentrations of amenable cyanides
(over iOO.OOO ppm) can be treated
effectively by high temperature '
hydrolysis or electric oxidation to levels
below 500 ppm when followed by
alkaline chlqrination or other oxidation
technologies. There are also data
showing that complex cyanides,
including iron-cyanides, can be treated
effectively by combinations of alkaline
chlorination and some oxidation
technologies.
It appears that the use of sulfur
dioxide/air oxidation, the Kastone
process (an oxidation process for
treating rinse wafers from zinc or
cadmium metal finishing operations),
and potassium permanganate alone may
only oxidize amenable cyanides to
cyanates or thiocyanates and thus,
further oxidation, treatment is necessary
to destroy cyanides. These technologies
do not appear to destroy iron-cyanide
complexes. For instance, sulfur dioxide/
air oxidation leaves behind iron cyanide
complexes reduced in a ferrous state
that are removed from solution by
precipitation of ferro-cyanjde
complexes. EPA solicits comments that
demonstrate how these chemical
oxidation technologies can destroy iron-
cyanide complex wastes and not just
shift iron-cyanide complexes from one
media to another. '
Incineration, UV/ozonatibn
(catalyzed), and a proprietary improved
alkaline chlorination process appear to
more effectively treat complex cyanides
including iron cyanidesthe most
resistant to oxidation treatment of the
cyanide-metal complexes. EPA has data "
demonstrating its applicability to the
following cyanide wastes: K086, F010,
K048-K052, F037, F038, K011, K013,
K014, K104, K106, F006, F010, and
F019.
EPA also has data on the treatment of
aluminum spent potliners by
incineration and calcination.'.'...
technologies. These incineration and
calcination data show that cyanide \
complexes and amenable cyanides can
be treated to a total cyanide level belpw
210 mg/kg. (See above discussion
supporting the alternative universal
teachable levels for cyanides.)
Wet Air Oxidation (WAO) is another
cyanide destruction technology
examined by EPA. It is, in fact, the basis
of treatment standards for K011, K013,
and K014 (acrylonitrile) wastewaters
{See 55 FR 22584, June 1,1990). WAO
can reduce the concentration of organics
and cyanides in wastewaters (that
contain less than 1% Total Suspended
Solids and less than'5% Total Organic
Content.) Effluent wastewaters often
undergo additional treatment by other
technologies such as biological
treatment to further reduce organic
levels in the wastewaters. Similarly,
subsequent treatment of nonwastewater
forms is often provided in order to
comply with applicable LDRs for
organics and metals. EPA thus believes
that it is technically feasible to include
WAO among those cyanide destruction
technologies being considered under the
option of prescribed technologies.
These treatment standards for
wastewaters and nonwastewaters must
be achieved by destruction, not by
stabilization or immobilization or by~
>. ir ,; ;. ',;.- iri'MsH' ' ,-;J".. :,.', l^ufrSf'.^
simply converting the cyanide to
cyanate, ferrous or ferric cyanide
complexes. In light of the legislative
history of HSWA, EPA believes
(cyanide) destruction technologies will .
serve better the requirements of
J0p4(m).
In general, the Agency would prefer to
specify a numerical standard, so that
treaters may be free to use other
technologies to destroy the cyanide and
achieve the standard. Due to the
complexity of the issues involved in ,
treating cyanide, the Agency is
including this option to provide
comrnentprs a complete range of options
to consider.
PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT
STANDARD FOR CYANIDE
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cvanide (Totall
Maximum, tor
any single
composite
sample (mg/l)
1.9
PROPOSED UNIVERSAL TREATMENT
STANDARDS FOR CYANIDE*
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cyanide (Total) ...
Cyanide (Amenable)
Maximum for
any single
composite
sample (mg/
kg)
590
30
Note: "Cyanide nonwastewaters are
analyzed using SW-646 Method 9010 or
9012, sample size 10 grams, distillation time,
one hour and 15 minutes.
4. Universal Standards for.Petroleum
Refining Wastes . . . .. .
In the Third Third final rule (55 FR
22520, June 1,1990) the Agency
examined treatment data^ from
noncombustion technologies as a basis
for BDAT for certain petroleum refining
listed wastesK048-52. In the LDR
Phase I final rule (57 FR 37194, August
18,1992), the Agency extended those
limits to other petroleum refining
wastesJF037-38. The universal
standards for organics, however, are
based on combustion. The proposal to
cover these wastes under the universal
standards is based on the expectation
that the noncombustion technologies
considered during the development of'
the K048-52 standards (viz. 3- of 5-
phase solvent extraction) can also
achieve the universal standards. The
background document for the F037-38
standards lists in Appendix B twenty
treatability tests used to develop the
iw-'flw it' in;;;. (, , ,ft, : xai K'.II at" ? c; ; n," ซ" vlsi " ซ t1,; s;
-------
No- *7S/'Tuesday, September 14, 1993; / Proposed Rules '" "4&i07-:
K048^52 standards..Eleven of these tests
Mly complied with the universal
treatment standards. Appendix C of the
same document identifies 28 other test
runs using noncbmbustion technologies.
All of these tests fully complied with
universal standards.
During the later development of the
F037-38 standards, comments were
submitted that thermal desorption could
.achieve much lower levels than those
used for K048-52; lower, in fact, than
the universal treatment standards
proposed in today's rule. Based on the
information that noncombustion ;
technologies can also achieve the
universal standards when treating ,
petroleum refining wastes; the Agency
is proposing to include K048-52 and
F037-38 petroleum refining wastes
under the universal standards!
The Agency is aware that the industry
is using combustion and thermal
desorption, both of which should be
capable of meeting the Universal
standards. Comments are solicited on
whether the industry has invested in
other technology that cannot meet the
universal standards. In particular, :
information on the type of treatment,
performance data, and an explanation as
to why operational factors could not be
adjusted to comply with the universal
standards, are solicited. To the extent
_ data demonstrates that,petroleum
refining wastes treated by appropriate
noncombustion technologies can
achieve slightly higher levels than those
proposed for universal standards, the
. Agency may choose to revise the
universal standards.
As a general matter for all hazardous
wastes, the Agency solicits comments
- and data on whether slight adjustments
to the universal standards would
encourage the further use of
noncombustion technologies and still
represent BDAT.
5. Universal Standards Will Hot Apply
to F024
F024 is being excluded from the
universal treatment standards.
Treatment standards for F024 :
constituents, including polychlorinated
dioxins and polychlorinated furans,
were promulgated in the Second Third
rule (54 FR 26615, June 23,1989). The
standards were revised in the Third
Third rule (55 FR 22580, June 1,1990).
These concentration-based treatment
standards for F024 are lower than the
universal standards for the regulated
F024 constituents. The revised
standards did not include any specific
concentration-based treatment standards
for dioxins or furans, but did require
that the F024 waste be treated by
incineration. , -.''.".!'
The Agency believes that if F024
wastes are properly incinerated, and the
treatment standards for the nine
regulated organic constituents are met,
then dioxins and furans, as well as all
of the other hazardous constituents in
the waste will be substantially
destroyed. In light of this issue, the
Agency is retaining the existing
treatment standards for F024 and is not
applying the universal treatment
standards to this waste. ,
B. Incorporation of 'Newly Listed Wastes
into Lab Packs and Proposed Changes to
Appendices
On June 1,1990 (55 FR 22629), EPA
promulgated alternative treatment
standards for lab packs under 40 CFR
268.42(c) that specified methods of
treatment that could be used prior to
land disposal. EPA promulgated these
alternative standards to provide relief to
treaters from having to monitor
compliance with numeric treatment
standards for many different Wastes that
could be included in the lab pack. The
alternative treatment standards applied
to, two categories of lab packs as
specified in Appendix IV
(organometallic) and Appendix V
(organic) to part 268. In the January,
1991, correction notice and again in the
May 30,1991, Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 24453),
the Agency requested comment on
potential improvements to the existing
alternative" treatment standards for
Appendix IV and Appendix V. In
particular, the Agency solicited
opinions on whether a regulatory
definition of organometallics was
necessary, or whether other regulatory
requirements should be developed to
prevent potential misuse of the existing
appendix IV lab pack requirements.
As noted in the May, 1991 ANPRM,
EPA's Original intent in establishing
these two appendices was to^simplify .
the regulations related to Jab packs
needed incineration folio wed by
chemicaLstabilization of the ash .."-'
(Appendix FV)7 from those lab packs
needing only incineration (Appendix
V). However, under 40 CFR 268.42(c)(4),
the residue from incineration of both
types of lab packs must be treated to
address any hazardous characteristic for
the TC metals, i.e., D004-0008, DOIO,
and D011. (D009,mercury; wastes are not
included in this list because mercury-
bearing wastes are excluded from the
alternative lab pack breatmentstandard.)
As .such, there is no practical difference
between the treatment required for the
two types of lab packs. The Agency
believes that combing the appendices
into appendix IV will simplify;
procedures. In the.May 30,1991
ANPRM, EPA'solicited comment on' '
consolidating appendix V into appendix
IV. Comments received were favorable
in that siuch a change would simplify
compliance with the procedures. v
The Agency is proposing to replace :
the two appendices with a list of
excluded wastes. The existing
alternative treatment standard for lab
packs would be retrained-, mcineration
(40 CFR 268.42(c)(3)) followed by
treatment of characteristic metals
(excluding mercury (40 CFR
268.42(c)(4).) Considering that two
organo-mercury wastes, PO65 and
PO92, are allowed in lab packs, the .-"'
Agency/solicits continents ori whether
incinerator residues should also be .
required to comply with the D009
mercury standards.. '"
Because the number of prohibition
waste codes is small, the regulated
.community will be able to quickly
determine if a waste is excluded from
the alternative lab pack treatment
standard. The proposed list of excluded
waste podes is shown in table Dl,
below. '".-'-"'
TABLE D-1.LIST OF WASTE CODES
TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE LAB
PACKS
D009, F019, K003, K004, K005, K006, K062
K071, K100, K106, P010,'P011, P012
P076, P078, U134, U151.
The waste proposed for exclusion are
the same as those currently excluded,
with the following exceptions. K071, a
mercury waste that was inadvertently.
listed on'appendix IV, will now be
-excluded. The Agency's action
regarding K071 is consistent with the
exclusion of all other inorganic mercury
wastes. Another difference with the-
current exclusion list is that six.
cyanide-containing wastesF007.F008, .
FOD9, FOli, F012, and K007 will be
allowed in lab packs. EPA believes that
cyanide will be effectively destroyed by
combustion: :
EPA is also proposing that the
following newly listed'wastes (i.e., all
wastes listed or identified since
November 1984) be eligible for the '
alternative treatment standards for lab
packsi The newly listed wastes for '
which treatment standards were
promulgated in the LDR Phase I rule (57 "
FR 37194VAugust 18," 1992), arid the -
, newly listed and TC wastes for which
treatment standards are being proposed
in .today's rule.
EPA requests Comments on all aspects
of today's alternative lab pack proposal,
including the usefulness of the . .
proposed standards at treatment,
-------
48108 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
storage, arid disposal facilities, and
whether a list of excluded wastes is
necessary, given the alternative of using
limits on emissions from combustion
units and metal limits on the solid
residuals. For example, inorganic
mercury wastes are excluded from lab
packs. The reason for excluding these
wastes is that they are not effectively
treated by combustion; and furthermore
mercury, which is a volatile metal, may
cause emissjon concerns. Alternatively,
EPA cqula* rely on existing mercury
standards for Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces and omnibus limits for '
hazardous waste incinerators to address
emission concerns; and a mercury limit
could be placed on the solid residual by
adding D009 to the list of metal limits
in S 268.42(c)(4) to ensure effective
treatment of the solid residual.
C. Proposed Changes in the LDR
Program in Response to the LDR
Raundtable
liiir ' " l! '! ป, " . ' ' ,';;,; , >, lh ',:;;
1. Background
The Office of Solid Waste convened a
roundtable meeting on January 12-14,
1903, to discuss the LDR program. The
purpose of the roundtable was to hear
from persons experienced in
implementing the LDR program on what
was working well, what was not
working well, and what could he done
to improve the program. These
discussions were a forum for sharing
concerns and information in a
Constructive and candid manner, rather
than to reach consensus or serve as
formal negotiations.
In the spirit of quality improvement,
EPA's goal is to make the LDR program
more efficient and easier to implement.
The roundtable was part of a
comprehensive LT3R implementation
Study. EPA developed the LDR program
under stringent deadlines; thus the
implementation study presents an
opportunity to assess its effectiveness
and implementation. The Agency is
usfng the information gained from this
study, beginning with the January
roundtable, to improve the existing LDR
program"and to guide its future
direction.
Roundtable participants were waste
generators, treaters and disposers,
public interest groups, state
environmental agencies, other Federal
agencies, and EPA headquarters and
regional personnel. Major issues were
identified in advance by roundtafale
participants and the discussions focused
01} thf se topics: Treatment standards,
monitoring, and administrative and
Jiapervvofk requirements.
To facjlitaje discussion, five small
groups were created. The small groups
discussed the issues, identified the most
important issues associated with each
topic and provided additional detail or
potential solutions. The small groups .
then reconvened in general session to
report back the group's
recommendations. (The complete
proceedings for the roundtable are
included in the RCRA docket numbered
F-92-CD2F-S0144.)
The participants identified the
following major issues relative to the
LDR treatment standards:
Waste code-carry through,
Use of health-based versus
technology-based numbers as the
standard,
Defining the point at which wastes
enter or exit the LDR "system",
Inconsistency of individual
standards for constituents across waste
codes,
Capacity for treatment,
Storage of waste for greater than one
year,
Existing treatment standards for
hazardous soil,
Standards modifications, and
The need for user-friendly guidance
on treatment standards.
The participants identified the
following major issues relative to LDR
monitoring: >
Providing clarification for the use of
generator knowledge,
Constituent monitoring,
Revisions to the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
1" .........................
Detection limits,
Waste analysis "plans, and
Guidance and training.
Although views oh the LDR program
varied, feedback from the participants
indicated that coming together to
discuss these issues was very
worthwhile. EPA is today proposing to
incorporate some of the
recommendations made by roundtable
participants, as discussed below. For
example, the Agency is proposing to
consolidate the three existing treatment
standard tables and to simplify the
notification requirements, as discussed
below. In addition, as discussed in
section III.A., the Agency is also
preparing to develop a uniform set of
universal treatment standards. For other
issues raised at the roundtable, the
Agency is continuing to develop
improvements to the LDR program.
2. Consolidated Treatment Table
Several of the groups present at the
LDR roundtable expressed an interest in
having a consolidated treatment
standard table in the regulations.
Participants stated that the existing
system of three tables (see 40 GFR
268.41-268.43) was too complex and
burdensome to use.
When the LDR program began, the
Agency believed it was useful to clearly
delineate in the regulation the
differences between numerical
treatment standards as measured in
leachate from the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (table CCWE at
268.43) from standards measured
through a total waste analysis (table
CCW at 268.42). Furthermore, it was
useful to clarify that the specified
methods of treatment (Cables 2 and 3 at
268.43) differed from numerical
standards in that numerical standards
can be met through the use of any
technology, whereas specified methods
must be used to treat the waste. When
specified methods are used, there is no
need to measure the treatment residue
for compliance purposes.
However, now that the program has
been in place for a number of years and
almost all hazardous wastes are subject
to treatment standards, the Agency
agrees that the regulations can be
simplified. First, the Agency believes
the program has been in place long
enough so that the regulated community
generally understands the system. Thus,
it may not be necessary to make such
obvious delineations. Second, there is
considerable overlap between the tables.
For instance, a listed waste may contain
both organic constituents and metals.
Treatment standards for the organic
constituents appear in ง 268.43, where a
cross reference to ง 268.41 appears that
refers the reader to the treatment
standards for the metals. A few wastes
. have treatment standards appearing in
all three places. The consolidated table
provides all necessary information in an
easier-to-read format. The Agency notes
that the new table does not contain the
proposed universal treatment standards,
instead relying on the standards
currently found in the three existing
tables. If the consolidated table and the
universal standards are both finalized,
the table will contain the universal
standards.
Therefore, EPA is proposing in
today's rule a table which combines the
information found in ง 268.41 Table
CCWE.Constituent Concentrations in
Waste Extract, ง 268.42 Table 2.
Technology-Based Standards by RCRA
Waste Code, and ง 268.43 Table CCW.
Constituent Concentrations in Wastes.
The Agency is proposing to call the
table "Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Waste" and place it at
ง 268.40 along with much of the text
found currently in งง 268.41, 268.42,
and 268.43. Section 268.42 would
continue to be used to describe the
technology codes, regulate California
-------
Federal Register f Vol. 58' No. 176; / Tuesday, September 14.'' 1993 / Proposed feiies ' 48109
list PCBs and HOCs, set out exemptions
from the required methods, and provide
for procedures For equivalency
determinations. The Agency'requests
comments on the usefulness of the
consolidated table,
3, Simplified JJQR Notification
Requirements
Comments on the ง 268.7 notification
requirements at the LDR roundtable
ranged from eliminating-notification
altogether to modifying or deleting-dats
items on the notification Form. It was
also suggested that the-LDR notification
fenm be comMned with the manifest
The manifest form is currently being
revised Hhrsugh a regulatory negotiation
process; as part of the process, the group
"discussed the possibility of combining
the manifest and the notification Form.
Due to a number oF Factors, the group
decided not to consider combining the
LDR .notification requirements with the
manifest Form, Since it is not possible at
this time to combine the manifest with
the notification Form, and since the
Agency believes thaUhe LDR
notifications are necessary to document
cradle-to-grave hazardous waste
management, the Agency explored ways
to simplify the information required on
the notification Form; The Agency
proposes to omit the requirement at
ง 268.7(a)(l)(ii) and at ง 268.9(d)(l) that
the notification include treatment
standards or reFerances to those
standards.
Such a simplification makes
particular sense in Conjunction with
consolidating the treatment standard
tables. ThereFore,.the Agency is
proposing that the only information
required to be included in the .
notification will be the EPA Hazardous
Waste Number, whether the waste is a
nonwastewater or waste water, waste
analysis data where available, the
manifest number associated with the
shipment, the constituents in the waste
for certain DD81 and D002 wastes for
which treatment standards For the
underlying hazardous constituents must
be met (see 58 FR 29860, May 24, ;1993),'
and the specific hazardous constituents
in EPA Hazardous Wastes Nos. F001-
P005, and.F039 for which treatment is
required. Today's proj>osar would not ,
alter the certification requirements at
ง268,7. - ;
Participants at the LDR roundtable
also requested a summary of all the LDR
paperwork requirements. The Agency is
therefore proposing that such a table be
included as an appendix to part 268.
The Agency-requests comment on the
notification simplification and summary
table shown below. Also, comment and
examples are,requested on whether a
flow chant might be more useful than,
the summary table. .
TABLE 1.RECORD-KEEPING, NOTIFICATION, AND/OR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
. Entity
1 Generator
<,: ' - |
Scenario
A. Waste does not
meet applicable treat-
ment standaVcjs or
exceeds applicable
prohibition levels
[ง268.7(a)(1)J.
B. Waste can -be dis-
posed of without tar-
fter %-eatment '{meets
applicable treatment
standards -or does
not exceed prohibi-
tion levels upon gen-
aa*-a%jrtri'\
tSJculUl 11
fft'O'^^l "7ya\?O^1
19 i-'OO.1* -\9) Ity],
C. Waste is subject to
exemption from a .
prohibiSen <ฎn the
type of tend disposal
utilized for the waste,
suchasacase-tsy-
case extension under
, ง288.5, an exemp-
tion under ง268.6, or
a nationwide capacity
variance
ifR-OCft ?rfa\/-O^9
tS JZQ&.J \S3 lO 1 j ,
D. Waste is in tanks or
containers regulated
under 40 CFR
' 262.34 (accumulated
waste) and being
treated in such con-
tainers to meet appli-
cable treatment
standards
[ง268.7(a)(4)j.
Frequency
Each shipment ..
Each Shipment
Each shipment ..........
Minimum of 30 days
prior to treatment
activity.
Recipient of notification
Treatment or storaoe
facility.-
"Land disposal facility
Receiving facility
.
EPA Regional Adminis-
trator (or his des-
ignated representa-
tive) or authorized
State. Delivery must
be verified.
fiecoro%keepinง, notiTicatiora, and/or certification
requirements
- : . . . _: !
Notice must be in writing and include:
EPA hazardous waste number
Constituents of concern for certain wastes
Trea'tability group
Waste analysis data {where available).
'M 'ซ ^ '
Nonce and certification statement that waste
meets applicable treatment standards or ap-
plicable prohibition levels.
Notice must include:
EPA hazardous waste number
Constituents of concern for certain wastes
Treatability group ^
Manifest number
Waste analysis data {where available)
Certification statement required under
ง266.7{a)J2)Ii() that waste complies with
treatment standards and prohibitions. .
Statement that waste is not prohibited from'
larjH HtcrioQUl -
id! t\J Uio^nJocll
EPA hazardous waste number
Constituents of concern for certain wastes
Treatability group
Manifest number ' ' ..
Waste analysis data (where available)
Date the waste is subject to the prohibitions.
Generator must develop, keep onsite, and fol^-
low a written waste analysis plan describing
procedures used to comply with the treat-
ment standards.
If waste is shipped offsite, generator also must
comply with notification requirement of
9 oprf\a}(f) _ -..-
-------
48110 Federal Register /,Vol, 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 /Proposed Rules
i " , , i!,, is " , ,; i IJill,, , ,,,i'!,,, ป ''i' f " 'i:;,,,,1!*:", iS.'ii1,1,,!' ''ป i ''inw'!^ \T In!,!, ii;!! "':!!, n,1 |i!!'l' fi. ซ!!',"!( j J^'Wiailili11''!. H^ ii'lH'.: .lill'iUll 5!ifl *'!"! W \',i , "i i'ifii iNiJlit-VVtll'i'iail
1 > <}. i TABLE 1. -RECORD-KEEPING, NOTIFICATION, AND/OR CERTIRCATIPN^RE^ _ '^ fi
, ' ;,enซy ; ;;
, , '. ',;, f
i
.
, ., " ,,i
' ' " " '": " .
. i, i' , ;
.;';": ;'i.'i; *;.;;.
" "' " , ;" . .' :
1
11 , , if. :
If " . ' ,
' ^ ' : v: - '!:",
1 ; ' ', ' !' Is
" ' ''" ! ; 1
! ' , ' ',; ' i;" '',
, i i it. '" f
; ; |" '' ;; :":
. . , ,, ,, , .;
;;' , hl ',, ' : ,i "
, . llr ii;;iill ,
It. Treatment Fa-
cility.
" ! ''".Mil,,''' 1
'II 1' 1 ., , , ''" ' ,j, ' ll III,
II, II l l III l ,, IJ, 1, 1 ' liji
,1 Jllll '*' '. ' '"' "",,"' ' 'ii1
, , ! :"' '. 1 ' "1; ' !, '! '""
|
111 '''' "' ' ""
1 ii ii I, 'i'i'i
"_ ' ' - -1'1 '''"
Scenario
E. Where generator is
managing a lab pack
containing certain
wastes and wishes to
use an alternative
treatment standard
[ง268.7(a)(8) or
F. Small quantity gen-
erators with tolling
agreements [pursu-
ant to 40 CFR
262.20(c)]
[ง268.7(a)(10)J,
G. Generator has de-
termined waste is re-
stricted based solely
on hte knowledge of
the waste
[ง268.7(a)(5)].
H. Generator has deter-
mined waste is re-
stricted based on
testing waste or an
extract tง268.7(a)(5)].
I. Generator has deter-
mined that waste is
excluded from the
definition of hazard-
ous or solid waste or
exempt from Subtitle
C regulation
(ง268.7(a)(6)].
J. Other record-keeping
requirements
[ง268.7(a)(7)J.
r
A. Waste shipped from
treatment facility to
(and disposal facility
(ง268.7(b)(4), (b)(5)].
B. Waste treatment res-
idue from a treatment
or storage facility will
be further managed
at a different treat-
ment or storage facil-
ity [ง268.7(b)(6>].
Frequency
Each shipment
f
Initial Shipment
N/A
N/A
One-time
N/A
~
,
Each shipment
Each shipment
,
Recipient of notification
Treatment facility
Treatment facility
Generator's file .....
Generator's file
Generator's file .
Generator's file
Land disposal facility ...
Receiving facility
Record-keeping, notification, and/or certification
requirements
Notice in accordance with ง268-7(a)(1), (a)(5),
and (a)(6), where applicable.
Certification in accordance with ง268.7(a)(8) or
ง268.7(a)(9), respectively.
Must comply with applicable notification and
certification requirements in ง268.7(a).
Generator also must retain copy of the notifica-
tion and certification together with tolling
agreement onsite for at least 3 years after ,
termination or expiration of agreement
All supporting data must be retained onsite in
generator's files. .
.
All waste analysis data must be retained onsite
in generator's files.
File a one-time notice stating such generation,
subsequent exclusion from the definition or
exemption from Subtitle G, and the disposi-
tion of waste.
Generator must retain a copy of all notices,
certifications, demonstrations, waste analysis
data, and other documentation produced pur-
suant to ง268.7 onsite for at least 5 years
from the date that the waste was last sent to
onsite or bffsite treatment, storage, or dis-
posal. This period Is automatically extended
during enforcement actions or as requested
by the Administrator. >
Notice must include: .
EPA hazardous waste number
Constituents of concern ,
Treatability group
Prohibition levels
Manifest number . - ,
Waste analysis data (where available)
Certification as set out in ง268.7(b)(5)(i). (ii)
and (iii) stating that the waste or treatment
residue has been treated in compliance with
applicable performance standards and prohi-
bitions. ซ ,,...
Treatment; storage, or disposal facility must
comply with all notice and certification re-
.quirernents applicable to generators, ;
'.-.....' ' ,
/ ' * *
I I
Till iui
-------
Federal Register 7 Vol. 58, No. 176 /^Tuesday, Septemberl4, 1993 /'Pjoppsed Hides 48111
TABLE 1.RECORD-KEEPING, ^OTIOCATJOM, AND(QR CERTIFICATJON REQUIREMENTSContinued
; - *% - ,
III. Land Disposal j
Facility.
Scenario i
C. Where wastes are 1
recyclable materials ,
used in a manner '
constituting disposal
subject to ง266.2G{b)
Iง268.7
-------
,48X12
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday,- September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
There. fpreA if a TSDF has been using
acceptable knowledge, it needs to
reiidvy the waste analysis or waste
'chorpcterizajipiadata to determine if it _
-------
1993 7 IfoPOS8d
48113
e
Developing short, waste-specific,
indicator constituent lists fpr testing; (2)
initially testing the wrhole range of
, constituents, then testing again only if
the waste stream changes; and (3) -
having EPA remove dioxins and furans
from the F039 list due to the expense of
analysis, while retaining the current
standards for these compounds in F020-
F023 and F026-FQ27.
g. Detection limits. Some participants
maintained that some treatment
standards are set at levels that may be
below detection limits, creating obvious
compliance difficulties.
Recommendations included: (1)
Allowing ranges in detection limits and
in LDR treatment standards; (2)
establishing LDR standards at levels that
are not below detection limits; (3) use
.the practical quantitation limits (PQLs)
as the default for matrix difficulties; (4)
refining detection limits over time and
allow the use of indicator compounds in
difficult analyses; and (5) allowing the
states and regions discretion when
dealing with difficult matrices and
standards.
h. Waste Analysis Plans (WAPs). The
general problem voiced was that
generators, treaters, disposers, and
enforcement officials often obtain
different analytical results for the same
waste depending on the sampling'(eg.,
grab versus composite samples), and the
statistical or weighting methods
employed, necessitating re-testing.
Potential remedies included: (1)
Developing WAP guidance to, among
other things, minimize redundant
testing arid over-certification of wastes,
and^oljcit comment on whether to
specify WAP guidance at the time of
promulgation of the rules; (2) having the
Agency develop sampling guidance; (3)
using composite sampling over grab
sampling; (4) establishing mandatory
quality control procedures; and (5)
having the waste analysis plans rely
more on generator knowledge. "
i. Paperwork. In general it was felt
that the paperwork requirementsHvere
" too complicated. Some participants
suggested that there is no longer a need
for the LDR notification, and said that
the separate LDR notification hampers
inspections. Alternative options
included: (1) Including the LDR
notification on the manifest; (2) revising
the LDR notification to exempt
generators from informing the treater of
the treatment standards applicable to
; the waste (EPA is proposing to make
this change in this preamble at section
3 above); (3) creating a summary table
of notification .and certification .
requirements (included above in Table
1); and (4) solicit comment on reducing
the number of years thai records must
be retained. ., '--.
'./. Complexity of the regulations. Most
of the participants agreed that the -
preamble language is not consistently
interpreted among government officials
and that it is necessary to work with
both the regulations and the preamble to
understand what is required. Discussion
in the groups pointed to the LDRs being
difficult to understand, largely because
the Codes of Federal Regulations (CFR)
are quickly out of date; the preamble
language contains significant guidance
, that is not always implicit in the
regulatory language; and the treatment
standards are found in the CFR in.
several tables. Recommendations
included: (1) Developing consolidated -
treatment tables (this suggestion is being
proposed in this notice.-as discussed at
section C.2 above); (2) having EPA
develop a bulletin board to keep all
involved parties informed of policy
memoranda, scheduled briefings, and
new rules; (3) having the Agency make
inspector checklists available to the
. regulated community and hold
workshops on compliance; (4) EPA"
physically reorganizing its regulations
by incorporating part 268 into the
generator and facility requirements
(parts 262, 264 and 265); and, (5) having
EPA expand preambles to include an
implementation section,;solicitihg
comment on implementation
information during the development of
the regulations (this is being
implemented in this proposed rule in
section XI.) v
IV. Treatment Standards for Toxicity
Characteristic Waste . ป
A, The Third Third Court Decision; the
Emergency Interim Final Rule, and
Their Applicability to TC Wastes
In today's notice, EPAris proposing
treatment standards for wastes
displaying the toxicity characteristic
(TC wastes) when the TC wastes are
managed in systems other than: (1) In
wastewater treatment systems which
include surface impoundments and
whose ultimate discharge is subject to
the Clean Water Act (GWA); (2) in Class
I non-hazardous underground injection
wells subject to the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) Underground Injection
Control (IJIG) program; or, (3) by a zero
discharger who, before permanent land
disposal of the wastewater, treats the
wastewaters in a wastewater treatment
system equivalent to that utilized by
CWA dischargers. Consistent with the
Third Third Case, the treatment
standards proposed for these wastes, " . -
Include standards for "constituents
subject to treatment" (i.e., any regulated
constituent present at levels above the
universal constituent-specific treatment
standards at the point of generation of
theTCwaste).
This proposed approach is the same
as that adopted in the recent interim
final rule, promulgated on May 10,1993
(published on May 24,1993, 58 FR
29860) in response to the court's
decision in Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d 2 (D.G.
Cir. 1992). That case vacated and
remanded certain Agency regulations
(commonly referred,to as the Third
Third rule) establishing prohibitions
and treatment standards for!
, characteristic wastes, and also
established rules as to when the, ..-.-'
prohibitions and standards would not
apply. . -; -'..:.- .-;
This section provides a summary of
the court's decision, an overview of the
interim final rule published on May 24,
1993, and how the Agency proposes to
apply this approach to the TC wastes.
1. Backgroundv.
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: Ignitability, corrbsivity,
reactivity, or EP toxicity (40 CFR
261.21-261.24). The Agency also
evaluated the applicability of the LDR
dilution prohibition to characteristic
. wastes, iircluding characteristic wastes
ultimately managed in wastewater
management systems with land disposal
units (i.e., impoundments or injection
wells) which are subject to varying
degrees of regulation under the CWA
and SDWA. This was done in an effort,
to ensure the successful integration of
these programs with the LDR
regulations (see generally 55 FR 22653-r
59 (June 1,1990)). Thus, except where
the Agency specifically identified and
required that hazardous constituents be
treated, the rule indicated in essence
that characteristic wastes need only be
treated to remove the characteristic
before land disposal where land
disposal involved placement in surface
impoundments whose ultimate
discharge was subject to regulation
under the CWA; or where the waste was
injected into a Class IUIC well.
On September 25,1992, the'Tnited
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit ruled,on various
petitions for review of this rule. TK
principal holdings of the'case with
respect to characteristic wastes were"
that: (1) EPA may require treatment
under RCRA section 3004(m) to more ,
stringent levels thari those at which
wastes are identified as. hazardous so
-------
"'.."I1"!'!! i". ! Ill, ' ill""
u^
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
long as the level defining the waste as
hazardous was above the 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, as
well as removal of the characteristic
property, W. at 16,17,23; as a
consequence, dilution is permissible as
ah (bcausive method of treatment only
for those cBaractenstlc wastes that do
nbl contain hazardous constituents ''in
sufficient concentrations to pose a threat
to human Health or the environment"
(i.e., the minimize threat level In section
3Q04(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
urufs (i.e., subtitle D surface
Impoundments or 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
.ฉapplicable RCRA treatment
otherwise- . .
standards, id. at 7.
As a consequence of these holdings,
the court held that the deactivation
treatment standard for ignitable and
corrosive wastes (which allowed the
hazardous characteristic to be removed
by any type of treatment, including
dilution) did not fully comport with
RCRA section 3004(m). This was
because that standard could be achieved
by dilution; arid section 3004(m)"* * *
requires that any hazardous waste be
treated in such a way that hazardous
constituents be removed from the waste
before it enters the environment." 976 F.
2dat24.
In response to the court decision, EPA
issued an emergency interim final rule
with respect to those treatment
standards that were vacated (as opposed
to reminded) by the court (58 FR 29860,
May 24* 1993). The distinction between
vacate}! and remanded rules is that
-i, ^vacated'rul&'arejipjongerin1 effect
(once the court's mandate issues),
whereas remanded rules remain in force
until the Agency acts to replace them.
This distinction has considerable
significance with respect to LDR
treatment standards. If there is no
treatment standard fora prohibited
waste (for example, as a result of a
vacatur), that waste is prohibited from
land disposal, because it has not been
neetthe treatment standard
, an
not being disposed in a no-migration
unit. RQRA sections 3004 (d), (e), and
(g)ts|. 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 the Agency's opinion, the rules
dealing with centralized wastewater
management involving land disposal
(งง 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
arid not expressly vacated.) This means
that the only wastes to which the
interim final rule applied were those
ignitable and corrosive wastes for which
the treatment standard was deactivation
(since the deactivation standard for
these wastes was vacated) and which
were managed in systems other than
CWA, CWA-equivalent, or Class IUIC
wells regulated under the SDWA.
The treatment standards promulgated
in the interim final rule retained the
requirement of deactivation to remove
the hazardous characteristic; however,
the rule also established numerical
treatment standards for the underlying
hazardous constituents that could be
present in the wastes.
2. Applicability of This Approach to TC
Wastes and Hazardous Soil Covered by
This Proposed Rule
The Agency is today proposing the
same approach adopted in the interim
final rule for determining which
hazardous constituents in TC wastes
and hazardous soils to regulate and the
types of treatment/disposal units
covered. As with ignitable arid corrosive
wastes, the underlying hazardous
constituents must be.treated. The
Agency believes that to do otherwise
would be inconsistent with the court's
holding that RCRA section 3004(m)
requires that treatment standards
address both short-term and long-term
potential harms posed by hazardous
wastes.
With respect to the units to be
regulated, EPA is proposing to defer
control of the same units not addressed
by the interim final rule. Under that
rule, the new treatment standards do not
apply to ignitable or corrosive wastes
maryaged in wastewater treatment
systems whose ultimate discharge is
subject to the CWA, Class I underground
injection wells subject to the SDWA
Underground Injection Control'(UIC)
program, and zero dischargers who,
before final land disposal, treat
wastewater with treatment equivalent to
that utilized by CWA dischargers. CWA-
equivalent treatment means 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
"untreateS" influent to wastewater
treatment systems), or treatment that the
facility can show performs as well or
better than these enumerated
technologies. See ง 258.37(a), 58 FR at
29885 (May 24,1993).
" EPA is proposing the same deferred
coverage when these units are used to
treat TC wastes. The Agency believes
that it would be most appropriate to
address all issues pertaining to such
wastewater management operations at
one time. Therefore, it is not addressing
TC wastes managed in these systems in
this rulemaking. They will be addressed
iri a later rulemaking, along with issues
that pertain to the wastewater
management facilities excluded from
the interim final rule.
The treatment standards being
proposed today for TC wastes would
apply, however, when these wastes are
injected into other than Class I wells
(e.g., Class V shallow injection wells),
even if the wastes were rendered
noncharacteristic ("decharacterized")
first. The exception to the dilution
prohibition of the Third Third Final
Rule never applied to other than Class
I nonhazardous injection wells. This
means that today's proposed
requirements will apply to some
injection practices, in particular, those
involving Class V injection wells. These
typically are wells injecting
nonhazardous wastes above or into
underground sources of drinking water.
(If, however, the-TC wastes injected into
non-Class I wells were to be treated by
CWA-equivalent means before injection,
the proposed treatment standards would
not apply. This is an example of the
type of zero discharger referred to
above.) The Agency solicits comments
" and data on volumes of TC wastes
managed in Class V injection wells, and
on waste management practices
employed prior to injection.
The TC wastes covered by this rule
have been, and will continue to be,
managed in combustion devices or be
stabilized. Upon promulgation of a final
rule, such facilities must treat the
wastes to meet the treatment standard
for the TC wasteincluding standards
for any underlying hazardous
constituentsprior to land disposal.
3. Future Response to Issues Remanded
by the Court
The Agency plans to address the
issues having to do with CWA and
CWA-equivalent wastewater
management systems and injection into
Class I injection wells in future
rulemakings. For example: (1) Direct
dischargers managing decharacterized
wastes in surface impoundments; (2)
"indirect dischargers managing
i ...... :;:!t^^
-------
Federal Register / ฅ01. 58, No, 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48115
dechaiacterized wastes in surface
impoundments; (3) zero dischargers
., (including those injecting into non-Class
I injection wells) who perform CWA-
equi valent treatment before ultimate
disposal; and (4) persons injecting
dechaiacterized wastes into Class I deep
injection wells will be subject to
regulation in the future when the
, Agency addresses remanded issues from
the Third Third Case. See 58 PR at
29860, May 24,1993 explaining the
basis for these categorizations. ,
Many of these remanded issues are
significantly more complex than those
dealt with in the interim final rule and
in today's proposed rule. In addition,
the universe of facilities affected by the
remanded portions^! the, Third Third
rule is much broader than; that covered
in either of these rules, as it will include
(among other things) treatment systems
regulated under the CWA, Class I
nonhazardous injection wells regulated.
under the SDWA, plus zero discharge
facilities that engage in treatment that is
equivalent to that of CWA dischargers.
Furthermore, the volumes of wastes
affected by the remanded rules are
much greater than those at issue in this
regulation and the interim final rule.
Options for addressing these
. remanded issues with respect to
ignitable, corrosive, and reactive
characteristic wastes were presented in
the Supplemental Information Report
prepared for the January 19,1993 Notice
of Data Availability (5aFR 4972),
available in the RCRA docket. ERA
expects that most of the issues
discussed there will also apply to TC-
wastes when treatment standards are
^promulgated. The following discussion
. summarizes many of the issues raised in
the Supplemental Information Report.
It is qfear that the court intended for
the Agency to revise the special dilution
. provisions for management in a CWA
facility {ง 268.3(b)J and in SDWA Class
I injection wells (ง268.1(c)(3)), because
it specified that dilution alone is not
adequate treatment if an ignitable,
corrosive, and reactive waste contains
"hazardous constituents at levels above
those the Agency finds minimize
threats. This will greatly impact the -
injection of these wastes (and,
potentially, TC wastes) in Class I
nonhazardous deep wells, since there
are few treatment systems currently in
place upstream of the injection well that
could treat the underlying hazardous
constituents that are 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, applying1
for, and being granted,, a no^migration
petition, that would allow continued
land disposal of untreated wastes.
Although commenters OK the
Supplemental Information Report
suggested that EPA could promulgate a
rule that does not require treatment of
the underlying hazardous constituents,
based on a generic finding that injection
is a protective practice, the Agency's
tentative view is that this is not a viable
option (see Supplemental Information,
Report, pp. 25-7). However, the Agency
.seeks additional comment on the
technical and legal issues raised in
Notice of Data Availability and
Supplemental Options Report as they
may pertain to TC wastes.
Probably the most significant issue for
CWA wastewater treatment facilities
will be that of determining the
equivalency of CWA treatment systems
with RCRA LDR treatment. Associated
issues such as whether the court
opinion authorizes controls on leakage
or volatilization from treatment surface
impoundments, or whether sludges
generated in. impoundments must be
treated, will be particularly
controversial and will take time to ,
resolve. Comments, am solicited on
these issues as they pertain to treatment
of TC wastes.
4. Request for Comment on Petition
From Chemical Manufacturer's
Association Regarding Deep Well
Injection of Ignitable and Corrosive
Characteristic Wastes
In the May 24,1993 interiin final rule
for ignitable and corrosive wastes
managed in other than wastewater
treatment systems whose ultimate
discharge issubject to the CWA, in
other than Class I underground injection
wells subject to the SDWA UlCprogram*
and by zero dischargers who do not treat
wastewater with treatment equivalent ta
that utilized by CWA dischargers, the
Agency discussed plans for future
rulemakings covering those ignitable
and corrosive wastes disposed in such
units. As part of its response to May 24
interim final rule, the Chemical
Manufacturers' Association (CMA)
requested that the Agency develop.
treatment standards intended for those
wastes disposed in Class I deep
injection wells. CMA specifically
requested the Agency to promulgate
treatment standards for ignitable and
corrosive wastes managed by deep well
injection that, In view of the unique
circumstances of deep well injection, .
meet the statutory "minimize threats"
standard. Consequentlyปthe Agency has~
placed CMA's petition in the docket "and
is soliciting comment on the petition.
B. Background
1. Legal arid Policy Background
One of the key issues in the Third
Third rula was whether characteristic
wastes must be treated to a lesser extent.
than listed wastes. This result could
come about because, under Agency
regulations, characteristic wastes stop
being "hazardous wastes" at the point
they stop exhibiting the characteristic
property. ง 26t.3(b)t However, if
. treatment of characteristic wastes must
eease at the point they are no longer
hazardous wastes, any underlying
hazardous constituents (hazardous
constituents other than those for which
the waste exhibits the characteristic) can
go untreated. 55 FR at 22652 (Junp 1,
1990). Moreover, at that time, the
Agency viewed' the characteristic level1
as higher than the "minimize threat"
level required for treatment of '
hazardous wastes by section: 3004fm).
iff. ''.".-
The Agency consequently took the,
position that Congress did not compel
less treatment for characteristic, wastes
than for listed wastes (or, put another
way, did not compel non-treatment of
underlying hazardous constituents,
treatment only- to characteristic levels,
or dilution to meet treatment standards
for characteristic wastes.)id. at 22652
58,. The Agency established this
principle by stating that if a waste is
hazardous at the point it is generated,
the obligation to treat to section 30O4(m)
levels attaches at that point, whether .or
not the waste still exhibits a
characteristic at the point it is disposed.
id,
Reviewing this rule, the D.C. Circuit
upheld the point of generation
principle;; however^ it also invalidated
some of the discretion EPA had asserted
in whether to apply it. 976 F. 2d at 7,
13-14, 23,25-6. Hie Agency is, of
course, bound by this opinion, and ~
today's proposal for TC wastes reflects,
the Agency's view of what the opinion
requires in establishing/treatment
standards for" characteristic wastesi
Further discussion of the opinion, in
particular, when different parts of the
opinion start to, apply,is found in the -
interim final rule promulgated on May
10,1993 (5a FR 29860, May, 24,1993),
as well as the preceding section of this
preamble.
Today's rule consequently proposes
treatment standards for TCwastes
which standards are not constrained by
the characteristic level^ that prevent the
standard from being; achieved by
dilution? (albeit issuesrelated to most
types of land-based centralized
wastewater management are not being
addressed in this proposal), and which
-------
..4.8116 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
require treatment of the underlying
fiaairdpus, constituents.
Vyittt respect to treatment below
characteristic levels, section 3004(m) of
RCRA states that treatment standards
must substantially diminish the waste's
toxicity or mobility so that short-term
and long-term threats posed by the
Waste are minimized. See 55 FR at
22654 (June 1,1990). EPA has noted
that the EP/TC limits are levels at which
.V?iJSfes clearly are hazardous. 45 FR
33084 (May 19,1980); 51 FIR 21648
(June 13,1986); See 55 FR 11798 (March
27,1990). EPA tljus believes that further
treatment below;_a characteristic level
may be necessary Before threats to
Ijiimap health and the environment are
-, ''mmjnjizecl" within the meaning of
section 3064{m). See 55 FR at 22654
(June 10,1990). For some of the TC
Wastes addressed in today's rule, the
concentration-based treatment standards
are consequently lower (i.e. more
stringent) than the regulatory levels that
establish thpsa wastes as
characteristically hazardous.
Dilution rules are intended to prohibit
dilution in lieu of treatment and to
ensure that hazardous constituents are
destroyed or removed by treatment.
;ffj/rd Third .fitose, 976 F. 2d at 16,28.
hazardous constituents, incineration
may destroy not only the TC constituent
but the underlying organic hazardous
constituents present at lower
concentrations than the TC
concentration. Comments are solicited
on the need to monitor the residual ash
for compliance with the treatment
Standards far, the underlying organic
hazardous constituents, if the treatment
standard for the TC constituent has been
met. The Agency solicits specific data
that demonstrate that alternative
monitoring requirements would provide
adequate assurance that all treatment
standards are met.
EPAIs consequently proposing that it is
impermissible to achieve the. treatment
standards for TC wastes by means of "
dilution. (As stated above, however,
EPA Js not addressing in this rule the
manngement of TC wastes in land-based
centralized wastewater management
systems that were not included within
the scope of the recent emergency rule.
J : 'The court remanded these issues in the a_
Ttiirdl TKIrd Case (id), leaving in place
existing regulations that allow dilution
in such systems).
Also, as described earlier, EPA is
proposing treatment standards for the
hazardous constituents that can be .
present in treatable concentrations in
TC wastes, but which are not the basis
for; causing the waste to be identified as
hazardous (for example, lead present at
less than TC levels, but present at levels
exceeding treatable concentrations and
exceeding LDR levels, in a waste that
exhibits the TC because of benzene).
The Agency is proposing the same types
of rnqnitoring rules for these
COnktituints.recently adopted in the
emergency nile, so that (in essence)
monitoring for hazardous constituents is
limited to those reasonably expected to
be present in the wastes.
The Agency requests comments,
generally, on mechanisms that niay be
u,se{l to streamline the compliance
monitoring requirements under the LDR
program. For example, for TC wastes
that contain organic underlying
2. Background on Toxicity
Characteristic
On March 29,1990, EPA revised 40
CFR 261.24the Toxicity Characteristic
or "TC"replacing the extraction
procedure (EP) with the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP). This rule also increased the
number of hazardous constituents
regulated under this characteristic from
14 to 40. These TC wastes are newly
identified wastes for the purpose of
developing land disposal restrictions
(LDRs). See section 3004(g)(4>. They fall
into three categories for purposes of the .
LDR program. The first category consists
of new organic constituents and
includes all wastes identified as D018
D043. Today's proposal would establish
treatment standards for DO 18 through
D043 wastes when they are manpged in
non-CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-
Class ISDWA systems. The second and
third categories consist of those D004-
DOl 1 metal wastes, and JJOJ12-P017 , _
pesticide wastes that are now hazardous
based on TCLP analysis rather than EP
analysis. EPA established treatment
standards in the Third Third final rule
for these wastes if they exhibit both the
TC (because they had to be hazardous
waste) and the EP (because only EP
wastes were covered by the Third Third
prohibition). Today's rule establishes
treatment standards for the TC pesticide
wastes that do not exhibit the EP
characteristic. EPA is not proposing
treatment standards for the TC organic
and pesticide wastewaters that are
managed in CWA facilities or facilities
that engage in CWA-equivalent
treatment prior to land disposal or in
Class I injection wells, or for TC metal
wastes (D0b4-D0il). Such standards
will be proposed in a later rule.
EPA is soliciting information that may
be used to characterize industrial
generation patterns to assess the '
potential for source reduction or
recycling for these TC wastes. While
source reduction and recycling are high
priorities for any hazardous waste, the
wide diversity of these TC wastes is
expected to impact EPA's ability to
evaluate source reduction and recycling.
(See also EPA's general solicitation for
inforrnqtipn on pollution prevention
opportunities in section I.B. above).
C. Treatment Standards for New TC
Organic.Constituents
D0l8Benzene .
D019-Carbon tetrachloHde ;
13020Chlbrdane
D021Chlorobenzene
D022Chloroform
D023o-Cresol
D024m-Cresol
DOZ5p-Cresol
D026Cresol
D0271,4-Dichlorobenzene
D0281,2-DichIoroethane
D0291,1-DichloroethyIene
D0302,4-DinItrotoluene '
D031-^-Heptachlor
D031Heptachlor epoxide
D032Hexachlorobenzene
D033Hexachloro-l,3-butadiene
D034Hexachloroethane
D035Methyl ethiyl ketone
D036-^-Nitrobenzene
D037Pentachlorophenol
D038Pyridine
D039Tetrachloroethylene
D040Trichloroethylene
D0412,4,5-Trichlorophenol
D0422,4,6-Trichlorophenol
D043Vinyl chloride
1. General Approach for Establishing
Concentration-Based Treatment
Standards ^
Treatment standards established
under the land disposal restrictions .
(LDR) program are based on
performance of the best demonstrated
available technology (BOAT) for treating
a waste. Under EPA's procedure for
establishing treatment standards, the
Agency establishes concentration-based
treatment standards with compliance
measured through a total waste analysis
as the best measure of destruction or
extraction (typically BDAT for organics),
or establishes concentration-based,
treatment standards with compliance
measured through analysis of the TCLP
leachate, as the best measure of metal
treatment. The Agency generally
specifies treatment technologies only for
those situations where there are no
analytical methods to measure
compliance with a concentration-based
treatment standard.
a. Nonwastewaters. The Agency is
today proposing concentration-based
treatment standards for nonwastewater
TC organic wastes based on existing
treatment data that were used to
establish treatment standards for these
same constituents in listed wastes. The
proposed standards are presented at the
end of this section. The treatment
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48117
standards proposed today are at the
same levels as those proposed as,
universal standards iii s separate part of
today'srule.
The'conceritration-based treatment
standards being proposed are primarily
based on incineration data.. The Agency ,
believes* however,, these proposed .
treatment standards can also be met by
/a number of other treatment
, technologies. (See discussion in section
in.A of this preamble fbrmore
information about these proposed
treatment standards). In fact,, the Agency
has some data on the treatment of these
constituents by innovative technologies
(i.e., solvent extraction,, thermal
desorption) that support the levels being
proposed today.
The treatment technologies typically
used for organic nonwastewaters (e.g.,
incineration,thermal desorption,
solvent extraction) tend to destroy or
extract the organics to a highly efficient
degree. Thus, setting standards based on
these treatment data may result in
hazardous constituents being removed
from the waste befqre disposal.
The Third Third Case directs EPA to
ensure that the hazardous; constituents -
in characteristic waste are adequately
treated. Many TG organic
nonwastewaters contain hazardous
constituents in addition to those
constituents which caused the waste to
be identified as'a hazardous TG waste;
for example, a waste which is classified
as TC hazardous waste because of its
benzene concentration may also contain
lead at levels of concern although not
characteristically hazardous for lead, or
may contain non-TC hazardous
constituents. (Standards for these
hazardous constituents would also be
based on the universal treatment
standards, since these are virtually
identical to standards for F03Q; the basis
for the standards included in the-May
10 emergencyinterim final rule).
PROPOSED BOAT STANDARDS FOR
TC ORGANIC WASTES
[Nonwastewatersl
Code
DOTS .
D019 -..
D020 ..
D021 .
D022 .
D023 .
D024 .
D025 .
D026,
Regulated con-
Benzene :...
Carbon tetrad
chloride,
CNordane ..._...
Chlorobenzene ....
Chforoform ....
o-Cresof
m-Cresof ... .
D-CresoF
Cresol i
Maximum for
any single grab
sampte
Total composi-
tion (mg/kg)
i 10
6.0
0^6
6.0
6.0
5.6
3.2
32
8.8
PROPOSED BOAT STANDARDS FOR
TC ORGANIC WASTES Continued
[NonwastewatersJ
Code
D027.
D028 .
D029 .
DOSO:
D031 .
D031 .
D032 .
D033 .
D034 .
D035 .
D03S.
D037 .
D038 .
D039 .
D040 .
D041 .
DQ42 .
D043 .
Regulated con-
stituent
1,4-Diehloroben-
zene
1,2-Dfehtoroe-
thane
qxl1,1-
Dichloroethy-
Fene.
2,4-Dihitrotoluene
"Heptachior ./
Heptachiof epox-
ide. .
Hexachloroben-
zene
Hexachl6ro-t,3-
butadiene.
Hexachloroethane
Methyl ethyl
ketone
Nitrobenzene ...
Pentachlorophenol
Pyrfdine ...
Tetrachloroethy-
lene ;
Trichloroethy- lene
2,4,5-Trichlbrc-
phenol
2,4,6-Trichloro-
phenol
Vinyl Chlbrfde
Maximum for
any single grab
sample
Total composf-
tion (mg/kgj
6.0
6.0
6.0
f4O
0.066
0.066
10
5.6
3O
36
14
7.4
16
6.0
6.0
7.4
7.4
6;0
BDAT STANDARDS FORTG QRGAMCS
.[Wastewaters]
Constituent
DQ1 ft Benzene .
D019 Carbon tetrar
chtortde ....; ...
D02Q Cnforcfene . .. ....
D02t Chlorobenzene .....
D022 ChtorbforttT
D023o-Cresot
D024 m-CresoT ....
D02&-f^Cresol .._...
D02& Cresot . _
, D0271 ,4-Dichforobert-
zena
D028 T^-DfchiorQe-
thane
D029 T,t-Dichtoroethy-
tene
D030 2,4-Dinitrotol- uene
D031 rHeptachtor
D03t Heptachior epox-
ide .... ..............;...
D032
Hexachlorobenzene ..
D033 Hexachtoro-1 ,3-bur
tadiene ..............
D034
. Hexachaloroethana
D035 Methyl ethyl ke-
tone _.
D03& Nitrobenzene . .
D037-- Pentachforophenol
D03& Pyridine _.
D039 '
Tetrachioroeth^lene
D040 Trichtoroethylene ..
DeMt^r-^.S-Tnchloro-
phenol ,
D042 2,4,S-Trichtoro-
phertof
D043 Vinyf Chforkfe ......:
[ Maximum fdir any
single grab sam-
ple
; Total; composition.
,
O.Qt4
0.057
O.0033
0.057
0.046
0-.fi:
0.77
0.77
&.8&
Q.09
, 02\'
0.025
0.32
0.00t2
' 0:OtS
0.055
0.055
0^055
0^8
O.068
0.089
0.014
o.ose
6.054
O.T8
0:035
0.27
b. Wastewaters. Li todays notice, EPA
is proposing treatment standards for
newly identified TC Wastewaters that
are managed in systems other than those
regulated under the CWA, those
regulated under the SDWA that inject
TC Wastewaters into Class I injection
wells, and those zero discharge facilities
that engage in CWA-equivalent
treatment prior to land disposal. The
proposed treatment standards for newly
identified TCwastewaters would
require treatment to meet the universal
treatment standards for the TC
constituent and for the underlying
hazardous constituents. . -
Radioactive mixed wastes are those
wastes that satisfy the definition of '
radioactive waste subject to the Atomic
Energy Act JAEA) that also contain
waste that is either listed as a hazardous
waste in subpart D of 40 CFR part 261,
or that exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics identified En
subpart C of 40 CFR part 261. Since the
hazardous portions of the mixed wastpe:
are subject to RCRA, the land disposal
restrictions apply. This means that the
RCRA hazardous portion of all mixed
waste must meet the appropriate '
treatment standards for all applicable
waste codes before land disposal. In the
case of these organic TC wastes, any
radioactive waste mixed with organic
TC wastes that are managed in non-
CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-Class I
SDWA facilities would have to meet the
-------
MM I1 I in
48118 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
i I
promulgated treatment standards for the
TC waste.
the most part, the low
concentrations of radioactive
compounds should not interfere with
the tre.itJibility of the hazardous
qgn^lilugntsjn the waste._ Therefore, the
'Standards .being proposed forTC wastes
ar^al^p being proposed forTC
rSdjoactive mixed wastes. The Agency
is requesting data where this is not the
p5|o. The Department of Energy (DOE)
has expressed some concerns about
rnSeilhg certain treatment standards.
DOE is currently collecting data from
their facilities on mixed TC wastes.
They are welcome to submit these data
asSpart of this rulemaking. and the data
win bo placed in the RCRA docket for
public review. The EPA will analyze
these data along with all other data
received on TC wastes, and consider
* them in promulgating final treatment
standards.
I I I I I I I Ml I
The Agency is also proposing to
prohibit dilution of D012 and D017
n'onwaslewalers injected into Class I
deep injection wells. If this prohibition
on dilution before Class I injection is
promulgated, these pesticide wastes
jiHisl'.bg treated to.megt Jhe^reajment
standards before they can permissibly
be injected into such units, unless that
unit has been granted a no-migration
determination. See section IV.E-which
follows for more discussion on the
proposed dilution prohibition for these
and certain ignitable wastes.
2. Pesticide Wastewaters
EPA set treatment standards
expressed as required methods of
treatment for the EP toxic pesticide
wastewaters in the Third Third final
rule (55 FR 22554). EPA is not
proposing to revise the treatment
standards for pesticide wastewaters in
D. Treatment Standards for TC Pesticide
Wastes (D012-D017)
DO! 2 Endrln
DOJ3 Lindane
0014. Kfethoxychlor '_ '
D015 Toxaphcne
DOItt 2,4-D
DOI7 2,4,5-f P (Silvex)
In the final rule for the Third Tnir3
wastes (55 FR 22520), EPA promulgated
treatment standards for D012rD017
wastes, but only for those wastes that
Were hazardous by both the TCLP and
the EP leaching procedures. Wastes that
Were not hazardous by the EP leaching
procedure, but hazardous by the TCLP,
arWrtewly identified D012-DQ17 wastes
and are currently not prohibited. EPA is
proposing treatment standards for
D012-D017 wastes managed in non-
CWA/non-CWA-equivalent/non-Class I
SPWA facilities in this notice. EPA is
also proposing revised treatment
standards for pesticide wastewaters, as
explained below.
toaay s ruie. i&ee zbH.iuj
PROPOSED BOAT STANDARDS FOR
PESTICIDES
[Nonwastewaters]
;'-
Code
D012
D013
D013
D013
D013
D014
D015
D01&
D017
Regulated constituent
Endrin ;.....
alpha-BHC ..
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC ,
delta-BHC
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2,4-D
2 4,5-TP (Silvex) '.. ..
Maximum
for any
single
grab sanv
pla
Total
composi-
tion (mg/
kg)
.13
.066
.066
.066
.066
,.18
2.6
10
7.9
E. Proposed Exemptions for De Minimis
1, Newly Identified Pesticide
Nonwastewaters
There is no reason to think these
wastes cannot meet the existing
treatment standards for D012TD017
nohwasfewaf ers ,{55 FR 22554).
Therefore, H'A is proposing that the
existing treatment standards apply to
newly identified D012-D017
ppnwastewaters. (It should be noted that
EPA.'determined that the Amount of'
S&oiz^BSlT1 waste suEj^tothe
treatment standards is very small. 55 FR
'" ai.aaga.'l, 22646.,Based onthis
determination, it is very unlikely that
newly identified D012-D017 are being
' j^oeraled).
Losses of TC Wastes and for TC
Laboratory, Wastes Discharged to CWA
Wasiewater Treatment .'-.' :
The Agency is proposing to extend
the exemptions established in the May -
24,1993 emergency interim final rule to
TC organic wastes (58 FR 29860). Thus
de minimis losses of TC organic wastes
and TC organic laboratory wastes
discharged to CWA wastewater
treatment systems would not be subject
to the requirements of 40 CFR part 268.
(See proposed ง 268.1 in today's rule.)
. In i| Illuil II ill 111 11 In i IJ 11< 111 II II ill
V. Deep Well Injection issues
A. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOC
Ignitable and of TC Pesticide Wastes '
Injected Into Class I Deep Wells
In the Third Third rule, EPA
determined that decharacterized wastes'
could permissibly be injected in Safe
Drinking Water Act Class I " '
nonhazardous deep injection wells
(wells that dispose of wastewaters deep"
below the lowermost underground
source of drinking Water) Without first
being treated to meet the treatment
standard for the waste. See 55 FR at
22658 and ง 268.1(c)(3). EPA indicated
that so long as wastes that exhibit a
characteristic at the point they are
generated no longer exhibit a
characteristic when disposed in a Class
I deep injection well, they are not
prohibited from land disposal. EPA took
, that position because the Agency
believed that the deep injection of such
wastewaters was an environmentally
sound and technically effective waste
management practice, and consequently
_ that disposal of decharacterized wastes .
in Class I deep injection wells would
not pose hazards to drinking water or to
human health. Id.
As described previously, this
determination was remanded by the
D.C, Circuit. The court said, in essence,
that not only must characteristic wastes
be treated to destroy or remove
hazardous constituents before land ,
disposal, but that no,deviation from this
principle (pursuant to RCRA section
1006) was'acceptable for underground
injection practices because these
practices were a.type of permanent land
disposal (as opposed to temporary land
disposal incident to treatment in units
that are part of Clean Water Act
treatment systems). 976 F.2d at 25-6.
Although the Agency is still evaluating
its interpretation of this part of the
opinion, the Agency has indicated (at
least initially) that the most likely
reading is that the available alternatives
for decharacterized wastes being ' -
injected in Class I nonhazardous deep
wells is for either these wastes to be
treated to meet the treatment standard
before injection (which option may
involve segregation of wastes exhibiting
characteristics at the point they are
generated), or apply for and obtain a no-
migration variance for the injection '
well. See 58 FR 4972, jfanuary 19,1993
and 58 FR 29860, May 24,1993. The
treatment standards that apply to these
wastes are found in the proposed '
treatment table found at ง 268.40 of this
rule. For; D001High TOC ignitables, the
treatment standard is expressed as
methods of treatment that must be used
prior to land disposal: Fuel substitution,
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 5Q, No, 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48119
solvent recovery or incineration. The
treatment standards for EP pesticide
wastewaters are also.expressed as
methods: Biodegradatipn or
incineration. The treatment standards
; for EP pesticide nonwastewaters are
expressed as levels that may be
achieved by using any treatment
technology. * '
; EPA is proposing today to exclude
two types of wastes from the portion of
the rule (ง 268.1(c)(3)) that allows the
waste to be injected into a Class I deep
injection well if it no longer exhibits a
characteristic when it is injected. The
two types of waste are nonwastewaters
that at the point of generation exhibit
the characteristic of ignitability and
contain greater than 10 percent Total
Organic Carbon ("high TOG ignitable
liquids subcategory") and TC toxic
halogenated pesticide wastes (D012
D017). The Agency is singling out these
wastes not only because of the court's
mandate in'the Third Third Case, but
because the Agency believes that
treatment of these wastes is a preferred
management approach for them.
(Indeed, the Agency had already singled
these wastes put from the exception that
allowed dilution of characteristic wastes,
that were to be managed in Clean Water .
Act treatment systems including land
disposal units, ง 268.3(b) and 55 FR at
22657). High TOG ignitable
nonwastewaters contain high
concentrations of organics that can
either be recovered directly for reuse, or
that can be- burned for energy recovery.
Treatment, consequently, not only
eliminates the hazardous constituents in
these wastes but utilizes recoverable
resources in the wastes. The prohibited
pesticide wastes contain a number of
particularly toxic hazardous
constituents (such as toxaphene, 2,4-D,
- and (in some cases) dioxins and furans)
that warrant destruction or removal
before land disposal. See generally 55
FR a^ 22657 and the waste management
hierarchy in RCRA section 1003(6). :
In addition, these wastes are not:
injected in significant volumes, so that
redirection of the wastes to treatment
technologies will not have any
significant impact on well operators.
(Although the issue of adverse impact
on injection practices is ultimately
"irrelevant" to determining how to
apply prohibitions' to underground
injection practices, see 976 F. 2d at 26,"
the issue is relevant (at least,to some
extent) in determining how q'uickly EPA
; responds to the issues remanded by the
court). In fact, as a worst case, the
information the Agency; gathered for the
Third Third rulemaking indicated that a
maxirnum of 6,9 million gallons of point
of generation D001 ignitable wastes
were injected in C|ass I nonhazardous
deep injection wells annually. That
same data set also indicated that all
wastewaters which exhibit the toxicity
characteristic for halogenated pesticide
content (D012-D.017) at the point they
are generated totaled approximately 15
million gallons annually. The most
. recent information used for capacity
'determination in this proposed rule
indicate that these injected volumes are,
in fact, much lower. However, even the
largest potential volumes are relatively
small for Class I underground injection
well waste, streams. ;..;
EPA is not proposing to grant a
national capacity variance for either of
these waste types. There is
approximately one-half million tons
(i.e., approximately 120 million gallons)
of available alternative treatment
capacity for these liquid wastes. This
treatment capacity is large compared to
even the largest potential injected waste
volumes; however, a three month
capacity variance is proposed for the
other wastes included in this proposed
rule, in order that generators have time
to locate and arrange for treatment of
their wastes (see section Xn for more
information about capacity variances)..
This three-month variance would also
apply to the prohibition of dilution of
high TOG ignitable and TC pesticide
wastes when they are injected into Class
I wells. - "-.'....; - ...... '.', ; :
The Agency is requesting any and all
information regarding volumes,
facilities, and properties ofcthese wastes
being injected in Class I nonhazardous
deep wells in order to make a final
determination on these issues.
B. Request for Comment on Petition
From Chemical Manufacturer's
Association Regarding Deep Well
Injection of Ignitable and Corrosive
Characteristic Wastes ,
In the May 24,1993 interim final rule
for ignitable and corrosive wastes
managed in other than wastewater :
treatment systems whose ultimate
discharge is subject to the CWA, in
other than Class I underground injection
wells subject to the SDWA UIC program,
and by zero dischargers who do not treat
wastewater with treatment equivalent to
that utilized by CWA dischargers, the
Agency discussed plans for future
rulemakings covering those ignitable
and corrosive wastes disposed in such
units, As part of its response to May 24
interim final rule, the Chemical
Manufacturers'Association (CMA)
requested thai the Agency develop
treatment standards intended for those
wastes disposed in Class I deep
injectipn wells. CMA specifically
requested the Agency to promulgate
treatment standards for ignitable and!
corrosive wastes managed by deep well :
injection that, hi view of the unique
circumstances of deep well injection,;
meet .the'statutory "minimize threats"
standard. Consequently, the Agency has
placed CMA's petition in the docket and
is 'soliciting comment on the petition.
VI. Treatment Standards for Newly
Listed Wastes ....'.. '
A. Treatment Standards for Coke By-
product Production -Wastes
K141Process residues from the recovery
of coal tar, including but not limited to tar
collecting sump residues from the production
of coke from coal or the recovery of coke by-
products produced from coal. This listing
does not include K087, decanter tank tar
sludge from coking operations.
K142Tar storage tank residues from the
production of coke from coal or the recovery
of coke .by-products produced from coal. -.'.
K143Process residues from the recovery
of light oil, including but not limited to those
generated in stills, decanters, and wash oil
recovery units from the recovery of coke by-
products produced from coal..
K144Wastewater treatment sludges from
light oil refining, including but not limited to
, intercepting or contamination sump sludges
from the recovery of coke .by-producta
produced from coal.
K145Residues from naphthalene
"collection and recovery operations from the
recovery of coke by-products produced from .
coal. , .: , . .. _.
K147Tar storage tank residues from coal
tar refining.
Kl487-Residues from coal tar distillation,
including but not limited to still bottoms.
The Agency recently promulgated the
listing of Ki4l, K142, K143, K144,
K145, K147, and K148 as hazardous
wastes (August 18,1992 (57 FR 37284)). .
These seven wastes are generated in-the
production, recovery, and refining of
coke and coke by-products produced
from coal. EPA estimates that there are
approximately thirty-four facilities in
the United States generating these
wastes. Greater details on the
description and generation of these
wastes can be found in the listing rule
.and in the technical background
document supporting that rule. '
The final listing rule also describes
certain recycling scenarios in which
these materials are excluded from the
definition of solid wastes (i.e., they are :
riot listed as K141, K142, K143,K144^
K145, K147, and K148). This occurs
when these materials are recycled in
one of three ways: Combined with coal
feedstock residue as it is charged into
the coke oven; added to the tar! recovery
process; or mixed with coal tar before
this coal tar is sold as a product or
further refined. See 57 FR 37285, f !
37297-37299 (August 18, i992):for
specific details of these conditions.
-------
; i ....... >ป : s^ : ...... ' * ป ...... ;v>flq
', , ""ป v . ,,' ;j ..... ; ....... l|:'i',i,
: :' '"' - ' : V? :/ v A, f 5 : ', "S .....
$sH!.';*aii ...... ซi ...... o ...... K ..... B
rsi ..... iff*;**1
tiii'",:1!!'1'!1 ..... 'iihn,!! ',,
48120 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
Under suci conditions, since they are
'pot the listed wastes, the proposed land
disposal restrictions to today's rule for
KMlrKMS, K147, and K148 would not
apply- ' ""_' " ' i ^ ' ' \ \
1, Proposed Treatment Standards
In general, these waste streams consist
primarily of organics with a minimum
amount of water. Many are quite viscous
and have the consistency of semisolids
or sludges. With respect to hazardous
organics, these wastes typically contain
thousands of ppm of polynuclear
airpniatlc fiompounds and hundreds of
ppm of phenols, benzenes, and other
single-ring aromatic compounds.
Because of their highly organic
nature, EPA has determined that
thermal destruction technologies, such
as Incineration or fuel substitution,
represent BDAT for these wastes. While
extraction technologies, such as thermal
desorption and critical Quid extraction,
appear to be potentially applicable, EPA
currently lacks data verifying their
performance on wastes similar to K141,
K^42, K143, K144, K145. Kl47f and
Kl4งl If tljege technologies can achieve
the levefs of performance (i.e., comply
with the concentrations) of the proposed
treatment standards, they could also be
considered to be BDAT.
While most of these wastes, as
generated, would be classified as
"nonwastewaters" according to
definitions applicable to the land
disposal restrictions (40 CFR 268.2 (d)
and (f)), EPA nevertheless sets treatment
standards for wastewater forms as well
8? nonwastewafejr formg of these Bastes,,
on a wasto code-basis. Even though the
lifting of these seven wastes* does not
specifically include wastewaters, if
water or was! ewater conies Jin. contact'
with these wastes (such as during
.- ,' P .' , t "'. l.?< a! L{ ฐ
sloraga, treatment, or disposal), a
wastewitar form of these wastes would
nil",,,:'ปป fliijiif. fc'ii; iji"^;;!^ !M!'"VL"' M1:':..sijr :*": 3'!!i' ii'Hiifjii11 ji I s;i,pMซ^ i :;,'.' "'*;
be generated that would have to comply it. Potential Future Revisions to
with the treatment standards (provided
the waste was to be placed in a land
disposal unit).
A&a rjesult, EPA is proposing
treatment standards for both wastewater
and nonwastewater forms of K141,
' K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, and
K148 wastes which are numerically
equivalent to the universal standards
proposed for the constituents selected
for regulation in these wastes. The
development of these standards is
presented in the BDAT background
document for these wastes located in
the administrative docket for today's
rule. EPA is proposing maximum
concentration limits for benzene,
naphthalene, and six polynuclear
organics in both wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. The tables at the end of
this section list, by waste form, the
proposed standards for. each constituent
and indicate the constituents that are
regulated in each waste code. The
proposed nonwastewater standards are
based on the limits of analytical
detection of these eight compounds in
incineration ash residues. EPA has data
from the incineration of fourteen vastly
different, difficult to treat hazardous
wastes indicating that these standards
should be achievable on a routine basis
for most hazardous wastes. The
proposed wastewater standards reflect
the performance of industrial
wastewater treatment systems as
documented in several of EPA's Office
of Water and Risk Reduction
,?IVeatment Standards for Existing Coking
Wastes K087, K060, and K035
hi response to the rulemaking for
Third Third wastes, the Hazardous
Waste Treatment Council submitted
data that they believe indicate that
treatment standards*for certain.
constituents (e.g., benzene) in other
coking wastes, namely K087, KOSO, and
K035, cannot be achieved on a regular
basis in ash residues from the
incineration of other types of hazardous
wastes. (Note: The proposed
nonwastewater standard for benzene in
K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147,
and K148 in today's rule is not
transferred from K087, K060, or K035).
The Agency agrees that when K087,
K060, and K035 nonwastewaters are
commingled with other wastes prior to
treatment (such as the new coking
wastes) the promulgated standards for
those nonwastewaters may riot always
be achievable (primarily the benzene
nonwastewater standard for K087 and
K060). The Agency has not, however,
received any requests for a treatability
variance for any of these three wastes
(i.e., K087, K060, and K035) nor has it
been notified that any particular
generator has had a problem complying
with the standards. EPA believes that
this is primarily because these wastes
are no longer generated or generate no
residues when treated, and there is,
therefore, no demand for treatment. The
Agency is, nevertheless, soliciting
comment from generators on whether
.they have been unable to get their K087,
Engineering Laboratory databases and K060, and K035 wastes treated because
presented in Volume C of the Final treatment standards could not be
BDAT Background Document for U and achieved or verified. The Agency
P Wastes and..MultijSpurce....Leachate requests any additional comment or
available in "the 'xhird "jj^i |^~- Information that would assist in
docket. determining whether the standards for
these three wastes need to be revised.
PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, AND K148
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
ii i ii n
Beozena ป .....
B6nzo(a}pyrend _...
Bofizo(b}Hooranthene ' ~.
BsrabpOtltioiaritrieoe1 ' ".ซ....I.m......Z.
Ctxyseoo ...ป
Ditoonr(a,h)ar.ihracono ,... .....
lncjeno(1 A3-cd)pyrene .._...
Naphthalene ...........................
Maximum for any sin-
gle grab sample
Total composition
(mg/kg)
10.0
3.4
3.4
6.8
6.8
3.4
8.2
3.4
5.6
Constituents regulated for waste codes
K141
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K142
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K143
X
X
X
X
X
X
K144
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K145
X
X
X
X
X
X
K147
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K148
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
' Thte standard represents the sum of the concentrations for each of this pair of constituents.
-------
Federal Register. / Vol. 58. No. 176 7 Tuesday. September 14. 1993 / Proposed Rules 48121
PROPOSED BDAT STANDARDS FOR K141.K142, K143, K144, Kt45, K147, AND K1-48
; ' " ;;':'.'''' ', -' ' /. ." JWastewatersJ ' ''; .'' ".'.'": -.- ; : *.; ::
.. :.:..-:... ''.-:. :';;;. :^;'.^;:-.
Benzene ..; .......>: ;..' .
Benz(a)anthracene ..;...,>,;.>.... ..:...............
Benzo(a)pyrene ... ;..,.,
Benzo(b)fluoranthene '..-'' .
l3enzo{k)fluorantriene ........l..r.;^.:.ll.....l.............
Chrysene .... *
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ...............: .:.... .... .
lndeno(1 ,2 3-cdjpyrene ' ;
Naphthalene ..... ;.....:...;...........'...;.:.........
Maximum (en any ,
single 9rab sample
' Total composition
(mg/l) ,
014
' 0 059
0 061
i'0 11 '
1011 '
0 059
0055
' '" t\ flfi^i'v
0.059'
. '
K141
x
x
X
X.
X
X: .
X
Cot
K142
x
x
X'
x
X'
t$tituerrts n
K143 /
X>
X-
X
X"
sgutated fo
K144
X'
X.
X.
' waste cod
K145
X-
.
x "'.
es
K147
--.'. X
:y '
,-X
- * ''
K148
. X':-,: ,
-- .,-. X-. :
. - ;
\ ' # ' -'
1 This standard represents the'sum of trje concentrations for each of this pair of constituents.
^.Treatment Standards for
' Chlorotoluenes : '
. .. K149 Distillation bottoms frpni. the
production of alpha (methylJ'cWorinated
toluenes, ring-chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl
chlorides, and compounds with mixtures of
these, functional groups. (This'waste, does not
include still bottoms from .the distillation of
benzyl chloride.) .;-....: , :: ../.
K150 Organic resjfluals, excluding spent
carbon adsorbent, from the spent chlorine gas
affd hydrochloric acid recoveryprocesses '-
associated with the production of alpKa
(methyl) chlorinated toluenes, ring-
...chlorinated toluenes, benzOyl chloridesj and
compounds: with mixtures of these, functional
' '' ' '' '''''" :' " ' ' '
. .. . ...:. . ., _-,, , . . ,
Kigl^-Wastewater treatment sludges, ,.
excluding neutralization and biological
'sludges, generated during the treatment of
wastewaters from the production of alpha
(methyl) chlorinated toluenes;' riiig-
' chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl chlorides and
, compounds with mixtures of these functional
groups. . . . . i . .
The Agency recently promulgated the
listing of K149.K150, and K151 as :'
hazardous wastes on October 15, 1992
(57 ER 47377). These three wastes are
generated in the production of
chlorinated toluenes and include both
ring-chlorinated toluenes (where the
- chlorine atoms are attached to the .
aromatic ring) rand methyl-chlorinated
toluenes (where the chlorine atoms are-
attached to toluene's methyl moiety).
EPA estimates that there are four
facilities in the United States generating
these wastes. Greater details on the
description and generation of these
wastes can be found in the final listing
rule and in the technical background
document supporting that rule. ;
K149 and K150 waste streams are
typically generated as organic liquids.
Any aqueous phase that may be present
in these streams is expected to be
extremely acidic; therefore, both streams
could potentially be hazardous by the
characteristic of corrosivity (i.e., D002).
With respect to hazardous organics,
Doth" of these wastes contain thousands
of ppm of chlorinated aromatic and
chlorinated aliphatic compounds. In
fact, K149 wastes can contain up to .10
percent benzotrichloride. K151 wastes
include a variety of solid and semisolid
streams including sludges and
skimmings from various separation
units. K151 can contain up to;3 percent
toluene and lesser concentrations of
chlorinated aliphatics, chlorinated
aroiriatics, and benzene. ,
. Because of their highly organic .:-' '
, nature, EPA has determined that
thermal destruction technologies, such
as incineration Or fuel substitution,
represent BDAT for K149 and K150. In
- a similar manner, since K151 wastes
may contain significant concentrations
of hazardous organics and since K151
wastes comprise a variety of waste
matrices, EPA has determined that
incineration also represents BDAT for
these wastes. While extraction
technologies, such as thermal
desorption and critical fluid extraction,
appear to be potentially applicable to
some K151 wastes, EPA currently lacks
data verifying their performance on
wastes similar to these K151 wastes. If
; these technologies can achieve the
levelsof performance (i.e., comply with
the concentrations) of the proposed
treatment standards, they could also be
i considered to be BDAT, ;
While most of these.wastes, as
generated, would be classified as ,
"nonwastewaters" according to
definitions applicable to the land
disposal restrictions (40 CFR 268.2 (d)
and (f)), EPA nevertheless sets treatment
standards for waste water forms as well
as nonwastewater forms of these wastes
on a waste code-basis. Even though the
listing of these three wastes does not
specifically include wastewaters, if
water or wastewater COmes in contact
with these wastes (such as during
storage, treatment, or disposal), a
wastewater form of these would be ,
generated that would have to comply
with the treatment standards (provided
the waste was to be placed in a land-
disposal unit.) . / '
As a'result, EPA is proposing
treatment standards for both waste water
and nonwastewater forms of K149,-
K150, and K151 wastes which are
numerically equivalent to the universal
standards proposed for the constituents;
selected for regulation in these wastesi
The development of these standards is
presented in the BDAT background ;
document for these wastes located in ?
the administrative docket for today's" :
rule. EPA is proposing maximum
concentration limits for benzene,
toluene, five chlorinated aliphatics, and
six chlorinated aromaties in both' -
wastewater and nonwastewater forms of
these wastes. The tables at the end of : ''
this section list, by waste form, the-
proposed standards for each constituent
and indicate the constituents that are
; regulated in each waste code. The
proposed nonwastewater standards are
based on the limits of analytical .
detection of these compounds in
incineration ash residues. EPA has data
from the incineration of fourteen vastly "
different, difficult to treat hazardous
wastes Indicating that these standards ' ,-
should be achievable oh a routine basis :'
for most hazardous wastes. The
proposed wastewater standards reflect
the performance of industrial
wastewater treatment systems as .
documented in several of EPA's Office
of Water and Risk Reduction
Engineering Laooratory datiabases and
presented in Volume C of the Final
BDAT Background Document for U and
P Wastes and Multi-Source Leachate
available in the Third Third rulemaking
docket. ;
-------
481,22 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday,".September 14, 1993 "/ Prop6sed7''Rule$'
PROPOSED BOAT STANDARDS FOR K149, K150, AND K151
1 ' ' [Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
, "!; ": 1 I ' || 1 | I'f | I|| I
' ' : ' . ' , "' 1 i li i , 1
_ . < ''' . ป - 1 1 II
Bcnzena .... ,_.., _ . ......
Carbon tf'racJilortde ......
Ctoforofofm
Ghtofobeozertd - - i
1 ,4-DJcblofobenzene
HexacWorobenzsne ,,.,.,...... '... i
Pentacbtofobenzene ..... ...
1^,4,5-Tetrachtorobenzene : ....
1 ,1 ,2,2"T0traGn!0roethana ....
TetrachforoeHiytene .......A
1,2 4-TncWorobenzena ..... _~ ~
Tokปwซ ,..,_ ....
Maximum for
any single
grab sample
Total com-
position
(mg/kg)
10
6,0
6,0
30
6.0
6,0
10
10
14
6.0
6.0
19
10
Constituents regulated
waste codes
K149
1
1 X XXXXXXX
K150-
I XXXXXXX XXX
K,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
,iijli,f",'ซ',' ii11;1', SHI..!?;, ',;'
1 i i
,;, "j-,^^^- gb^t"งTANDARDS FOR |roben2eoQ .. -..
1,1,2,2-T6&ichi0roethaf>e _
Tei/achfocoethvlene ..... .
1 ^,4-Tncreorobenzeno
Maximum for
any single
grab sample
Total com-
position
(mg/1)
0.14
0.057
0.046
0.19
0.057
0.090
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.056
0.055
0.080
Constituents regulated for
waste codes
K149
X XXXXXXX
K150
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K151
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vll Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Soils
A. Introduction
This section discusses proposed
alternative treatment standards for
hazardous soils that may be met instead
of the treatment standards that currently
apply to the contaminating hazardous
Wastes, These proposed alternative
standards would apply to soils that
contain listed hazardous wastes, and
soils thalexiii any o te
charactgjrJstics, filKazardoug.was te. ....................
In particular, EPA is proposing two
alternative technplpgy-Dased treatment
approaches for compliance with the
hazardous soil treatment standards and
also soliciting comment on variations of
thesa alternate approaches. It should be
understood that the Agency is also in
the process of developing a proposed
rule for contaminated media (including
soil) in the context of the Hazardous
Waste Identification Rule. As a result of
that effort, the Agency may propose
additional regulatory options for LDR
treatment standards for hazardous soils,
or modify the options presented here in
order to establish a consistent regulatory
framework for hazardous soils under
RCRA.
Today's proposal is important in
several respects. First, it continues the
process of developing tailored
standards, such as the previously
promulgated treatment standards
tailored to multi-source leachate and to
hazardous debris. Because today's
proposed treatment standards are
tailored to contaminated soil media, this
proposal would primarily affect
activities associated,with cleanup and
consequent waste management at
contaminated facilities and sites.
Second .and more important, the
treatment standards proposed today are
based on levels attainable by a variety
of technologies, including innovative
technologies. Thus, technologies that
are more appropriate for the treatment
of hazardous soils than combustion are
identified as BDAT.
In addition, EPA is proposing to
codify the cohtained-in policy for soils
(as it did for debris in the Phase I LDR
rule, see 57 FR 37194, August 18,1992.)
The regulation would establish a
process for determining on a site-
specific basis whether or not
environmental media (e.g., soil and
ground water) "contain" a hazardous
waste.
(In1
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 /Proposed Rules 481Z3
B. Applicability, Regulatory Status of
Treated Soils, and Definitions
1. Applicability "
Under current regulations, land
disposal of soils that contain a
prohibited listed hazardous waste, or
that exhibit.a prohibited characteristic
of hazardous waste, is prohibited unless
such soils have been treated to meet the
treatment standards promulgated for
that hazardous waste (i.e., the same
treatment standard the waste would
have to meet if it was newly generated
rather than found in the soil matrix.)
Today's rule proposes alternative
treatment standards that are specific to
hazardous soils. This continues the
process of developing treatment
standards tailored to specific types of
hazardous wastes associated with .
remediation activities. The Agency thus
has promulgated treatment standards
specific to multi-source leachate and for
hazardous debris. '
2. Regulatory Status of Treated Soils
Under this proposal, treatment of soils
to meet the proposed treatment
standards may or may not affect the
regulatory status of the soils under
RCRA subtitle C, depending on whether
the soil is contaminated with listed
waste or displays a hazardous
characteristic, or upon a site-specific .
determination that the soil no longer .
contains hazardous waste (see section 3
.below). Treatment of hazardous soils to
meet the proposed treatment standards
would not, of itself determine whether
the soils would remain a hazardous
waste. However, treatment to meet the"
proposed treatment standards may, in
some cases, achieve the result that the
soil is no longer hazardous based on
separate regulatory determinations.
It is not possible to predict at this
time precisely how, or if, the Agency
may exempt certain hazardous soils
frqm subtitle C in future actions, or how
those exemptions (if such exemptions
are developed) might compare with the
LDR treatment standards proposed here
for hazardous soils. If, however, the
final exemption levels were at or above
the LDR treatment standards and .
represented minimize threat levels,
treatment standards would be capped at
those levelsj and the wastes also would
no longer be subject to any other subtitle
C control.
3. "Contained-itt" Determinations
The Agency's "eontained-in" policy
says that environmental media such as
soil or ground water that is
contaminated with hazardous waste
must be managed as the hazardous
waste until the waste is separated from
the media so that it no longer
"contains" the hazardous waste. EPA is
proposing in this notice to codify the
contained-in policy for environmental
media. The codification will provide a
mechanism for determining when
environmental media (e.g., soil, ground
water) no longer "contain" listed
hazardous wastes, and thus, are no
longer subject to subtitle C regulation..
As proposed today, these contained-in
determinations will be made by the EPA
Regional Administrator or designee on a
site-specific basis, considering factors
such as exposure potential and
contaminant characteristics (e.g.,
concentrations, mobility, persistence).
Management scenarios for the
contaminated media, (e.g.> disposal in a
lined landfill) would not be a factor in
making contained-in determinations.
However, contained-in determinations
could constitute "minimize threat"
levels at a particular site. Thus, for a
particular site, contained-in levels could
function as a cap for LDR treatment
standards.
4. Definitions
EPA is proposing a definition for
hazardous soil, and identifying the
constituents subject to treatment for
hazardous soil. Soil Is unconsolidated
earth material composing the superficial
geologic strata (material overlying
bedrock), consisting of clay, silt, sand,
or gravel size particles (sizes as ,
classified by the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service), or a mixture-of such materials
with liquids, sludges, or solids which is
inseparable by simple mechanical
'removal processes and is made up
primarily of soil. Cf. 57 FR at 37224
(August 18,1992) where EPA adopted a
similar classification scheme for debris.
This proposed definition would allow
site managers (e~.g>, on-scene
coordinators, remedial project
managers, or equivalent corrective
action officials) to determine whether
the material to be excavated is waste,
debris, or soil by judging the results of
simple in-situ mechanical removal
processes to separate the materials.
Such processes include pumping,
dredging, or excavation by backhoe,
forklifts, or other devices. Of course, any
non-soil that is separated is subject to
the treatment standard for .that material.
Id. In addition, any intentional mixing
of soil with non-soil does not result in
the mixture being classified as soil.
Rather, it is a type of impermissible
dilution. Id. and id. at 37243.
This approach would avoid requiring
chemical analysis for soil properties in -
order to differentiate precisely between.
waste, soil and debris (e.g., considering
such things as soil particle size,
elemental composition- of the soil, or
other properties that might distinguish' -
soil from waste or debris). Attempting to
distinguish more precisely between
waste, soil, or debris using a chemical-
analysis or other tests would be difficult
to develop and support, and
cumbersome to administer. In addition,
a basis for chemical analysis or other
tests has not been developed, and
implementation of any such approach
would most likely not be beneficial, but
rather simply delay the progress of
remedial actions. The Agency
specifically solicits comment on the
definition proposed for soil and this
'type of pragmatic approach for
classifying mixtures of soil and other
materials. (As noted in a following
section, however, adding soil to other
materials to attempt fpreclassify the
mixture as "hazardous soil" is a form of
impermissible dilution and is illegal-
under the LDR program.)
a. Hazardous sou. Hazardous soil is
soil that contains RCRA hazardous
waste(s) listed in 40 CFR part 261,
subpart D, or soil that exhibits one or
more of the characteristics of a
hazardous waste defined in 40 CFR part
261, subpart C. It can be generated from
a wide variety of activities> including
remedial actions at Superfund and
RCRA corrective action sites, and spills
at manufacturing plants. It should be
noted that in the Advance Notice of
.Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
published on October 24,1991 (see 56
FR 55160 at 55172), EPA suggested that
soils containing listed hazardous wastes
and soils that exhibit one or more of the
hazardous characteristics be defined as
"contaminated soil." Many commenters
to the ANPRM were confused as to the .
. scope of the definition. They felt that
the definition suggested in the ANPRM
included not only hazardous soils but
all soils contaminated with any toxic
constituents. To clarify this point, the
Agency is changing the term used to
refer to soils subject to regulation from
"contaminated soil" to "hazardous
soil."
b. Constituents subject to treatment.
Under today's proposed approach,
hazardous, soil would be treated for each
constituent subject to treatment,
regardless of whether the contaminating-
waste is a listed or characteristic waste.
The Agency is proposing to define
constituents subject ta treatment as any
regulated constituent found on Table
UTS in today's proposed ง 268.48, that
is present at levels above the universal
constituent-specific treatment-
standards. The constituents in Table
UTS are all of the BOAT list hazardous
constituents that can be analyzed. As
with multi-source leachate, hazardous
-------
48124
I, In i
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday. September' 14, 1993 /'Proposed Rules
sol! cซn contain potentially all of these
constituents. See, e.g., 55 FR at 22619-
620 (June 1,1990). Of course, not every
soil will contain all of .these
constituents, and EPA is not proposing
that soils necessarily be monitored for
the entire list of hazardous constituents.
(Sea section VILA.) However, a scheme
that limited treatment only to the
hazardous constituents in the listed
wa^te or the TC constituent
contaminating the soil would usually
overlook ffia reality of the situation:
งqils (like multi-source leachates)
irequontly are contaminated with an
enormous variety of contaminants fromt
diverse soirees. A treatment scheme
that ignored this reality would not fulfill
the requirement of section 3004(m) of
RCRA that the hazardous constituents
present in prohibited wastes be treated
so1 "As to minimize threats to human
"' ijej^J,^,fe?.^YiSl1Kin5n.ti.,^e!Et.?^?.
,
(treatment muit remove or destroy the
hazardous constituents in prohibited
wtstis in order to satisfy section
3004(m), arid merelyremoving one
:"' Indicia, of h izardousness is insufficient
lo'satfsfylHVreqmreme^ For soil'
which is hazardous because it exhibits
tha characteristics of ignitability,
cdrrosivity, or reactivity, the Agency
Would require treatment until the soil
nO lengor exhibits the characteristic and
also requires that the numerical
tmffierjjt sjimdards be met for all
CQnst|Cu@"pง:,|ubject to treatment;
c. fffegai contamination of soil. As
noted above, illegal contamination of
soil is the deliberate addition of
htzardousj^nstituents or hazardous
W?lsti"to""ioillqr vice'versa). 'The Agency
believes that existing ^uja|jon^
concerning impermissible dilution (40
CFR 268.3 (a) and (b)) already make this
conduct Ulegal, and subject the mixture
to the most stringent treatment standard
for any waste in the mixture (40 CFR
2ฎง,4|(bj). The Agency acknowledges,
however,""that the promulgation of
|L ^งri'dardsiiiifpirihazardousiiispil which are
''/Jess stringent" than" the t reatment
Standards that apply to hazardous waste
may create an incentive to illegally mix
waste with soil.
Because such action would be illegal,
the Agency believes that most
generators of hazardous waste will not
Snix prohibited hazardous waste with
soil. Specifically, section 3008(a) of
RCRA provides EPA the authority to
issue an order assessing a civil penalty
'against any person who violates any
requirement of subtitle C of RCRA.
Criminal penalties may also apply. EPA
requests comment on whether any
Further safeguards are needed, however.
to assure that no attempts are made to
dilute hazardous waste with soil.
d. Nonanalyzable constituents.
Hazardous soils are often contaminated
with more than one hazardous
constituent, many of which have
analytical methods available while
others do not. For soils containing
multiple organic constituents, some of
which are nonanalyzable, the Agency
believes that treatment of the analyzable
constituents to meet the soil treatment
standards should provide adequate
treatment of any nonanalyzable
constituents to appropriate levels. The
Agency is therefore not proposing
treatment standards for nonanalyzable
constituents found in such hazardous
soil. The Agency requests comment on
this approach as well as data on the
degree to which nonanalyzable
constituents are treated when the soil is
treated for other organic constituents. If
EPA should choose, based on public
comments, to regulate these
constituents, it could require treatment
by specific technologies known to-
achieve adequate treatment of the
constituent. If this is determined to be
necessary, EPA could publish
performance standards for the specified
technologies with the promulgation, of
this regulation.
In other cases, a hazardous soil may
be contaminated solely by .
nonanalyzable constituents, such as
nonanalyzable U or P wastes. For these
soils, the Agency proposes requiring
treatment by the methods specified in
ง 268.42 for those U or P wastes. The
Agency solicits comment on whether
other technologies should be allowed
for treatment of such soils.
EPA points out that in proposing to
exempt certain wastes from subtitle C
control (see 57 FR at 21469, May 2.9,
1992), the Agency did not allow wastes
that contained nonanalyzable
constituents to qualify for the generic
exemption. The Agency has not yet
finally determined whether such wastes
will bei availablejor the generic ;
exemption, aruTwlieth'er hazardous soils
should be addressed differently than
wastes.
C. Proposed Approaches for
Establishing Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Soils ' . '
lii developing an LDR program for
hazardous soil, the Agency had a
primary objective: The treatment
standards should be appropriate for soil.
The technology-based soil standards
thus should not be based exclusively on
incineration. See 55 FR at 8760-61
(March 8,1990). Innovative
technologies are particularly
appropriate to treat the large volumes of
low and moderately contaminated soil.
To satisfy this objective, the Agency is
proposing two approaches it believes
are achievable (in most cases) using
innovative technologies, and is
soliciting comment on a variation of one
of the two options. The Agency solicits
comments on which of the approaches
should be promulgated in the final rule.
Table UTS in today's proposal (ง 268,48)
lists, the constituents subject to
treatment and the universal treatment
standards which are the basis of the soil
treatment standards.:..-.:
1. Technology-Based Treatment
Standards for Hazardous Soils
As indicated above, the Agency is
Considering several approaches for
developing technology-based treatment
standards for hazardous soils. Under
these approaches, the universal
treatment standards (discussed in
section IILA of this preamble) are
proposed for soil as "base" standards.
Each approach allows for treatment to
levels above the universal standards and
differ primarily in the extent of
treatment required. ,>
Under the first approach, the Agency
is proposing a range of standards with
- a "ceiling" one order of magnitude
above the universal standard, provided
90% treatment of each constituent
subject to treatment is achieved- The ,
second approach is a variation of the
first, in that the Agency is proposing a
range of standards with a "ceiling" one
order of magnitude above the universal
standard,: however, there is no
requirement that 90% reduction occur.
The third approach proposes an
unlimited range of values above the ..
universal standard provided 90%
treatment is attained (i.e., there would
be no "ceiling" value) unless 90%
treatment would treat the waste to a
level below the universal treatment
standards,. If such a level would be
achieved through 90% treatment, the
universal treatment standards would be
met. ...'.;.
Analysis of the available soil
treatability data has revealed that
innovative technologies (e.g., thermal
desorption, biological treatment,
dechlorination) can generally achieve
the universal standards proposed today.
In several cases, however, non- .
combustion does not achieve the
universal standards. Thus, the various
approaches proposed today provide an
additional assurance as to the
achievability of meeting the treatment
standards for potentially hard-to-treat
soil matrices. Additionally, the ,
proposed approaches would encourage
the use of effective innovative (i.e, non-
-------
Federal Register 7 Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48125
incineration) technologies, a reasonable
objective given EPA's determination
' that combustion' is not always
appropriate as the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology for many soils. 55
. FR at 8761.
Furthermore, the Agency believes
these approaches are appropriate for
setting treatment standards for
hazardous soils, given the unique and
often heterogeneous characteristics of
soils. The proposed approaches
accommodate possible limitations of the
data: That is, the data may not represent
potentially problematic matrices and
varying contaminant levels. The
proposed universal treatment standards
are expressed as total concentration
,. levels for each organic constituent. The
proposed universal treatment standards
for each metal constituent is expressed
as a level measured in the TCLP extract,
because metal treatment technologies
typically involve stabilization or
immobilization, and teachability and
reduced mobility of the metals is best
, reflected in the concentrations in the TC
extract (i.e., metals'are not destroyed or
eliminated after treatment with
stabilization or immobilization
technologies, but rather have reduced
mobility.) Although metals recovery
technologies are available, they are not
generally practical for treating
hazardous soil because of the relatively
loyr levels of metal contamination
typically found in soil (LeJ, low relative
to the concentrations necessary for
economical metal: recovery}.
Soils that were contaminated with
both organic and metal constituents
would possibly require treatment by
more than pne technology. Generally, /
the first'technplogy would treat the
prganic constituents (e.g.,by thermal
desorption) and the second technology
would treat the metals (e.g., by
stabilization). ^ ' , . '
Stabilization is typically riot
considered an effective treatment
technology for organics; in addition,
organics can interfere with the
stabilization process. Nevertheless,
difficulties can occur at those sites
where.metals are the constituents of
concern, and where organic compounds
are also present at concentrations only
slightly greater than the universal
standards. In this case, the generator or
treater may consider treating the soil by
stabilization without additional
treatment for the'organic constituents
present. The data currently available to
the Agency do not fully address the
effectiveness of stabilization
technologies for treatment of very low
levels of specific organic constituents.
Although not considered an appropriate
treatment technology for organic
constituents, the Agency requests
comment on the practicality of using
' stabilization technologies for treating.
soil containing low levels of organic
constituents. The Agency also requests
that commenters provide analytical data
demonstrating the effective treatment by
stabilization of soil contaminated with
. organic constituents, if available.
a. Range of standards with a "Ceiling"
one order of magnitude above the
Universal Standard, provided 90%
treatment occurs* Under this approach,
EPA is proposing treatment standards
for hazardous soil as ฃ range of values.
The base levels would correspond ta the
proposed universal standards, and the
"ceiling" would be one order of
magnitude above the universal levels. If
the generator or treater of hazardous soil
achieves a treatment standard above the
universal level (but no higher than one
order of magnitude above the universal
standard, or the "ceiling"), they must
document that at least 90% treatment of
the constituent has been achieved by
indicating the initial constituent
concentration and the final constituent
concentration. Such documentation
would be placed in the generator's or
facilities' files. (See proposed ง 268.48.)
As concentrations increase in a
hazardous soil, the percent treatment
necessary to achieve at least the
"ceiling" levels would also increase. For
example, if the untreated concentration
is one order of magnitude above the
ceiling, achieving the ceiling level will
require a 90% reduction of the
constituent. As the initial concentration"
increases beyond an order of magnitude
above the ceiling, reductions of greater
than 95% would be needed in order to
achieve the ceiling level. Thus, high
initial concentrations would re'quire
high treatment efficiencies. For
example, an initial concentration of
5,000 mg/kg of anthracene in hazardous
soil would require a treatment efficiency
of 99.3% to achieve the "ceiling" level
of 34 mg/kg (anthracene universal
standard = 3.4 mg/kg).
It could be argued that high initial
concentrations requiring high treatment
efficiencies would force treaters to
select incineration and'other high
efficiency technologies. The Agency
acknowledges that this may be the case
with very high untreated
concentrations. However, the Agency
does not consider this a problem for
three reasons: (1) Data indicate that
relatively high treatment efficiencies are
possible using some innovative
technologies; (2) most hazardous soil is
not highly contaminated and is well-
suited to the use of innovative
technologies; and, (3) when highly
contaminated hazardous soils are
encountered, the use of highly efficient
technologies (i.e. incineration) may,be.
appropriate.Thus, the Agency'.'".
acknowledges that a highly
contaminated hazardous soil may hay e-
to be treated with a fairly aggressive
technology in order to achieve the
"ceiling" value.
In analyzing the data; the Agency
determined that a one order of
magnitude "ceiling" was appropriate
given the Agency's commitment to the
increased use of innovative
technologies. Although 65% of all data
pairs for treated organics in EPA's
database were treated using innovative
technologies to levels less than the
proposed universal standards, the
proportion of data pairs capable of
achieving the standard increased to 69%
when the levels were established at the
order of magnitude "ceiling" provided
90% treatment. Many innovative ' :
technologies were capable of achieving
the treatment levels under this
approach. The EPA solicits comment oh
this overall approach and also on
whether the "ceiling" of ten times the
universal standard (or other ceiling)
appropriately addresses technical and
environmental concerns where
hazardous soils are heavily
contaminated with toxic constituents
and the 90% treatment portion of the
option neither optimizes technology
performance nor reduces hazardous
constituents to levels at which threats
are minimized. . :
, b. Range of standards with a "ceiling"
one order of magnitude above the
universal standard. The Agency also
requests comment on a variation of this *
approach; The order of magnitude;
.increase over today's proposed ...
universal standard would be the
treatment standard. Under this option,
the treater would be required to treat all
constituents subject to treatment .to,,
levels at or below the ceiling, (i.e., the
universal standard times ten), without
consideration of treatment efficiency. In
other words, the treater would have to
achieve the standard regardless of
whether to do so for a given constituent
required a 20% treatment efficiency or
a 99.9% treatment efficiency.
The basis for this option would be to
increase the number and type of'
innovative technologies capable of
achieving the treatment standards. In
addition, this option has the advantage
of simplify ing compliance with the rule:
Only one number per constituent would
function as the treatment standard
independent of treatment efficiencies.
Under this option, analysis of the data
for treatment of Organic hazardous
constituents in soils reveals that 91% of
'the organic data were treated to levels
-------
. ..... - - - ...... ,N;*w
" " Federal Register / Vol." 58, No." 176 7 Tuesday, iSep"temDer""i4," 1993 / p7op"osecf Rules
;l,;,i,^ '
' ....................................... ..... .....................
"J '. ""!." .' '.- ' '! , ' ,{ II', "!, ', J'lllllE '.". I,1"',!11 - '
loss than pr equal to the universal
standard times 10 by a diverse range of
innovative treatment technologies. The
Agency solicits comment on how much
waste volume would still be incinerated
if this option is promulgated as the
:, ' Irettmcmt standard. '
C."Achieving S096 treatment with no
"ceiling". Alternatively, EPA is also
proposing today an approach which
would allow the treater of hazardous
sot! the option of meeting the land
disposal restriction requirement for soil
by either achieving 90% treatment of
each constituent subject to treatment or
by achieving treatment to the universal
treatment standard (in cases where 90%
treatment would result in a
Concentration lower than the universal
treatment standard.) This approach
differs from the previous approaches in
,, " ttjaj there,w,Quld be no numerical
treatment standards that would have to
beMm!;et,Sn,s!,tU|t|ons where ,90%
; -Vlrealmenf occu'ii;, documenting 90%
treatment would be sufficient to meet
the LDR requirements.
The Agency is presenting this
approach as an alternative to possibly
encourage the development of new and
JnnovsiUve technologies to provide safer,
more cosSffective, and more publicly
accepted methods for treating
remediation-related wastes. There is
some question whether innovative
technologies can generally meet the
guj|}er|^a| standards proposed under the
ipprfiacTnes discussed above because it
is Unclear whether the available data in
th.e spijjs dalabase fully characterize the
wide range of soils and contaminants
potentially encountered in the field.
Remediation-related soils are highly
yarfable Jncpncenlrajl on, cpntgminant
mix. and type in the field, and" EPA is
concernedTthat its existing data may not
adequately represent this diversity.
In addition, there is also concern that
the existing data may not be
representative of the performance of
Innovative technologies in the field.
P*A collected available data Q| tbrpe
scales: Bench, pilot, andi field! EPA
considered all available data in
determining the treatment standards
proposed under the previous approach;
however, over 50% of the treatment
tests upon which EPA based the
treatment ^s|a^d ards^arebench scale,
fosift. The Agency Believes triatless
wolgfit may need to be given to bench
scab data than full and pilot scale data
because of the greater uncertainty in
performance ofthe technology.
EPA solicits comment on the
.,'-" '.technical or jnyirpnmerjtal
; ;, iapp'ropri'afenessof"a"90%" reduction
SpproBch, in particular where hazardous
soils are heavily contaminated with
"4,3 - -
,,, i:'11,:,!!;:!:: ....... II! ,,j! !' l! ...... Ill TNI11!::! ..... llllllllH ..... Bill!1 IP! ,,ll',,|, 'HI ill1, y'iil
,,,, , ,,, ,, ,, ,,, .ij i, ,,
toxic constituents and a 90% floor on
treatment neither optimizes technology
performance nor reduces hazardous
constituents to levels at which threats
are minimized. EPA ajso solicits
comments as to whether a 90%
approach should be applied .to inorganic
hazardous constituents;
2. Explanation of Numeric Treatment
Standards for Hazardous Soils
Under today's proposal, the specific
hazardous soil treatment standard for a
given constituent will depend on which
of the approaches is promulgated. The,
following examples illustrate how the;
proposed approaches would work.
Example 1. The hypothetical basis for this
example is a waste regulated for
pentachlorophenol, which is present in the
untreated soil at 1200 mg/kg.
Scenario 1. , Today's proposed rule would
require treatment to a level one order of
magnitude greater than the universal
standard (7.4 mg/kg), provided a.90%
reduction in the constituent concentration
occurs. Under this approach,
pentachlorophenol would be reduced to at
least 74 mg/kg, the value one order of
magnitude greater than the universal
standard (totals levels). Achieving the
technology-based standard of 74 mg/kg
would require a treatment efficiency of 94%
for treating pentachlorophenol. The standard
under this scenario is affected by the
untreated contaminant level, If the untreated
waste was at 120 mg/kg, 90% treatment
would require achieving 12 mg/kg. If the
untreated level was 12 mg/kg, 90% treatment
would achieve 1.2 mg/kg; however, because
the universal standard is 7.4 mg/kg,
treatment would be required only to the 7.4
mg/kg universal standard level.
Scenario 2. Under this scenario, the
proposed rule would require treatment to a
level one order of magnitude greater than the
universal standard. The proposed universal
treatment standard for pentachlorophenol is
7.4 mg/kg; therefore soil would need to be
treated until it achieved at least 74 mg/kg.
Because a percentage removal is not required
under this scenario, the limit is valid for all
soils regardless ofthe untreated level.
Scenario 3. Under this scenario, a 90%
reduction in constituent concentration must
be achieved. The untreated level of
pentachlorophenol was 1200 mg/kg. This
constituent concentration must be reduced
by 90%, thus a treated level of at least 120
mg/kg (1200 mg/kg reduced 90% is 120 mg/
kg) would have to be met. The standard
under this scenario is also affected by the
,,i.
'' waste cpncentrati6nIis''i20Iing/!qgi'9bl?
treatment would require achieving 12 mg/kg.
If the untreated level was 12 mg/kg, 90%
treatment would achieve 1.2 mg/kg; however,
because the universal standard is 7.4 mg/kg,
treatment Is required only to 7.4 mg/kg.
Example 2. Soils that are hazardous
because they exhibit the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity, would
require treatment by technologies which
eliminate these characteristics. If the
''IT I11:!"1'*11,ปJllillllllj illlllllH!!!^^ III! IIH'il1!, ป .lill'1 ,! "lilR::!!!! ,*
hazardous soil was hazardous solely because
it contained a TC constituent and no other
underlying hazardous constituent, the
proposed hazardous soil treatment standard
tor that constituent would have to be ! ' /
achieved. If, however, these wastes contained
other constituents subject to treatment, as
explained above, they would have tote
treated to achieve the hazardous soil ;
treatment standards for each constituent.
3. Treatment Standards for Residues
from Soil Treatment
When hazardous soil is treated,
several types of residues can be
generated: The treated soil, including in
some cases soil fractions containing
concentrated levels of contaminants,
wastewater from the treatment of
hazardous soil, and possibly debris. In
addition, treatment units often generate
air. emissions. The regulatory status of
these residues and emissions is
discussed below.
Treated soil, and any soil-like residue,
would continue to be subject to the soil
treatment, standards (unless,- as
discussed above, the soil was
determined on a site-specific basis to no
longer "contain" hazardous waste, and
thus the level of hazardous constituents
remaining in the soil were determined .
not to exceed minimize threat levels). In
particular, when a fraction of the treated
soil contains concentrated levels of
contaminants,-additional treatment may
be necessary using a different and more
appropriate treatment technology. For .
example, soil washing may effectively ,
treat the sandy fraction" of a hazardous
soil to the soil treatment standards, but
may generate a clay fraction with high
concentrations of contaminants that
would more appropriately be treated
with a thermal desorption or
immobilization technology. This
(hypothetical) clay fraction would also
have to be treated to meet the applicable
treatment standard. Thus, EPA does riot
consider such residues to be a new
treatability group for purposes of tills
rule, and consequently such a
nonwasteWater residue would remain
subject to the soil treatment standard.
Cf. 55 FR at 22661 (June 1,1990):
Hazardous wastewater from the
treatment of hazardous soil would be
subject to the universal standards being
proposed under 40 CFR 268.48 for all
hazajdous^pnstituents subject to,
treatment arid for any hazardous
constituents added during treatment.
The Agency believes the universal
standards are appropriate for such
wastewater, given that the standards
were initially developed for multi-
source leachate, a wastewater that
results from contact of water with soil
and disposed hazardous constituents.
(Characteristic wastewater managed in .
ซ"!fM(ll4Brซปi . ' ; , ' . Wi 18* IB!
UI' iiiiiiiwtai fc
ซ ISBRS'
.!!,:ii:i m&
(;..-;: f si $&*
^i^iii,
- - . . - I
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 I Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48127
land-based-wastewater treatment
systems, however, would normally not
be-subject to treatment standards under
this rule, but rather would be addressed
when the_Agency takes up the issues
relating to centralized wastewater
management remanded by the court in
the Third Third Case.)
Any hazardous debris residuals
would be subject to the treatment
standards for debris that were
promulgated on August 18,1992 (57 FR
37194). '
Air emissions from treatment units
are controlled, in some cases, by
regulatory programs under the Clean Air
Act (CAA) or under RCRA. In particular,
the Agency initiated a three-phased
program under section 3004(n) of RGRA
to address air emissions from hazardous
waste management units other than
thermal treatment units (e.g.,
incinerators, boilers, industrial
furnaces). The first phase addressed
organic air emissions as a class from two
types of emission sources. The first
source category was process equipment
- (e.g., pumps, valves) that contact
hazardous waste that contain greater
than 10 percent organic compounds,
including units such as distillation
columns and incinerators. The second
source .category was certain vents on
various treatment technologies, such as
- ah- or steam strippers. These standards
were promulgated as final rules and
published in the Federal Register on
June 21,1990 (55 FR 25454). The
second phase of standards developed
under section 3004(n) of RGRA was
proposed on July 22,1991 (56 FR 33491)
and addressed organic air emissions
from containers, surface impoundments,
and certain tanks. In the third phase of
the section 3004(n) standards
development, the Agency will develop
additional standards for the sources
addressed in the first two phases as
necessary; to address residual risks.
In addition to the RCRA section
3004(n) standards, the Agency regulates
organic and metal emissions from the
combustion of hazardous waste in
incinerators, boilers and industrial
furnaces. See subpartO, part 264 for
incinerators, and subpart H, part 266 for
boilers and industrial furnaces. These
controls are expected to address many
risks posed by'air emissipns during
treatment of hazardous soils in these
units. (A May 18,1993 Agency
statement indicated, however, that some
of these standards should be amended
to be made -more strict in order, to
adequately control such pollutants as ;
particulate matter and dioxins.)
4. Treatability Variances , "."'
When a hazardous soil cannot be .
treated to the specified standard, the -
generator or treatment facility may . .
petition the EPA for a variance from the
treatment standard. A variance,
mechanism exists under the LDRs for
providing variances from the required
treatment standards for hazardous soils.
See 40 CFR 268.44.
EPA established the variance '
procedure to accommodate those wastes
that cannot be treated to meet the
standards even when appropriate well-.
designed and well-operated treatment
systems are used. A variance is also
available when a treatment technology
is inappropriate for a waste. Petitioners
must demonstrate that the standard
cannot be met because the physical or
chemical properties of the hazardous
soil differ significantly from the -
hazardous soils EPA examined in
establishing the standard or that the
standard is otherwise inappropriate for
the hazardous soil. (See 51 FR 40605;
Nov, 7,1986.) While treatability
variances may be granted that have
Eeneric applicability, usually for
azardous soil they are granted on a
site-specific basis by the Regional
Administrator."
D. Contained-in Determinations ,
EPA is proposing today to codify the
"contained-in" policy for hazardous soil
and other environmental media in new
ง261.3(g). EPA recently codified this
principle for hazardous debris. See
ง 261.3(f)(2); 57 FR 37194 (August 18,
1992). Today's rule also proposes
procedures for obtaining contained-in
determinations for contaminated media
and requests comment on decision
criteria for evaluating petitions for such
actions. , >
In current practice, the primary
function of a contained-in
determination has been to determine
specific constituent concentrations at .'
which the media at a specific site no \
longer "contained" hazardous waste,
and thus would no longer be subject to
the management standards1 for '
hazardous waste. Such a determination
may be made priolr to treatment or
subsequent to treatment. In the latter
case, the contained-in concentration
levels for hazardous soil,.if they are also
minimize threat levels, would serve as
a floor on the LDR hazardous soil
treatment standards. Thus, such soil is
no longer subject to subtitle C
management standards, provided that
the,soil does not exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristic, EPA believes that,
fundamentally, if is important and'. ..
necessary to be able to consider, in
certain cases; site-related conditions and
waste-specific characteristics in
establishing soil treatment standards ;
and subtitle C exclusion levels.,
; Contairied-in determinations would
not be self-implementing. Rather, EPA
believes that site-specific
determinations must be made by the :
appropriate regulatory agency, in careful
consideration of relevant factors. This
proposal therefore, specifies the factors
and procedures to be considered and
utilized in making contained-in '.-.,
determinations fpr soil. The proposed
rule Would not, however, require these ,
explicit requirements when contained-
in determinations are made in the ,
context of RCRA closures and remedy
selections under RCRA and CERCLA.
Such activities are typically conducted
with considerable Agency oversight,
and cleanup decisions are made in
consideration of substantial amounts of
site specific technical data. Such
remedy selection decisions are generally
subject to public notice arid comment,
through Records of Decision (under ,
CERCLA) or permit modifications, or
, analogous administrative mechanisms
under RCRA. .Thus, these processes will
provide a surrogate for the petition
review process that EPA is proposing
today for eontained-in determinations-;
that are pursued outside the context of
RCRA oj CERCLA remedial actions.
In making contained-in
determinations, we believe that EPA (or
the authorized State) must consider all
possible exposure pathways which, :
could pose a threat to human health.br '
the environment. Exposure pathways to
be considered thus include direct
human contact through ingestion, ^_
exposure to ecosystems, and potential
for leaching of constituents to ground ; '
;. water. '',.
Given the extreme variations in site-
specific and constituent-specific
characteristics, EPA is not proposing to '
adopt specific formulae or other
quantitative means of calculating
appropriate contained-in levels.The
Agency believes that considerable.
flexibility must be allowed fpr sutih
decisions, if the process is torbe
workable.' .
Proposed ง 260.42 provides a set of
decision factors that may be considered
by the Regional Administrator (or State
Director) in making contained-in '";'.
determinations. In particular: . --..--,
* Media characteristics; . [-
Waste constituent characteristics,
including solubility, mobility, tbxicity, -
and interactive effects of constituents j
present that may affect these; properties;
Exposure potential, including .
potential for direct human contact, and
-------
48128 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
potential for exposure of sensitive
enfirpnnwntal receptors;
, An "acceptable risk range of 10-*
to ID* .; ......................... ............................................... ; ........ ; ...... ;; ................... ,'
, Surfaca, and subsurface ....................... i ...... i , ......
characteristics, including depth to
ground water, and characteristics of
subsurface formations;
Bother site or waste-specific
' ' characteristics or conditions that may
' affect , w'fother residual constituent
concentrations will pose a hazard to
hurflaAMi!tk,S?,fte e,nyffQnniงnt.
...... The A^ncy spedncally requests
comrnilit regarding these contained-m
decision criteria. In particular. (1)
Should the|inal rule .specify a list of
crlterlfthai.rnust be considered;,^?) ............
should the criteria listed above be more
sjldclrlc regarding the conditions which
would allow for or preclude contained-
in determinations; and (3) are there
other factors the Agency should
consider when making contained-in
determinations, in addition to those
listed above?
The procedure for contained-in
determinations, as specified in proposed
ง 260.42, would involve submission of a
petition to the EPA. Regional
Administrator or State Director that ............. ;
requesfe approval of specific contained-
!n concentration levels, and which
provides adequate supporting
In formation addressing the factors
specified in this section to enable an
informed decision to be made.
Opportunity for public comment would
generally be provided for contained-in
detcrminationsby moans of notice in a
local newspaper. There would be a
minimum 30-day period for submission
of comments from the public. The
Regional Administrator (or State
Director} would assess any written.
comments received, and a notice in the
local newspaper would be published
announcing the final determination.
Separata written notice would be sent to
tho petitioner. Such determinations
^ould (^jns^tuta final Agency action,
and would not ba" subject to
administrative appeal procedures. The
Agency also proposes to waive from the
procedural requirements of the
contained-in determination those
already subject to public notice under
RCRA or CERCLA authority (See
proposed S260.42(c)j.
We no|ed above that the Agency
recently codified the contained-in
principle for hazardous debris. See
jj 261.3(0(2); 57 FR 37194 (August 18,
1992). The Agency did not, however,
establish procedures at that time for
making the determinations. Given that
the procedures discussed above for
hazardous soil are also appropriate for
hazardous debris, we are today
proposing to apply these procedures to
both hazardous debris and hazardous
soil and other environmental media.
EPA also notes that contained-in ,
levels could represent site-specific
levels at which threats to human health
and the environment posed by
hazardous constituents in the waste
have been minimized. See 57 FR at 985
86 0an. 9,1992) where EPA made a
similar statement in the context of
contaminated debris. In such a case,
treatment standards would be capped at
that leveL Id. Although the contained-in
and minimize threat determinations
need not be identical (cf. Hazardous
Waste Treatment Council v, EPA, 886 F.
2d at 362-63, explaining that the
minimize threat level is a stricter
standard (for example) fhan fhe levels at
which wastes are identified or listed as
hazardous), and indeed is generally
regarded as among the strictest of the
statutory environmental standards (id,
and Third Third Case, 976 F. 2d at 14),
there is no absolute bar to a
determination that sufficient
concentrations of hazardous
constituents have been destroyed,
removed, or immobilized to determine
both that the soil no longer "contains"
hazardous wastes and that threats to
human health and the environment
posed by the hazardous constituents in
the wastes have been minimized. EPA
stresses that in making such a
'determination, threats to both human
health and the environment would have
to be considered '(see section 30Q4(m)
and 886 F.2d at 362). In addition, any
such determination would have to be
based exclusively OJQ remaining threats
posed by the waste, without regard to
how the waste will be managed (see
American Petroleum Institute v. EPA*
906 F. 2d 729, 735-36 (D.C. Cir. 1990)
explaining that section 3004(m)
standard ordinarily can be satisfied only
by treatment occurring before
subsequent disposal of the waste).
EPA solicits comment on its proposed
approach for contained-in
determinations, particularly on the
decision factors to lie used, the
procedures for making determinations,
and the proposed linkage to treatment
standards and subtitle C exclusion
levels. . , ,
E. Soil Treatment Database
1. Treatment Technologies
EPA believes that nine general
technologies have been demonstrated
and are available for treating hazardous
soil: (1) Biological treatment; (2)
chemical extraction; (3) dechlprination;
(4) high-temperature metals recovery;
(5) solidification/stabilization^
immobilization; (6], thermal des.orptiora;
(7) thermal destruction; (8) vitrification,
and, (9) soil washing. A brief
description of each technology is
presented in Appendix A following this
preamble.
2. Development of the Database
The Agency has collected data on the
treatment of hazardous soil from
CERCLA. remedial actions, .
demonstrations under the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation -
(SITE) program, industrial sources, and
EPA-sponsored treatment tests. The
Agency attempted to obtain all available
soil treatment data which met minimum
requirements of quality assurance and
quality control. Each treatment test
contains information on the treatment
process used and results of laboratory
analyses on untreated and treated soil.
A hazardous soil database was
developed to organize and analyze this
treatment data. The database will be.
available as a national resource to EPA
regions, states, PRPs and other
government agencies to support LDR
applications and compliance,
technology screening for selection of
remedial actions, and variance petition
screening and support.
To develop the soil treatability
database, the Agency prepared Data
Summary Forms (DSFs) to record
information from the treatment test -
reports. The DSFs contain information
on site identification, soil matrix, soil
collection description, treatment
system, design, and operating conditions
of the treatment system, concentrations
of hazardous constituents in untreated
and treated soil, QA/QC information,
and residual matrix information.
After all the data were edited {the.
next section of this preamble explains
the criteria used to edit the dataf, 36
treatment technologies were represented
by 2541 data pairs, for a total of 295
treatment tests: 43 (15%) of the Jests
were full scale, 108 (36%) were pilot
scale, and 144 (49%) were bench scale.
Table 1 lists the number of DSFs having
information for each technology as well
as the scale of the test.
TABLE 1NUMBER OF BENCH, PHOT
AND FULL SCALE TREATMENT TESTS
BY TECHNOLOGY
Treatment Tech-
nology
BTOl* Aerobic i
Bioremediation
BT03* Aerobic/
Anaerobic i
Bioremediation :
Scale of test
Bench
2
0
Pilot
^
!'
full
,0
iD
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No, 176 7 Tuesday, September 14. 1993 / Proposed Rules '48129
TABLE 1 NUMBER OF BENCH, PILOT
AND FULL SCALE TREATMENT TESTS
BY TECHNOLOGY--Continued
' Treatment Tech-
'''. nblbgy"
BT04*
Composting ....
; BTOS* Aerobic
' ' Bioslurry ...
BT07* livsitu .;
Bioremediatioh/
'i Unlined '.....!..
BT08* Aerobic; .
:= Composting/ -.
Lined ............;..
. BT12* Aerobic
Lara Treat-,
merit/Lined ..
CEOO*-Chemi-
cal Extration .
CEOr Solvent
i Extraction .......
CE03* Critical
. Fluid Extraction
CT01* Hydroty-
: sis _.... .
bcor KPEG .
Dechlorination
DC02* APEG
Dechlorination
Temperature
Dechlorination
, IMOO- ^Immo-
bilization ,....;.,
l(yiai Stabiliza-
. tion :...... ..;
IM03 Cement ;
Stabilization ....
IM04-^FIy Ash
Stabilization ....
IM04/IM05 Fly
"Ash/Lime Sta-
bilization . ....
IM06 Kiln Dust
, Stabilization ....
ST01* Air Strip-
" 'ping ...... .
ST02* Steam
. iStripping ........:
ST03* Vacuum
Extraction .......
iSWOr Soil
Washing .........
SW02* Acid
>,--, Washing , ...
SW03* Water
,. Washing ........
TpOO Thermal
: Destruction ...
TD01 Rotary
Kiln ....'..
TD04 Infrared ..
TD06 Pyroiysis
TD07-MDirculat-
. ingBedConv
bustion .......
TD08 Vitrifica-
tion ....I.......
THOr Low
Temperature
: Thermal .
Desorption ......
c
Bench
''. '4
. - ": 7
0
Q.
2
0
9
0
,1
6
4;
>. ' : ;
0
': '..-. :9
. . ,18
39
3
1
5
0
0
0
8
0
'':4,
1
i
0
: o
, o
o
t
9
ซle of test
Pilot
' )
2
" 0
,5
; o
. : ''3'
6
2
.0
1
, 0
'"." '1
' ':..-. 2,
'' " ' .16
; ". 3
b
0
0
j
0
0
'0
'-. \
1
0
13
8
2
, , 1
\
28
Full
0
^
1
! 0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
; 1
8
2
0
0
0
j
1
~ 5
0
0
'=-.;-1
0
9
0
0
O
n
7
TABLE 1NUMBER OF BENCH, PILOT
AND FULL SCALE TREATMENT TESTS
BY TECHNOLOGYContinued
Treatment Tech-
nology
TH02* High
Temperature ,
Thermal-
Desorption
TH03* Photoly-
sis ..
TH07* ThermaJ
Distillation .......
Totals: ...
(Percent) .
Scale of test
Bench
6
' , I/
" - '1
144
(49)
Pilot
3
;.-" .5
0
108
(36)
; Full
1 '
ฐ
' .' "; 1-
43
(15)
* These technologies are considered by the
Agency to be innovative technologies. -
3. Analysis of the Database
In analyzing the soil treatability
database, the Agency'needed to, , .i. ,
determine the adequacy of the data for!
setting treatment standards for
hazardous soil. Therefore, the Agency5 .
reviewed the design and operating ';
conditions for each treatment test
included in the database to determine if
any data should be eliminated, i.e., the
Agency believed that poorly designed > "
and operated treatment tests should be
eliminated from the.data set used to :
determine treatment standards. To ;
evaluate the data, the Agency developed
a set of minimally acceptable design and
operating conditions for each
technology. These criteria, or
performance standards, can be found in
the Hazardous Soil Rule Background
Document which is in the RCRA docket
for this proposed rule. A list of the data
eliminated from consideration-along
with the rationale for each decision can
be found in the docket A total of 1183
data pairs were removed from the soil
treatment standard data set as a result of
this review.
The Agency then further reviewed the
data set using the following criteria: (1)
Immobilization data for organic --;'
constituents were not used; (2) metal
constituents data from immobilization,
high temperature metals recovery, soil :
washing, acid washing; water washing^
or detergent washing were used while
metals data from alLother technologies
deemed as .inappropriate for metals
were removed, (3) dechlorination data :
were used only for appropriate organic
constituents; (4) data pairs with '
nondetect untreated concentrations
were not used; (5) data pairs where the /
treated concentration for metals was
given as total concentration were not
used (and initial concentration was a,
leachate); (6) treated levels were not
used where the QA/QC indicated that
the percent recovery values for spikes
were less than 20% or greater than
200%, and, (7) data pairs with untreated
concentrations less than the proposed.
universal standard were not used. A-
total of 2541 data pairs remained after
application of these criteria.
a. Consideration of innovative
technologies. As indicated earlier, the
Agency believes it important (and ,
reaspnable) to allow the use of
innovative technologies, as well as
incineration, in setting treatment
Standards for soils. Our basis for this is :
severalfold: First, the data suggest that
innovative techno logics can achieve
treatment levels within a reasonable
range of the levels obtained by
incineration. Second, the Agency
believes that it is not generally
practicable to treat the large volumes of
hazardous soil by incineration,
.particularly given the relatively low -
concentrations of hazardous ,
Constituents typically present. A
common sense approach would indicate
that incineration may be practical only
for "hot-spots" where soil is highly .';
contaminated with organic constituents
{see 55 FR 8760-61, March 8,1990). For
the large volumes of soil that are
contaminated with low or moderate - .'
levels of toixic.constituents, inridyatiye '
technologies are practical, available,; and
cart achieve the proppsed levels of the1 ;'
technology-based standards. Third,
several innovative technologies (e.g.,
high temperature metals recovery,
chemical extraction) are recovery
technologies; we note that RCRA voices
a strong preference for use of such
technologies. (See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No.
198,98tft Cong. 1st Sess. 31.) And, . ,
foiirth, the Agency is committed to
allowing and encouraging the use of
innovative technologies, particularly
biological technologies, for the
treatment of hazardous waste. --'''.
b. Rationale for not using the
"traditional" BOAT approach to
'develop hazardous soil treatment '
standards. In analyzing the data, the
Agency determined that the '
"traditional" statistical method '
previously used by the LDR program '
was not appropriate for hazardous soil.
In the past, the Agency has typically
evaluated incineration treatability data
to identify the "most difficult to treat"
waste anid established the treatment
standard based on a statistical analysis
of data from the treatment of that-waste.
We believe this approach is not
appropriate for hazardous soil: As
indicated above, the Agency prefers to
establish soil treatment standards at
levels achievable by a variety of
technologies, including innovative
technologies. Given the large Volumes of
-------
48130
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
' hazardous .soil, widevariations in
' ctmlaminaflonl"an3 varying soil types,]
the Agency believes that flexibility in
choice of technology !s appropriate. For
exitJTJple, an aggressive highly efficient
technology would not be needed to treat
a lightly contaminated soil.
c. Graphical analysis of data. The
Agency used a graphical representation
qf the data for each i of the 80
constituents lor whicEth' ere, was
adequate clatal The Agency then
developed s data set for each
constituent with the screened data. The
data in each data set were plotted using
one variable, treated concentration. The,
Y-axis represented the treated
concentration in parts per million and
tho X-axis arrayed the data from lowest
to highest concentration. The data were
plotted using symbols to distinguish the
vaffous treatment technologies for
whjch d|iง was available and todenote iir
, "'whether t|}ซ value was aii'i'(ietect"ioriia
. "nondeteji" value! The' existing LDR
treatment stahdards for the constituent
ahd the proposed universal standard
wera also represented on the plots as
benchmarks. These graphs are available
in the docket.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48131
F. Sampling and Analysis Prptocols-^-
Grab vs. Composite Samples
Where performance data were based
on the'analysis of composite and grab
samples, the Agency established
treatment standards based on the
analysis of grab samples. Grab samples
normally reflect maximum process
variability, and thus would reasonably
characterize the range of treatment
system performance. Basing treatment
standards on grab samples (and
enforcing on that basis) is, of course,
permissible. Third Third Case, 976 F.2d
at34.
In cases where only composite data
exist, the Agency considers, the QA/QC
of the data, the inherent efficiency of the
process design, and the level of
performance achieved. The Agency may
then choose to use this composite data
to develop treatment standards. Where
these data were used to establish
treatment standards, the treatment
standards were identified as based on
analysis of composite samples.
Enforcement of that'standard thus
would also be based on composite
samples.
G. Relationship to Other Regulations
and Programs
1. RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
Program
a. Existing LDR treatment standards.
The Agency has promulgated land
disposal restriction treatment standards
for all hazardous waste that were listed
or identified in part 261 before the
enactment of HSWA. Soil contaminated
with a hazardous waste that is subject
to a treatment standard is also subject to
that treatment standard. There is a
question as to whether treatment
standards applicable to "as generated"
hazardous waste are also appropriate for
hazardous soil. The Agency is also
. concerned that treatment technologies
considered BOAT for the actual waste
may not be able to achieve the waste
treatment standards in soil. The Agency
believes that soil may be more difficult
to treat than waste because of factors
such as: (1) Contamination from
multiple wastes results in complex
treatment and analysis matrices; and, (2)
varying soil types, such as easy-to-treat
sandy soil, difficult-to-treat clays, and
soils with high content of organic *
matter. To address these concerns, the
Agency developed the soil treatment
database to establish treatment
standards that would be appropriate for
hazardous soil. Thus, when today's
proposed soil treatment standards are
promulgated, hazardous soil will
become subject to those standards in
lieu of the treatment standards for the
RCRA wastes contaminating the.soil.
b. Soil contaminated with newly listed
wastes which have final treatment
standards. EPA recently promulgated
treatment, standards for "newly-listed"
(i.e., listes since enactment of HSWA in
1984) hazardous wastes in the Phase I
final rule (August 18,.1992) including:
F037-F038, K107-K110, Kill, K112,
K117, K118, K123, K124, K125, K126,
K131, K132, K136, U328, U353, and
U359. The Agency chose not to apply
the treatment standards for these wastes
to hazardous soil contaminated with
these wastes. Consequently, we are
proposing today to subject soil
contaminated with these newly listed
wastes to the soil treatment standards.
c. Soil contaminated with newly listed
and identified wastes which have
proposed treatment standards. In a
separate section of this proposed rule,
the Agency is proposing treatment
standards for additional newly listed
and identified hazardous wastes,
including those that exhibit the toxicity
characteristic for organics. The
proposed hazardous soil treatment '
standards, when final', would apply 'to
. soils contaminated with those newly
listed or identified hazardous wastes,
2. RCRA Corrective Action
Treatment standards proposed in this
rule would, when finalized, apply to all
RCRA hazardous sOil (i.e., soil
contaminated with a listed waste or
exhibiting a hazardous characteristic.)
For example, soil treatment standards
promulgated under this rule would
apply to corrective action at RCRA-
permitted facilities or interim status
facilities, when remediation of
hazardous soil involves excavation and
land disposal or placement of such soil.
However, the Corrective Action
Management Units and Temporary
Units Final Rule (58 FR 8656) creates a
remediation unit, called a corrective _
action management unit (CAMU),
within which management of
remediation wastes would not
constitute land disposal or placement.
(See 58 FR 8659). Remediation waste
includes soils containing listed
hazardous wastes or which themselves
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic,
that are managed for the purpose of
implementing corrective action
requirements under ง 264.101 and
RCRA section 3008(h). (-See 58 FR 8683).
Therefore, management of remediation
wastes within a CAMU designated ; .
according to the criteria in ง 264.552
would not require the application of
LDRs, including today's soil treatment
standards.
3. Voluntary RCRA Cleanups
The proposed hazardous soil
treatment standards, when fmal,,would
apply to all RCRA hazardous waste land
disposed. Therefore, hazardous soil
generated during the course of a
voluntary cleanup would be subject to
the hazardous soil treatment standards.
The Agency is concerned that the
existing treatment standards that apply
to hazardous wasteland soil containing
hazardous waste) may pose a
disincentive to voluntary cleanups. The
soil treatment standards proposed today
should begin to alleviate the
impediments to voluntary cleanups. In
genera^ the treatment standards
proposed in today's rule regarding
hazardous soil are higher than the
existing treatment standards, and are
intended to allow flexibility in
determining what treatment
technologies to utilize. EPA requests
comment regarding the proposed soil
treatment standard options and the
effect the approaches, if promulgated,
may have on voluntary cleanups. '
4. Phase I LDR Rule: Hazardous Debris
On August 18,1992, the Agency
published the Phase I LDR rule; among ..
other things, this rule set technology-
based treatment standards for hazardous
waste-contaminated debris. In summary,
to meet the land disposal restrictions,
hazardous waste-contaminated debris
must be treated to the existing
standards, or alternatively by specified
technologies (i.e. treatment methods)
based on the type of debris and the type
of contaminants present. If this
treatment is performed with a specified
destruction or extraction technology, the
treated debris would no longer be
considered contaminated nor is it a
hazardous waste (provided it also does
not exhibit a hazardous characteristic),
and thus is no longer subject to RCRA
subtitle C regulation. For a further
discussion, refer to the final rule (57 FR
37194, August 18,1992).
Debris is defined as a solid material
(man-made objects or environmental
media) intended for disposal that: (1)
Has been originally manufactured or
processed, except for solids that are
listed wastes or can be identified as
being residues from treatment of wastes
and/or wastewaters, or air pollution
control devices; or (2) is plant or animal
matter; or (3) is natural geologic material
exceeding a 60 mm sieve size including.
gravel, cobbles, and boulders (sizes as
classified by the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service), or is primarily debris mixed
with soil, liquid, sludge, or other solid
waste materials. The "primarily"
determination is based on the volume of
-------
48132 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
soil and debris in thq loaderbucketas
excavated. Separation is not required.
! Jowoyer, the generator may use
torStming (or other separation
techniques) to separate the soil from 60
rnm ana larger gravel and man-made
objects.
ft is clear from the definition of debris
that there will be an overlap with the
proposed hazardous soil requirements.
The Agency is following the precedent
set In the hazardous debris ruje: In. the
event o,f mixtures Of soil and debris that
are not readily separable, the Agency
hnง:, decided tha| the primary category of
$ rnjjrtuiie (i.e., soil or debris) based on
Visual inspection will determine how
that mixtpre wjll bซ? regulated.
', -,..' 5. CERCLA "isj amended by" SARA '
11,:. |";,/ This, section, discusses the
relationship between the proposed
treatment standards for hazardous soil
and the Agency's response actions
Implemented under CERCLA
' {Superfund). We discuss here the
current applicability of the LDR
program to the Superfund program1 as
well as the impact of today's proposed
soil LDR treatment standgrds on the
Suporfund program. Iri this section, we
discuss the difference between
applicable LDR requirements and the
Suporfund program's use of "relevant
and appropriate" requirements of other
environmental laws to remediate
hazardous soil.
The Superfund program's efforts to
remediate hazardous soil fall into three
Categories: (1) Where LDR requirements
ant applicable; (2) where LDR
requirement"are found to be relevant
and appropriate under the
circumstances ftf the.wtlease; and (3)
where LDR requirements are neither
applicable nor relevant and appropriate.
Wheii h^zanioug S9'VJ? sxcjjvaled,
tref ted In anqfher unit, and replacedIon
the land, or excavated and disposed hi
a Unit outside of the area of
contamination (AOC), the LDR
regulations are either applicable
requirements or they may be found to be
relevant and appropriate requirements
gilder the drcumstanqes of the, yelease.
When hazardous soil is not excavated
and placed into another unit as part of
a Superfund response action (e.g.,
consolidation within the AOC, in:situ
treatmehl, or no treatment), the ii)R
treatment standards do not apply
; .bocjyise there has been,no "lai|,4
disposal" of a hazardous waste (RCRA
Section 3004(k), 55 FR 8759-60 (March
8,19f 0).) Today's proposal would not
change this.
If the hazardous soil is contaminated
wjth a listed hazardous waste or if it
fjjils a RCRA characteristic test, the LDR
regulations are applicable to the
hazardous soil (see, e.g. RCRA section
3004 (d)(3),(e)(3); also see Superfund
LDR Guide #5, Directive 9347.3-06FS,
July 1989.) In cases where there is no
known evidence that the soil is
contaminated with a prohibited listed
hazardous waste and thus the LDRs are
not legally applicable, but the soil is
contaminated with substances known to
be constituents of a particular listed
waste,, EPA evaluates the, soil to
detenriine whether .the JLDR.treatment ,
standards are relevant and appropriate. .
See NCP, 40 CFR 300.400 (g)(2);
Superfund LDR Guide #7, Directive
9347.3-Q8FS, December 1989. ''
In determining the potential relevance
and appropriateness of the LDR
treatment standards in a particular
response action under the Superfund
program, EPA makes the following
comparisons, among others, where
pertinent: (1) The actions or activities
regulated by the requirement as
compared to the remedial action
contemplated; (2) the purpose, of the
requirement and the purpose of. the
CERCLA action; (3) the substances
regulated by the requirement and the
substances found at the CERCLA site; ,
and (4) the medium regulated or
affected by the requirement and the
medium contaminated or affected at the
CERCLA site (NCP, 40 GFR 300.400
.
, Currently, as set out in the preamble -,
to the NCP, there is an established
presumption that the existing BOAT
treatment standards are inappropriate
for hazardous soil and debris, 55 FR
8759.62, and thus under RCRA
regulations at 40 CFR 268.44(h), a
treatability variance is generally
appropriate (unless the presumption is
rebutted). Accordingly, much of the
hazardous soil from CERCLA actions
now excavated and disposed of is
treated to meet site specific treatability
variance standards. (EPA has prepared ,
guidance documents as an aid to
implementation of treatability
variances.) See Superfund LDR Guide!
#6a, Directive 9347.3-06FS, September
1990, or Superfund LDR Guide #6b,
Directive 9347,3TQ7FS, December 1989.
Given that today's proposed treatment
standards for hazardous soil are based
on actual soil treatability data from t .
technologies other than incineration,
including a number of innovative
technologies, the Agency anticipates
that there will be less need to invoke the
variance process when soil treatment
standards become effective. We note,
however, that today's proposed soil
treatment standards would retain .the
treatability variance procedures ,of 40
CFR 268.44.
6,:Spi.l Contaminated by Underground
Storage Tanks ,
Petroleum contaminated soil removed
during remediation of releases from a
RCRA Subtitle I underground storage
;tank (UST) generally are not subject to
the LDR soil treatment standards. These '
soils would generally only be defined as
hazardous because of the toxicity
characteristic (TC). Such petroleum
contaminated soil that fails the TC for
one. ;or'more of the newly identified
organic wastes (D018-D043) has been
temporarily deferred from regulation as
a hazardous waste (55 FR 26986). In
addition, the" Agency has recently
proposed to permanently exempt UST
petroleum-contaminated soils from the
TC rule (58 FR 8504). However, should
a Subtitle I petroleum contaminated soil
fail the TC using the superseded
Extraction Procedure (EP) for toxicity
characteristics DOOl through D017 (the
original EP toxicity characteristics), ,
ignitability (DOOl), corrpsivity (D002),
and reactivity (D003), the soil would not
be subject to the deferral and would be
subject to all applicable RCRA land
disposal restriction requirements.
It is notable that there is appending
lawsuit challenging this deferral. ^
Pending the results of the litigation,
these TC soils may become subject to
today's proposed soil treatment
standards when finalized.
; Finally, the Agency reminds the;
regulated community that any soil
contaminated by a release from a ;
hazardous substance UST (Subtitle I) as
well as from all non-Subtitle I USTs
(including petroleum tanks) will
continue to be subject to applicable
RCRA hazardous waste requirements,
including the existing land disposal
restrictions and the hazardous soil
treatment standards, when promulgated.
7. Other Petroleum Contaminated Soil
In response to petitions from several ,
states, the Agency has recently proposed
to temporarily suspend from regulation
. as hazardous waste < petroleum
contaminated soils from sources other
than Subtitle I USTs, such as above-
ground tanks and pipelines. Such a
deferral has only been proposed,
however; until it is finalized, these soils
would continue to be subject to the
applicable RCRA hazardous waste
regulations, including the existing and
future land disposal restrictions. See 57
FR 61542. ,
8. Radioactive Mixed Wastes
g. Definition of mixed wastes.
Radioactive mixed wastes are those
wastes that.satisfy the definition of
radioactive wast^ subject to the Atomic
III H I
111
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48133
Energy Act (AEA) that also containa
waste that is either listed as a hazardous
waste in subpart D of 40 CFR part 26 J,
or that exhibits any of the hazardous
waste characteristics identified in .
subpart C of 40 CFR part 261. On July .
3,1986 (51 FR 4504), EPA determined
that the hazardous portions of mixed
wastes are subject to the RCRA
regulations.
The majority of mixed wastes: can be
divided into three categories based on
the radioactive component of the waste:
(1) Lowrlevel wastes, (2) transuranic
(TRU) wastes, and (3) high-level wastes.
Low-level wastes include radioactive
waste that are not classified as spent
- fuel from commercial nuclear power
plants, or that is not defense high-level
radioactive'waste from, weapons
production. TRU wastes are, those waste
containing elements with atomic
numbers greater than 92, the atomic
number of uranium. Highrlevel
radioactive wastes are defined as spent
fuel from commercial nuclear power
plants, and wastes from weapons
production.
b. RCRA requirements. In the final
rule for the Third Third wastes, EPA,
promulgated treatment standards for
four treatability groups of mixed waste:
(i) Specific high-level wastes, (2) D008
radioactive lead solids, (3) mixed waste
containing elemental mercury, and (4)
mercury containing hydraulic fluid
contaminated with radioactive
materials. The Agency further asserted
that "all promulgated treatment
standards for RCRA listed and
characteristic wastes apply to the RCRA
hazardous portion of mixed radioactive..
(high-level; TRU and low-level) wastes
unless EPA has specifically established
a treatability group for that specific
category of mixed waste." , ,
The Agency is today proposing to
subject mixed radioactive hazardous
soil to the proposed treatment standards
for hazardous soil (in addition to any
regulation of that material under AEA),
rather than to the treatment standards
for the contaminating waste. This
includes soil contaminated with mixed
waste for which special treatability
groups have been established.
Therefore, this soil would be subject to
the proposed soil standards rather than
to .the specified treatability group
standards. The Agency solicits
comments on this approach.
9. Special Provisions for Soil Containing
Asbestos
Asbestos is a naturally occurring
family of fibrous mineral substances.
The typical size range of asbestos fibers
is 0.1 to 10 micrometers in length,
which is not generally visible to the
human eye. When disturbed, asbestos
fibers may become suspended in the air
for many hours/thus increasing the...'.
extent of asbestos exposure for
individuals within.the area- EPA and"
the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) have major
responsibility for the regulatory control
of exposure to asbestos. EPA controls
emissions of asbestos to the ambient air
under section 112 of the Clean Air Act,
through the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPS) program.
The Agency believes that special
provisions might be needed for
regulation of hazardous soil that
contains asbestos. The Agency t
specifically requests comment on the
need for such provisions, and oh what
special provisions might be needed. One
option the Agency is considering for
..disposal of hazardous soil containing
, asbestos is to collect and seal asbestos
containing soil in leak-tight containers
(as described in the NESHAP .
requirements), followed by
macroencapsulatiqn and disposal in a
Subtitle C landfill. This option would be
in lieu of treating the soil by destroying
or removing the contaminants subject to
treatment.
H. Related EPA Activities on
Contaminated Med/a
1. Contaminated Media Cluster
The Agency has undertaken an
initiative designed to improve the
overall quality of its regulatory decision-
making by looking at groups or
"clusters" of regulations in order to
develop more integrated approaches to
various environmental problems. One of
ปthese "clusters" is contaminated media,
which includes hazardous soil. The goal
of the Contaminated Media Cluster
project is to develop a set of overarching
principles to guide the Agency's
approach to policies and regulations *
dealing with remediation.
The Agency has gathered preliminary
information oh the quantities and types
of media needing remediation, the types
of risks they represent, the current
statutory and regulatory framework, the
elements of an effective cleanup
process, and the costs and benefits of
cleanup. As part of this effort, the
Agency sponsored a forum in January .
1992 with participants from industry,
trade associations, and congressional
staff, as well as a series of meetings for
regional and state participants. The _!. -
purpose of the forum and meetings was
to discuss the issues involved in....
remediating contaminated media. This
LDR proposed rule is consistent with
the efforts of the Contaminated Media
Cluster project. The LDR program will
continue to consider the goals and ;.' :
principles of the Cluster as they are
further developed. :
2. Weathered Sludges
EPA believes that weathered sludges
may constitute a new category of , :'
contaminated media, or at least a
different treatability group. EPA .
currently is attempting to assess the
definition of weathered sludges, the
comparison of these sludges to newly
generated sludges.'methods available to
treat these sludges, and the/relationship
of these sludges to .sediments. EPA is
, requesting data or comments on any of
the above areas to consider in
developing a, research program which.
may lead to an amendment of the LDR
treatment standards that are currently
applicable to. weathered sludges.
3. EPA Lead Strategy
In the case of hazardous soil
contaminated with lead, EPA seeks to
integrate the present rulemaking effort,.
with the Agency's Lead Strategy, which
was issued on February 21,1991. This
strategy presents a coordinated
.approach addressing the significant,
health and environmental problems
resulting from lead pollution. Lead is a
multimedia pollutant with significant
toxic concerns; accordingly, EPA plans
to address lead contamination by
coordinating its authorities across
programs. EPA solicits comments on the
option of setting a total lead standard
(versus the proposed leachate standard),
consistent with/the goal pf the lead
strategy. Copies of the Lead Strategy can
be obtained by calling the TSCA Hotline
at 1-800-835-6700. ,
4. Bioremediation
As-a follow-up to the Administrator's
Bioremediation Summit held in
February, 1990, EPA explicitly is
soliciting treatment data on biological
technologies to aid in the .development
of treatment standards for hazardous
soil. EPA is aware of the impact of all
LDR rulemakings on the development
and application of innovative treatment
technologies. This notice affirms EPA's
interest^in gathering private sector data .
for consideration in setting treatment
standards. "
VIII. Compliance Monitoring and
Notification
A, Compliance Monitoring
In the May 24,1993 interim final rule
(58 FR 29872), the:AgeriCy adopted the
same approach for monitoring
Underlying hazardous constituents that
it had used previously (in the Third
Third rule at 55 FR 22620,22621) for
-------
48134 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 ) Proposed Rules
multi-source leachate (F039.) That
approach allowed generators and
facilities that manage ignitable or
corrosive wastes to monitor for
underlying hazardous constituents
"reasonably expcted ,to be present."
Generators could base this
determination oh their knowledge of the
raw materials they use, the process they
operate, and the potential reaction
products of the process, or upon the
results of a one-time analysis for the
entire list of constituents subject to
treatment. Treaters and disposers must
perform some testing to demonstrate
Compliance with the standards. 58 FR
29874-875 ; ' ', ..'.
In adopting these requirements, the
Agency noted that they might be
modified in the future, and that there
are certain potential deficiencies in the
process. In particular, the lack of a
tedofal requirement to notify the subtitle
Di treatment (if any are actually treating
decharacterized prohibited wastes) and
disposal facilities (see further
discussion at preamble section B.3
below, and in the interim final rule (58
FR 20874, May 24,1990)). The Agency
Is further concerned that generators may
not bซ able to adequately determine the
underlying hazardous constituents
present in characteristic wastes, or to
determine, without testing, whether
these constituents are present at levels
below the treatment standards. (In the
Case of listed wastes, which are
relatively uniform as tq waste
qajrtikisiUon, EPA has identified all the
potential hazardous constituents that
could be. in the waste and specified
those that mus'toe treated. EPA is
unable to make such a general finding
for characteristic wastes, because they
vary to a great degree. Hence, the use of
generator knowledge or sampling and
analysis Is necessary for determining the
presence and levels of underlying
hazardous constituents in characteristic
wastes, although the Agency may be
able to develop such information as
guidance for specific types of
.
The Agency solicits comment on
Whether generators should be required
I to dp some testing of characteristic
wastes to determine what hazardous
constituents are present and whether
they meet treatment standards.
Alternatively, the Agency could require
generators to certify what underlying
hazardous constituents are in the waste
attd whether they meet treatment
standards, in a manner similar;to the
existing certification requirement for
generators of wastes that meet the
treatmenj sjandards as generated (see 40
CFR268,7{.aI:zlliI|); While a testing
requirement would ensure that there is
data for each waste, it could pose an
unnecessary burden when generator
knowledge would suffice.
If such testing were required, an issue
would exist as to frequency of testing
and how this could be determined
without the type of interaction that
occurs for facilities, developing waste
analysis plans as part of the permitting
process. One possible option is to
develop some type of self-implementing
waste analysis plan analogous to that
required for generators who treat their
prohibited wastes in 90-day tanks and
containers. See ง 268.7(b)(4).
The Agency also solicits comment,
however, whether such a testing
requirement is necessary based on the
following analysis of the existing rules.
If a generator does no treatment of
characteristic wastes, the wastes must
be sent to subtitle C treatment facilities
before disposal (since the wastes will
still exhibit a characteristic). In this
case, the wastes will be accompanied by
the ง 268.7(a) notice and certification
telling the treater what the treatment
standard for the waste is, including
identification of the underlying
hazardous constituents requiring
treatment. Although this determination
need not be based on testing, the
treatment facility must do some actual
testing to determine whether the treated
waste meets the treatment standards, the
frequency of testing to be determined by
the treatment facility's waste analyses
plan. ง268.7(b)(l)-{3) and 58 FR 29874.
The treater would then send a
notification form to theฃPA Region or
authorized state pursuant to ง 268-9.
If a generator does some treatment,
such as removing the characteristic but
not treating for underlying hazardous
constituents, then it would be a subtitle
C treater and would be required to
conduct some analysis of the waste, as
just explained. If treatment is conducted
in units not requiring permits, the
generator must prepare a waste analysis
plan "based on a detailed chemical and
physical analysis of a representative
sample of the prohibited waste(s)".
ง 268.7(b)(4)(i). Consequently, such a
generator is already required to conduct
some waste analysis.
EPA consequently solicits comment
as to the appropriateness of a further (or
perhaps, more explicit) requirement of
generator testing.
B, LDR Notification
1. Constituents To Be Included on the
LDR Notification
EPA solicited comment on how to
limit the constituents subject to
treatment to be monitored in TC wastes '
and hazardous soil (and thus, the ones
'p i ?i i ^ it in i 'ii'.i J IN
required to be reported on the LDR
notification) (see section VIII.A).
Commenters on this issue when it was
raised in regard to ignitable and
corrosive characteristic wastes in the
Supplemental Information Report
prepared for the Notice of Data
Availability on the Third Third Case -
generally said that the regulated
community should only be required to
address those constituents which are in
the characteristic 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 characteristic waste. This
is the approach being proposed in this
rule. The determination of which
constituents subject to treatment are in '
the waste may be made based on a ojne-
time analysis of the waste to determine
which of the constituents subject to
treatment 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
should be kept in the generator's .on-site
files for five years. (See ง 268.7(a)(7).)
This approach for determining which
'constituents are present in the waste is
not necessarily the approach that will be
taken in future rulemakings.
2. Management in Subtitle C-Regulated
Facilities
The Agency has information that
many of the TC 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.
Hazardous soil contaminated with listed
hazardous wastes and, perhaps, some
characteristic wastes, will oftentimes be
treated in a subtitle C unit. In such a
case, the notification, certification, and
recordkeeping requirements set out in
40 CFR 268.7 apply. This means,
generally, that a notification would be
prepared for each waste shipment sent
from the generator to the treatment
facility, in the same manner that such
paperwork follows a listed waste from
"cradle to grave." ' .
For TC wastes and characteristic
hazardous soils, 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 FR at
40598, November 7,1986) prepare a
one-time notification which is sent to
the EPA Region or authorized state and
also kepi in the generator or treater's
files. The notification must include the
-------
176 / Tuesday, September 14, 19937 Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No
48135
. 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 . _
6268 9(d). as amended at 57 FR 37271.
(August 18, 1992)). For TC wastes and
hazardous soils, these would be
universal treatment standards. 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 meet the
treatment standards without
' irnpermissible dilution. See .
ง 268.7(b)(5), which applies o persons
who treai formerly characterise wastes
(see ง268.9(d),(2)). The Agency believes
that, normally, at least some waste _
analysis is needed to make a good faith
showing for meeting the treatment
to other waste codes that are currently
r^ufred to be included on noUFica ions
under ง 268,7, generators oT TC wastes
that are managed in non-CW^non-.
CWA-equivalent/non-Class I yJWA
SemVand in hazardous soil must
identify the constituents subject to . ..
; treatment alongyyith the corresponding
"icopstituent universal treatment
-' standards.1 '
3. Potential Management of - _
, Decharacterized. Wastes at .aSub.tm^U ;..
Waste Management Facility ^j"
EPA is soliciting information of1
certain potential waste rnahagjrfปent
practices for decharacjenzed/^ wastes
and soils to help determine/ hether
new notification requiremfts are
needed. The Agency wishf information
on whether generators or Waters, after ซ
removing the cliaracterisuksend the
decbaracteriizedTC wastewsoil off-site
to a-subtitle D (nonhazan^us waste)
'. : t^atment "facility for furtlei.treatment
to address the underlyinjpiazardous
constituents subject to trpment.
Although the initial genMpr of the
waste would have to corng| with.
ง268.9; there is no curreg >qu5rement
that the generator notify jpjjbtitle D
nonhazardpus waste treajipf the
constituents subject to trjient in the
" ' " '
wasteVpr for the subtitle p treater to
verify compliance with the treatment,
standards or to notify the ultimate
disposal facility as to the constituents in
the waste. If such waste management
arrangements currently exist or are
likely to occur as a result of today s rule -
When it is fmalfzed,;some wastes would
riot be subjett to the LDR hotificatipn
requirements, as was described in the
interim final rule of May .24,1993 (58
FR 29874). Vyithput such,recordkeepmg,
EPA mipht have difficulty enforcing
treatment standards for the constituents
subject to treatrolnt. However, these :
requirements jvtfuld impose an
additional burden on generators
especially thdsg that have established
alternative arrangements to provide this
information 16 treaters. EPA solicits
comment as to the potential ..
enforcement concerns if there is not a
federal requirement that generators
notify subtitle D treatment and disposal
facilities receiving decharacterized
wastes. .:''. - ,-
Generators and subtitle D facilities,
may have substantial incentives to
exchange and verify compliance with
treatment staridards for underlying
hazardous constituents independently ;
of rejulatory requirements. Generators
andlubtitle D facilities, for example, are
subjict to CEKCLA. liability for their .-'..
wale management practices. Therefore,
. th^-gency solicits comment on
whether it should, consider a federal ly-
mjfidated notification requirement. If a
".(plication gap exists, one option .
would be to require that generators or
tr/aters that decharacterize TC wastes or
h|zardous.soii provide any subsequent
trlaters of that waste with a list of the
underlying hazardous constituents
subject to treatment that the waste
contains, and for the final treater to
provide a one-time notification to EPA.
IX. Further Solicitation of Comment
Regarding Exclusion of Hazardous
Debris That Has Been Treated by
Immobilization Technologies
.
i An-lmportant issue th
ifMry; 13-14, 1993, LDREvalUfjp,! project .;.
Rpundtable meeting was tfieTnofj^tJon/
recordkeeplng retjuiremerits'thatie currently in.
place. Today's proposed rule wo\4 add certain
requirements .to the'existihg notifit|ion/
recordkeeping system. In i^sponsej the concerns
expressed by Roundtable participafe and the
streamlining and clarificationjsjfd|jhitiated in
section HI.G.3, however, the Agenjwill examine
all the nptification/recprdkeepinj requirements of
the program to see if they can be simplified.
;''" '"" '-;> 3 71 '.".."
A. Background .
The final Phase I Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) rule promulgated on
June 30,1992 (57 FR 37194, August 18,
1992), excludes from subtitle C control
hazardous debris that is treated using an
extraction pr destruction technology
provided the treated debris meets the
performance standards specified in
. ง 268,45 .Table 1. pur basis for doing
this is that the debris no longer contains
the hazardous waste. On the. other" hand,
hazardous debris treated by an
immobilization technology is still
subject to the hazardous waste
. regulations because the Agency, has .
insufficient data or information to ..
support that such treated debris would .'
riot Jeach Appendix VHI constituents
over time in a manner that would be
protective to hurnan healtK and the .
environment. In our proposal to the
Phase I LDR rule, the Agency solicited
comment on whether immobilized ' '
hazardous debris should be excluded '
from subtitle C control. While the
AgeiJ.cy received favorable ,c6mn\ents on
, excluding such treated debris from the
hazardous waste, regulations, no '
information or data was provided to ; '
support such a position. Therefore, the
final'rule requires that immobilized
hazardous debris continue to be
managed as,a hazardous waste.: ,...-'.
The Agency again wants to revisit the :
issue of whether immobilized hazardous
debris, if treated in certain ways or is .
^treated to meet certain limits, should be
excluded from subtitle C control. As a :
result, since the promulgation of the
Phase I LDR rule, the Agency has
undertaken a number of activities. \
B, Roundtable Discussion
In an attempt to gather infprmation.on
' the'issue, the Agency sponsored a ,
rouridtable discussion pn August 3,
M99Zl Participants at the meeting
included persons who commented on ,
the Phase I LDR rule, debris treatment ;
vendors/hazardous waste treaters and
' disposers, state officials,-and officials
from the Department of Energy (see :
; Docket' for specific list of attendees). '
Representatives from the environmental
interest groups were also invited but ..-
were unable.to attend. The purpose.of
the meeting was to gather information ,
and discuss, various regulatory
. approaches that would allow the
Agency to exclude immobilized ''..,._ .:
hazardous debris from subtitle C
control. While no specific information,^
was gathered, there was a discussion on
the types of standards that could be, _
applied such a's design and operating . .
standards, leach test, structural integrity
test, permeability test for encapsulating
material, so as to exclude immobilized
hazardous debris from hazardous waste
control, Additionally, the following
points were also made by one or more
participants at the roundtable. ,
A number of the attendees
indicated that even if immobilized
hazardous debris were excluded from
hazardous waste control, it would
continue to be managed as, a hazardous
waste due to CERCLA liability concerns.
e There was ;some question whether a
specific exclusion for immobilized
hazardous debris was necessary or .. \
whether the Hazardous Waste . : v,"
Identification Rule,(HWIR), may be a ,
-------
, 48*3,6,
, , ,,, , ___ _
more appropriate mechanism for
adilfessing this issue.
I A representative from the glass
industry suggested that glass cullet and
WtJW|js materials should have a
separata treatment standard. He
indicated that the glass matrix would
' not laach lead at a higher rate than
would an Immobilized product that is,
It mads little sense to grind up the glass
material and then to stabilize it when
the original matrix is just as sound,
While no consensus was reached* the
following principles were generally
arrived at by most of the participants at
the meeting.
Mcrocncapsulatian: Participants at
tho mgeting seem to believe that using
a leaqhjesl may be more appropriate to
demonstrate effective
micrqeiKjapsuIationlmmobiKzation
Qvar an approach of developing design
ana operating standards. It was noted
" ''JW| ..... ti$jปtmgn|l,i,,q|,,h,azar,d()us, debris is
Wry waste and debris specific; if one
ฐฐW4 dpCse design and operating
standards that were generally
applicable, they would likely be too
burdensome in many cases.
MQGroencapsulatian/Seah'ng: The
participants seem to indicate mat the
grinding requirement In the TOP leach
test made it inappropriate for predicting
performance of macroencapsulation/
sealing immobilization technologies.
Thpsa technologies rely on an
impermeable coating applied to the
outside of the debris. Rather, the
participants* suggested a structural test
to determine whether the given debris/
technology combination was sufficient
to maintain the coating or a
permeability test for the coating media.
While the participants conceptually
belfoved that such, an approach, was
Workable, no one was aple to suggest a
specific test or standard, In addition, it
was felt fay some of the participants that
the development of such, a test could be
difficult to develop.
The Agency specifically solicits
commams on tha general principles
described above. While no data or
information was provided at the
meeting, it was indicated that if such
information was submitted to the
Agency, the Agency would consider
such information, ir^ making its decision.
C. EPA Investigations
In addition to the above roundtable
dlscMssions, EPA has also been
reviewing the literature and talking to
WSridors in an effort to obtain sufficient
Information on how to propose
standards that could allow the exclusion
of immobilized hazardous debris. To
date, no useful Insights have been
gained on how to specify design and
operating standards that would ensure
that immobilized hazardous debris was
non-hazardous; the reason for this is the
paucity of experiences immobilizing
hazardous debris. Nevertheless, the
Agency is interested in pursuing this
area and specifically seeks assistance
from the regulated community on this
icciia .
This, proposal also includes changes
to the hazardous waste recycling
issue.
D. Conclusions
While the Agency has a better sense
of the types of standards that may be
appropriate for excluding immobilized
hazardous debris from subtitle C
control, the Agency still does not have
the data to propose specific exclusions
In particular, for microencapsulatlon, if
a leach test is the most appropriate
mechanism for determining whether
such treated debris is non-hazardous,
the Agency believes that HWIR may be
the appropriate rulernaking to address
this issue. The Agency has a series of
studies underway and is currently
evaluating comments and is not in a
position to determine what such levels
are at this time. With respect to
macroencapsulation/sealing, additional
data or information will need to be
gathered before the Agency is in a
position to exclude this type of
immobilized hazardous debris. To assist
the Agency in this effort, we specifically
solicit comment on the following
questions:
Mfcroencapsulation: Is the use of a
leach test for excluding immobilized
hazardous debris more appropriate than
specification of design and operating
standards? Is exclusion of immobilized
hazardous debris using design and
operating standards workable?
Macroencapsulation/Seah'ngrVfhal
type of structural or other test could be
used? What type of criteria should be
applied in determining whether such
debris is non-hazardous? The Agency is
considering allowing stabilization for
soils containing low levels of organic
constituents, and solicits comment on
whether similar stabilization techniques
or tests to ensure the effectiveness of
such stabilization would be appropriate
for excluding debris from subtitle C
control.
V aTnd 8n exclusfฐa
(and related variance) which would
allow streamlined regulatory decisions
to be made regarding the regulation of
certain types of recycling activities.
inese procedures should allow
environmentally ben
-
, however, not directly
related to the proposed rules
ous wastes )
ttr ซ ,ta *at ^ changes
to the definition of solid waste being
proposed today are fairly narrow in
3-' ?1 Agenpy has also fcKfctSd *
E^*?1 nฐ!Ue process- ^ministered
&S "M f f Itf0n ฐf Soh"d Wast* Task
Force, which is examining the overall
impacts of the RCRA pro Jam on
wil1
canges to the
definition of solid waste.
"Closed-
yic Variance
1. Existing "Closed-Loop" Recycling
Exclusion and Related Variance
Ag^n?6 JroUaiy 4> 1985 final le- tb*
^2612^^?ฐf S0hd Waste atS1ฐn ฐm
that am*^ i Yor secondary materials
tnat arerecwl^ fm a ซdosea_loopj,,
I original production
the material was
In addition, the Agency specifically
solicits comment on any data or
information that Is available to
demonstrate that immobilized
hazardous debris (if treated properly)
would not pose a substantial hazard to
human health and the environment. If
such information is submitted to the
Agency, the Agency will exclude such
debris from subtitle C control.
viocrf T ปnsere surf, a
closed-loop" processTthree conditions
must be met. First, the secondary
material must be returned to the original
process wrthout undergoing significlnt
alteration or teprocessmg (i.e., ft must
be returned without first being
reclaimed). Second, the production
process to which the unreclaimed
material is returned must be a primary
production process (i.e., a process that
uses raw materials as the majority of its
feedstock, as opposed to a secondary
process that uses spent materials or
scrap metal as the majority of its
feedstock). And third, the secondary
material must be returned as a feedstock
to the original production process and
must be recycled as part of that process
(as opposed to an ancillary process such
as degreasing). EPA believes that these
conditions characterize a material that is
part of an on-going production process,
and as such* the management of the
material should not be characterized as
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14. 1993 / Proposed Rules
waste management (i.e., the material is
,, not part of the waste management
problem).
The Agency is today proposing to
, readdress the second conditionthat
the production process to which
secondary material is returned must be
a primary process. The Agency imposed
this condition due to considerations .
, regarding jurisdiction, as it was
understood in 1985, rather than to an
. evaluation of the potential impacts on
. the environment from closed-loop
recycling involving secondary processes
(i.e., this condition was established
without a consideration of whether such
secondary materials would be part of
the waste management problem). By
definition, a secondary process uses
waste materials as its principal
feedstock. Thus, the Agency concluded
that the process residue, which is
;. returned to the original process as a
substitute for feedstock that is itself
waste, is no less a waste than the waste
material originally introduced (see 50
FR 639). (The Agency notes that in most
cases this condition has no impact on
the recycling of residues from secondary
processes because such -residues that
, exhibit a characteristic of hazardous
waste (i.e., characteristic by-products
and sludges) are already excluded from
the definition of solid waste if
reclaimed). '.---.'
VVhile the Agency continues to ;
believe that the jurisdictional logic
' behind this condition is sound, the
Court opinions regarding RCRA
jurisdiction allow more weight to be
given to environmental considerations,
APIv. EPA, 906 F.2d at 740-41; AMC
v. EPAi 907 F2d 1179,1186 (D.C Cir.
,1990). EPA has reevaluated this
condition of the exclusion from the
definition of solid waste due to its
impact on the recycling of residues from
secondary processes, in particular
secondary lead smelters, and has
determined that this condition is less
, relevant as an environmental
consideration, assuming that the
secondary material is well-managed
prior to reprocessing. Therefore, the
Agency is proposing to remove this
condition from the "closed-loop"
recycling exclusion. By doing this,
secondary materials that are recycled in
secondary production processes can be
excluded-from the definition of solid
waste, provided that the materials are
well-managed prior to recycling. The
discussion of K06.9 wastes below
, illustrates the need for this amendment.
: Following the same reasoning, the
Agency is also proposing to amend
ง 26,0.33(b), a related case-by-case
variance for materials that are reclaimed
prior to reuse in the original primary
production process from which they
were generated (see 50 FR 652 for a
discussion of the existing variance). The
amendment would similarly expand the
variance to make it available for
materials that are returned to secondary
processes, as well as those returned to
primary processes. ,
2. K069 Wastes Recycled Back into the
Secondary Process
In the case of K069 wastes (emission
control dust/sludge from secondary lead
smelting), the Agency identified thermal
recovery of lead in secondary smelters
. (the same process that generates the
waste) as BDAT in the Land Disposal
Restrictions for the First Third
Scheduled Wastes final rule (53 FR
31138; August 17,1988). The treatment
standard based on BDAT was expressed
as-"No Land Disposal" because the
Agency believed the K069 waste to be
"indigenous" to the smelting process
and thus was no longer a solid waste
within RCRA jurisdiction when
introduced into the secondary smelter
(which-had been a long-standing policy
regarding the reclamation of K069
waste, as stated in the November 29,
1985 preamble,-50 FR at 49167.)
Therefore, the slag residue-frpm the
recovery of the K069 waste would not
be derived from a solid waste" and
would thus not be a listed waste (but
would be considered hazardous waste if
it exhibited a hazardous characteristic.)
(This view is also evident in the June 1,
1990 Land Disposal Restrictions for
Third Third Scheduled Wastes final
rule. In the preamble discussion "-
regarding BDAT for wastes that exhibit
the characteristic of toxicity for lead, the
slag from secondary lead smelters is
evaluated as a characteristic waste
rather than a derived-from K069 waste
(see 55 FR 22566-568; June 1,1990).)
However, on June 26,1990, the D.C.
Circuit Court held in American" .
Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 906 F.2d 726
(D.C. Cir. 1990) that EPA erred in
disavowing the statutory authority to
establish treatment standards for a slag
residue of an "indigenous" waste and
that RCRA jurisdiction could, in fact;
extend to the slag. As a result of the
mandate in that case, unless the Agency
takes affirmative steps to otherwise
exclude it, the slag resulting from the
reclamation of K069 waste would
likewise be a K069 hazardous waste, see
56 FR at 41165 (August 19,. 1991), a
result the Agency never intended.
The Agency notes that this would not
be the outcome if the emission control
dust was generated by a primary lead
smelter and was recycled back into the
original generating process. Such a
sludge would be excluded from the
definition of solid waste .under 40 CFR
261.2(e)(l)(iii). The difference between
the regulatory requirements applicable
to the residues of primary processes and
residues of secondary processes seems
superfluous and is difficult to defend
from an environmental standpoint
because the residues of a secondary
process that are recycled back into the
process are no more of a waste
management problem than the residues
of a primary process recycled in a ;
similar manner.
Therefore, the Agency proposes to
modify the existing exclusion for
secondary materials that are recycled
back into the original process without
prior reclamation to include those
materials that are recycled back into
secondary, processes.
3. Storage Prior to Recycling
The Agency also proposes to -
condition the modification to the
"closed-loop" exclusion (and the related
260.3t)(b) variance) such that secondary
, materials recycled back into secondary
processes from which they were
generated continue to be managed in an
environmentally sound manner. Absent
this condition, one possible outcome
could be that a listed waste that is
currently required to be managed in a
protective manner (i.e., without land ,
disposal) would begin to be managed in
an uriprotective manner because, as an
excluded secondary material, no
regulatory requirements would apply.
The Agency is requiring sound
management (i.e., management that is ":
designed to contain the material or
otherwise prevent its release to the
environment) as a condition of this
exclusion in order to keep this form of
recycling from becoming part of the
waste disposal problem, and to avoid a
reduction in environmental protection
from that currently existing. In
particular, the Agency wishes to ensure
that no land disposal of any excluded
material occurs. EPA believes the VIP/
and AMC II cases discussed above , '
support such an approach., -:'. .',
For example, under the current
regulations, K069 waste is required to be
managed in an environmentally sound
manner prior to recycling. As a listed
waste, it must be managed in storage
units that meet specified criteria. And,
as a waste subject to the land disposal
restrictions, K069 waste may not be
placed on the land, for example in open
waste piles, until the applicable
treatment standard has been met
However, as a secondary material that is
excluded from the definition of solid
waste because it is recycled back into "".''
the process from which it was
generated, hazardous Waste
-------
1 (I ll
48138 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
manigerhem" standards and the land
disposal restrictions would not apply.
(The Agency notes that such recycling is
also tha applicable treatment standard
for K069 and that there is no
conventional disposal alternative.)
The Agency solicits comment on
broadening the "closed-loop recycling"
exclusion and the related 26(K30(b)
variance to include secondary materials
recycled into a secondary process. The
Agency also solicits comment regarding
the condition that such secondary
materials from a secondary process be
excluded only provided that the
materials are managed such that the
excluded material does not become part
of the waste management problem, in
particular, that there be no direct -
placement of materials on the land, and
also solicits comments regarding
whBjherair'excJusionslromthe
definition of solid'.waste 'shpufef be
cOriditioned on sound management
practices.
XI. Implementation Issues
During the LDR Roundtable on
January 14 and 15,1993, participants
expressed a need for more information
to help implement regulations as they
are issued. The Agency is specifically
soliciting comments on possible
implementation issues regarding the
provisions being proposed today.
, XII," Capacity Dcterinmatibns
This'sectiorf'presents the' daS sources,
methodology, and results of EPA's
capacity analysis for today's rule.
Section A summarizes the results of the
capacity analysis for the wastes covered
by this proposal; Section, B summarizes
the analysis of available capacity;
Section C presents the results of the
capacity analysis for surface disposed
nawljf identified and listed wastes;
Section D summarizes the capacity
analysis for wastes mixed with
radjoactivecpntaminaritsi Section E
summaries" tha 'results of the capacity
analysis 'for high" TCJC" ignitable and TC
pesticide wastes and newly listed
Wastes injected Into Class I deep wells;
and Section F presents the results of the
capacity analysis for hazardous soil and
dobris contaminated with the newly
listed and identified wastes covered in
this proposal and for hazardous soil
contaminated with Phase I wastes.
In general, EPA's capacity analysis
methodologies focus on the amount of
wasta currently land disposed that will
require alternative treatment as a result
of the LDRs, Land-disposed wastes that
do not require alternative treatment
{tig,, those that are currently treated
using an appropriate treatment
technology) are excluded from the
quantity estimates. Iri addition, wastes
managed in CWA, SDWA, CWA-
equivalent systems are not included in
this rule and will be addressed in an /
upcoming rulemaking.
EPA's decisions on whether to grant
a national capacity variance are based -
on the demand for commercial
treatment or recovery technologies.
Consequently, the methodology focuses
on deriving estimates of the quantity of
wastes that will require commercial
treatment as a result of the LDRs
quantities of waste that will be treated
on-site or by facilities owned by the
same company as the generator are
omitted from the required commercial
"capacity estimates.
The major capacity information
collection initiative for this proposal
was an EPA survey of all land disposal
facilities that manage newly identified
TC organic wastes (including TC- .
contaminated soil and debris) in land-
based units. The survey, conducted in
the spring of 1992, is a census of
approximately 140 facilities. EPA
identified the universe primarily based
on those facilities that had submitted
permit modifications or received
interim status for managing these
wastes. For each facility, EPA requested
wastestream specific data on newly
identified TC organic wastes and
information on on-site land disposal
units and treatment and recovery
systems.
EPA developed a data set of the
information on the survey results.
Specifically, the data set contains
information on the quantities of newly-
identified organic TC wastes that will
require commercial treatment capacity
as a result of the LDRs. The data
collected from the survey to date have
been used for the required capacity
estimates and are part of the docket for
today's proposed rule. Additional *
analysis may revise the required
capacity estimates for thermal rule.
A. Capacity Analysis Besults Summary
For the organic TC wastes (D018-
D043). EPA estimates that 252,000 tons
of newly identified organic TC sludges
and solids will be managed off-site and
require alternative treatment as a result
of today's proposed rule.
EPA estimates that much smaller
quantities of the other listed wastes
included in today's proposed rule will
require alternative treatment. In.
particular approximately 4,600 tons of
coke by-products (K141-K145, K147
and K148) nonwastewaters are currently
being land disposed. No K141-K145,
K147 and K148 wastewaters are
currently being land disposed. The
majority of these nonwastewaters are
likely to be recycled and, therefore,
alternative treatment may not be
required. Fewer than 100 tons of
chlorinated toluene (K149-K151J
nonwastewaters are currently being land
disposed and will require alternative
treatment due to the LDRs. No K149-
K151 wastewaters are currently being
land disposed.
The quantities of radioactive wastes
mixed with wastes included in today's
proposed rule and currently being land
disposed are uncertain.
EPA has very limited information
which differentiates high TOC DOO1
ignitable wastes from low TOC D001
ignitable wastes, particularly with
reference to the type of Class I injection
well (i.e., nonhazardous versus
hazardous) the wastes are disposed into.
However, the information the Agency
does have indicates that both D001
ignitable wastes and D012-D017 TC
pesticide wastes are deep well injected
into Class I hazardous wells with no-
migration petitions. EPA estimates that,
based on management practices, little if
any diluted high TOC ignitable waste is
injected into Class I nonhazardous
wells, and no more than 419 tons of
D012-OO17 pesticide wastes are deep
well injected into class I wells without
no-migration petitions.
EPA estimates that 3 million tons of
hazardous soil contaminated with
previously regulated wastes are
presently land disposed without prior
treatment.2 The Agency also estimates
that 234,000 tons of hazardous soil and
34,000 tons of hazardous debris
contaminated with the newly identified
organic TC wastes are currently being
managed off-site and willrequire
alternative treatment.
In addition, EPA expects a one-time
generation of hazardous soil
contaminated with F037 and F038
petroleum refining wastes of
approximately 180,000 tons in 1994.
This one-time generation is due to the
cleanout or closure of surface
impoundments at petroleum refineries.
The estimation of 180,000 tons was
based upon information submitted to
EPA by petroleum refineries and an
assessment of "typical" quantities of
soil excavated during impoundment
closures. Absent additional information,
EPA expects a proportionate number of
these surface impoundment closures to
be completed prior to the effective date
2These wastes include soil contaminated with
Third Third wastes Shat were granted a two-year
capacity variance in tha Third Third rule (55 FR
22520). This national capacity variance expired on
May 8,1992. However, the Agency granted a
national case-by-case extension to hazardous soil
contaminated with Third Third wastes which
expired May 8.1993.
Kf Hittl I
ii: ;::,::-:; I
i- i
! ii; !!,, jiLjito ..... i
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176Y Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
of this rulemaking. Thus; EPA estimates
approximately 90,000 tons of hazardous
soil contaminated with F037 and F038
would require treatment as a result of
this ruiemaking. EPA requests
comments on the timing of the surface
impoundment closures and the affected
quantities of wastes.
Table 1 lists each waste code for
which EPA is proposing LDR standards
today. For each code, this table
indicates whether EPA is proposing to
grant a national qapacity variance for
surface-disposed wastes. EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for newly identified organic TC
wastes. However, the Agency is
proposing to grant two-year national
capacity variances for mixed radioactive
wastes (i.e., radioactive wastes mixed
with newly identified TC organic
constituents D018-D043), for hazardous
soil and debris contaminated with
newly listed and identified wastes
covered under this proposal, and
hazardous soil contaminated with Phase
I wastes. EPA is also proposing to
extend the effective date for compliance
with treatment standards for all waste
codes covered by this rulemaking by
grantyjg a three-month national capacity
variance. This extension would not
' apply to wastes with a specified longer
national capacity variance. EPA is
proposing to delay the effective date
because the Agency realizes that even
where data indicate, that sufficient
treatment capacity exists, such capacity
may not be immediately available.
Additional time may be required to
determine what compliance entails;
redesign tracking documents, possibly
adjust facility operations, and possibly
segregate wastestreams. EPA believes
these legitimate delays can be
encompassed within a short-term
capacity variance because the ability to
get wastes to the treatment capacity in
a lawful manner is an inherent part of
assessing available capacity.
EPA's recently promulgated final rule
addressing corrective action
management units (CAMUs) and
temporary units (Tus) (published
February 16,1993 at 58 FR 8658) is
likely to reduce the quantity of
remediation wastes and soil subject to
the land disposal restrictions by
reducing the quantity of remediation
waste and soil excavated and also by
reducing the volume of material
managed off-site. As a result, the
CAMU/TU rule is likely to free up
current hazardous waste treatment and
disposal capacity and reduce the
demand for future capacity.
, In summary, the CAMU/TU rule is
designed to facilitate RCRA corrective
actions and CERCLA remediations by
providing that remediation wastes
managed within CAMUs and Tus will
not be subject to the RCRA land
disposal restrictions requirements. The
CAMU rule does not apply to wastes
generated from ongoing production
processes or other industrial activities;
it applies only to remediation wastes
managed in implementing remedial
actions. For example, under the final
CAMU provisions, remediation wastes
may be excavated from several isolated
areas at a facility, treated in a central
location on-site, and disposed in a
CAMU without triggering the LDRs or
other RCRA land disposal unit
requirements. CAMUs can be used only
at facilities regulated under subtitle C of
RCRA, at CERCLA sites where
determined to be applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs),
and under some state remedial programs
(i.e., CAMUs cannot be used at facilities
that are not currently remediating under
federal or state authorities) and can be
used only with the permission of the
permit writer.
As a result, EPA believes that the
CAMU rule will reduce the volume of
remediation waste requiring treatment
to LDR standards. In particular,
incineration and off-site management
are likely to be used less frequently than
they currently are, while on-site
management of in-situ and excavated
soil will increase. Although estimates of
the quantity of remediation waste and
hazardous soil that will be affected by
the CAMUis unknown, EPA estimates
that about 1,500 facilities subject to the
RCRA corrective actionTequirements
will use CAMUs.
TABLE 1VARIANCES FOR NEWLY USTED AND IDENTIFIED WASTES
Indicates EPA is Proposing to Grant a Variance]
- . . Waste Type '
High TOO D001 Wastes .
D012-D017 Wastes. ,......
D018-D043 Nonwastewaters .... .......;
K141-K145 Wastes ,.
K147-K148 Wastes ................ .- """
K1 49-K1 51 Wastes ..
Mixed Radioactive _
Soil (Prev. Regulated Wastes)*
Sofl (Phase I Wastes)
Soil (Phase II Wastes) c . . ....
Debns (Phase II Wastes)'
.N/A means Not applicable.
Newly identified TC Wastes that were not previously hazardous
b EPA has previously granted a tWo-vear national ramrttv uanar
Landfill
No
No
No
Yes ;
Yes
Yes
Land treat-
ment
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes ' :
Disposal Unit
Surface im-
poundment
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Waste pile
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
by the old EPrLeaching Procedure.
Deepwell
No
No
N/A
No
No
No
N/A . - . '
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
""**"
** ******* ^ **> deiS
II wastes, including
B. Analysis of Available Capacity
The analysis of commercial capacity
for newly identified wastes is based
primarily on the TSDR Survey capacity
data set, data received in response to
previous LDR notices and regulations,
and data received in voluntary data
submissions. These data include
estimates of available capacity at
commercial combustion facilities (i.e.,
incinerators and boilers and industrial
furnaces (BIFs)), other conventional
treatment facilities, and innovative
technology vendors.
Combustion capacity. Combustion
capacity for liquid hazardous wastes has
historically been more readily available
-------
48140
R?gป?t?!', i Yฐl- 58- No- 176 ' Tue?^?yป September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
than capacity for sludges and solids.
Commercial capacity for combustion of
sludges and solids is available at both
incinerators and industrial furnaces
(primarily cement kilns that are
authorized to accept hazardous waste).
Because of the new regulations and
policies regarding the burning of
hazardous wastes in boilers and
Industrial furnaces, many commercial
cement kiln facilities are currently
changing their operational practices.
Tho effect of these new combustion
controls and other changes will be
.>ri.,.
estimates for wastes regulated in this
final rule.
The types of wastes cement Bins are
able to burn are limited by air emission
limits, feed system limitations, and
product (Le., cement) quality
considerations. For instance, cement
quality considerations generally require
that wastes burned in cement kilns have
a heating value of at least 5,000 Btu/lb.
In addition, combustion capacity may
bo limited by chemical characteristics,
constituent levels, and physical
properties of the waste.
Information available to EPA
indicates that at least 192,000 tons/year -
of commercial combustion capacity are
available for all newly identified TC
organic sludges and solids, including
soil and debris. However, EPA recently
received data from the Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council (HWTC) stating that
a survey of their members showed
approximately 300,000 tons of
incineration capacity is currently
available for solids. If the available
capacity for cement kilns is added to
this figure and the additional capacity
required after the expiration of the
f 037/38 variance is subtracted, there
would be approximately 334,000 tons of
sludge/solids combustion capacity
available. This quantity of available
capacity takes into account capacity that
will ba required for Phase I wastes that
were granted a national capacity
variance (57 FR 37194, August 18,
1992), ignitable and corrosive wastes
\vhosa treatment standards were vacated
(58 FR 29860, May 24, 1993), waste
Characteristics that affect the ability for
a particular facility' (s) to treat the
wastes, and other factors that may limit
capacity.
In the comments submitted in
response to the October 24, 1991
Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rutemaking (ANPRM), several
commcnters raised issues regarding
EPA's methodology for determining
available capacity. Commenters
proposed that EPA should not consider
planned capacity since new facilities
end facility expansions are commonly
delayed; not include capacity from -
facilities that violate environmental
regulations; account for the expiration
of capacity variances granted for
combustion in the Third Third rule; and
account for actual operating time in its
assessment of a facility's available
capacity. These factors were taken into
account in the capacity analysis where
appropriate.
Three commenters also reported
ongoing data collection efforts that
might provide additional information on
available capacity in the near future.
These efforts include surveys being
conducted by the HWTC to determine
its members' sludge and solid
combustion capacity and their capacity
to treat soil; the Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition on cement kiln dust issues
that may contain information on the
waste^burning practices at cement kilns;
and Oak Ridge National Laboratories of
mixed radioactive waste generators to
assess mixed radioactive waste
treatment capabilities. EPA has received
confirmation that HWTC and the CKRC
are planning to survey their members on
available combustion capacity. Because
of time constraints, this new
information will be summarized and
included in the Docket to today's
proposed rule and will be considered in
the capacity analysis for the final rule.
A few of the comments received on
the ANPRM noted factors that may Emit
the applicability of commercial
combustion for certain TC wastes. One
commenter emphasized that EPA must
consider certain external factors that can
Umit Incinerationcapacity, including
waste characteristics, such as heating
value and chlorine content, that might
affect waste acceptability; limitations
imposed on wastes, such as TC wastes, .
which are often managed as bulk solids;
packaging and transportation
limitations; limited temporary storage
space at certain facilities; and regulatory
obstacles to permitting new
incinerators. EPA requested information
on these factors in the survey of
facilities that manage organic TC wastes,
including soil and debris, in land-based
units. This information has been and
will be re-evaluated and taken into
account in the capacity analysis for the
final rule.
Other potential capacity limitations
noted in the comments were equipment
problems at commercial facilities that
can cause disruption in waste
acceptance, and the Boiler and
Industrial Furnace (BIF) rule which may
potentially limit combustion capacity at
cement kilns. One commenter also
noted that if the cement produced by a
kiln that burns listed hazardous wastes
is subject to LDR standards, then cement
kilns should not be considered in
available capacity estimates.
EPA is also considering the capacity
effects of recent court decisions
regarding the regulation of hazardous
constituents other than those for which
the waste fails the TC test. EPA solicits
comments on the treatment capacity
effects of requiring facilities to treat the
underlying hazardous constituents in
TC organic hazardous wastes to meet
the proposed universal treatment
standards.
, EPA'jwill analyze the results of the
combustion surveys that will be
conducted by the Hazardous Waste .
. Treatment Council and the Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition, review recent
regulatory developments concerning
combustion facilities, and determine
how much combustion capacity will be
available for wastes covered by this rule
when it becomes effective.
Other conventional treatment
technologies. There are three primary
conventional commercial treatment
technologies for the newly identified
and listed wastes besides combustion:
Stabilization, biological treatment, and
chemical precipitation. EPA estimates
that over 1 million tons of stabilization
capacity, 187,000 tons of biological
treatment capacity, and 813,000 tons of
chemical precipitation capacity are
currently available. In analyzing
alternative treatment capacity for
stabilization, biological treatment, and
chemical precipitation for newly
identified and listed wastes, the Agency
built on the capacity analysis conducted
for the Third Third LDR rule. This
analysis was based on data contained in
the TSDR Capacity Data Set which
contains results from the National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, Disposal and Recycling Survey
(the TSDR Survey).
Innovative technologies. There are
several innovative technologies for the
treatment of hazardous soil including '
hydrolysis, vacuum extraction,
photolysis, and oxidation. To the extent
that these technologies can be used to
treat hazardous soil on-site, the required
capacity for combustion will decrease..'
EPA has limited information on
innovative technologies with regard to
both available capacity and to
limitations of the technologies or
constraints on the use of these
technologies. EPA solicits comments on
the use of innovative technologies for
the treatment of hazardous soil.
Specifically, EPA requests information
on constraints on the use of these
technologies both on- and off-site,
including physical or chemical
characteristics of the soils, and logistical
constraints such as permitting,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 178 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48141
scheduling, etfc. EPA also solicits data
on volumes of hazardous soil currently
being treated fay these technologies,
current available capacity, and estimates
of future dapacityi,
C, Surface Disposed Newly Identified
and Listed Wastes
1. Required Capacity for Newly
Identified TC Organics (D018-D043) .
The Agency is proposing to develop
treatment standards for TC organic
nonwastewaters based primarily on
incineration performance data. Newly
identified organic TC wastewaters that
are managed in systems other than those
regulated under the CWA, those "/
regulated under the SDWA that inject
TC wastewaters into Class I injection
wells, and those zero discharge facilities
that engage in CWA-equivalent
treatment prior to land disposal are also
affected byitoday's proposed rule.
(Organic TC wastewaters managed in
CWA, SDWA, or CWA-equivalent
systems Will be addressed in future
ruiemakings; and EPA will make
variance determinations at that time.)
The Agency does not have data
indicating that .facilities managing
organic TC wastewaters would be
impacted. EPA solicits comments on the
quantitieaof newly identified organic
TC wastewaters affected by today's
proposed .rule.
: EPA developed estimates of the
quantities of newly identified TC
organic wastes based on current
management options to comply with the
LDR.requirements. The Agency also
developed estimates of available on-site
treatment and recovery capacity. Table
2 Summarizes available capacity for
each alternative treatment or recovery
technology required for the newly
identified Toxicity Characteristic
nonwastewaters. The table also
summarizes the required capacity for
each technology. A comparison of
required and available treatment
capacity indicates that adequate
treatment capacity exists for new TC
nonwastewaters, Therefore, EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for D018 through D043
nonwastewaters. EPA is requesting
comments and any additional data on '
its assessment that there is adequate
treatment capacity for these wastes.'
Table 3 presents the 1993 quantities
of TC nonwasteivaters requiring off-site
treatment by waste code.
TABLE 2.REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE
CAPACITY FOR NEWLY IDENTIFIED
ORGANJC TC WASTESI ;
[All quantities are in tons]
Treatment
technology
Chemical pre-
cipitation ....
Liquid corn-/
bustion
Sludge/solid
combustion
Stabilization ..
Available ca-
pacity :
2813,000
541,000
334,000
4 1,127,000
Required ca-
pacity
10,000
311,000
253,000
41,250
1 Does not include hazardous soil and
debris, mixed radioactive wastes, or deepwel)
injected wastes.
2 Capacity .analysis for the Third Third rule.
? These are liquid nonwastewaters.
4 Capacity analysis for the proposed Phase I
Newly Listed and Newly Identified Waste rule.
Table 3.1993 QUANTITIES OF TC
NONWASTEWATERS REQUIRING OFF-
SITE TREATMENT
. [Surface Disposed Wastes in Tons]
Code
D018
D019
D020 /
D021
D022 :".......
D023 ."...
D024
D025 ....... j ;......
D026 ......
D027 . :..;....^.. .....
D028 ... .
D029
D030 .v , ....
D031 ^ .
D032 ,.
D033 ..
D034 ..............
D035
D036 :.....
D037 ....;.;.... .....
D038 ...........
D039
D040
D041
D042 . ,...
D043
Total
Non-
wastewaters
152990
8510
fi ^1Q
8 484
R 14A
3897
515
308
1 C-10
1 142
14 1Q7
.i . 3859
511
5>n**
31OQ
450
419
A 91 ft
262'
' 612
2297
R onn
R SRS
108
120
1fi
-------
48142 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
.
KI4I to K|tง nonwastewaters generated
during that timeframe were recycled or
used for energy recovery. Tar storage
tank, aiidl tar distillation bottoms may be
remove*! periodically. Tne Agency is '
soliciting comments for the above
^irpajoa quantities which may require
alternative treatment as a result of the
' ' ....... ' ~ ............ "
, ,., ..... .......... , ,
Qurrqnt management practices
Int|lca|ethaJ the majority of the newly
listQ|q (o recycling, and therefore,
alternative treatment may not be
nkjutred as a result of today's proposed
rule. Thus, EPA believes that adequate
capacity exists to treat the small amount
"'0f pastes, if. any, that require alternative
'" treatment. "" ... . ', '. , '.]".'. ..... '_ ..... "." '. ..... ''". "...
EPA (joes pot have any information
mat soke by-product wastewaters are
currtfnljy generated. The quantity of
these wastewaters is assumed to be zero.
EPA is soliciting comments on changes
of management practices or generation
data on these wastes.
As a result of this analysis, EPA is
proposing not to grant a national
capacity variance to K141, K142, K143,
K144, 1K145,K147, and K148
nonwastewaters and wastewaters.
fe. Surface Disposed Chlorinated
Toluene Wastes .............. ...........................
K149 Distillation bottoms from the
production of alpha (methyl) chlorinated
toluene, ring-chlorinated toluene,
benzoyl chlorides, and compound with
mixtures of these functional groups.
(This waste docs not include still
bottoms from the distillation of benzyl "
chlpride.)
KlSO Organic residuals, excluding spent
cnrbon adsorbent, from the spent
"chlorine gas and hydrochloric acid
..... j?ee6v*erf processes associated with the
p'roduction of alpha (methyl) chlorinated
toluene, ring-chlorinated toluene,
benzoyl chlorides and compounds with
mixtures of these functional groups.
KlSl Waitowajer treatment sludges,
excluding neutralization and biological
sludges, generated during the treatment
: ,;,, 1 , : ...... o'f wastewaters, frornthe production of
alpha (methyl) chlorinated toluene, ring-
chforinatcd toluene, benzoyl chlorides
and compounds with mixtures of these
funttionul groups.
For wastes generated during the
production of chlorinated toluene, EPA
Is proposing to establish concentration-
based treatmept standards based on
" . ir^cineraiipQ'jornpnwastewatejs.^EPA ............
collected generation and management
information on wastes generated from
the production of chlorinated toluene.
;,, , EPA, collected this informationunder,; ........
" ''' ...............
during engineering site visits in 1988.
This capacity analysis incorporates data
from the section 3007 information
( i i in iii inn in iPI 111 i ( mi 1111HIi mill
request and engineering site visits. EPA
identified four facilities that produce .
chlorinated toluene wastes.
The Agency has identified no K149' ^
nonwastewaters, no KI 50
nonwastewaters, and leso than 100 tons
of K151 nonwastewaters that were being
land disposed. For the capacity analysis,
EPA assumes that these quantities are
currently being land disposed and will
require further treatment as a result of
today's proposed rule..
EPA does not have any information
that chlorinated toluene wastewaters are
currently generated. The quantity of
these wastewaters is assumed to be zero.
EPA is soliciting comments on changes
of management practices or generation
data on these wastes. ; ;
Because adequate capacity exists to
treat these wastes, EPA is not proposing
to grant a national capacity variance for
K149, KlSO, and KlSl noriwastewafers
and wastewaters.
3. Newly Identified TC Wastes That
Were Not Previously Hazardous by the
Old EP Leaching Procedure
In the Third LDR rule (55 FR 22520,
June 1,1990), EPA promulgated
treatment standards for D012 through
pOI7 wastes, but only for those wastes
that were previously hazardous by the
old EP leaching procedure and remain
hazardous under the new TCLP. DO 12
through D017 wastes that were not
hazardous by the old EP leaching
procedure but are now-hazardous using
the new TCLP are considered newly-
identified D012 through D017 wastes.
In response to the ANPRM (56 FR
55160, October 24,1991), EPA didปnot
receive any estimates for additional
waste quantities (or newly-identified
wastes) due to the use of TCLP rather
than the EP leaching procedure. EPA
believes that the quantities of the newly-
identified D012 through D017 wastes
due to the use of the TCLP rather than
the EP leaching procedure are small, if
any, and, hence, expects little or no
additional demand for commercial
treatment capacity as a result of the
LDRs. Because sufficient capacity exists
to treat these wastes, EPA is proposing
not to grant the newly-identified D012
through D017 wastes a national capacity
variance.
D. Required and Available Capacity for
Newly Identified Wastes Mixed with
Radioactive Components
EPA has defined a mixed RCRA/
radioactive waste as any matrix
containing a RCRA hazardous waste and
a radioactive waste subject to the
Atomic Energy Act (53 FR 37045,37046,
September 23,1988). These mixed
wastes are subject to the RCRA
Ill I Illlll (illlHin I i 1 M I III I III I II 111
hazardous waste regulations, including
the land disposal restrictions, regardless
of the type of radioactive constituents
that these wastes contain.
Radioactive wastes that are mixed
with spent solvents, dioxins, California
list wastes, or First Third, Second Third,
or Third Third wastes are subject to the
land disposal restrictions already
promulgated for these hazardous wastes.
EPA granted national capacity variances
for all of these mixed wastes because of.
a lack of national treatment capacity.
Today's rule addresses the radioactive
wastes that contain newly listed
hazardous wastes being restricted in
today's proposed rulemaking.
Based on comments received by EPA ;
in response to the ANPRM (56 FR
55160) and previous rulemakings, the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is the
primary generator of mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes. A variety of non-
DOE facilities also generate mixed
wastes, including nuclear power plants,
academic and medical institutions, and
industrial facilities. .
In respohse to the ANPRM, DOE
developed and submitted data on its
generation of mixed RCRA/radioactive
wastes and its capacity available to treat
such wastes. To update and refine its
data, DOE requested 37 DOE Field
Organizations to identify and
characterize their mixed waste streams,
including developing profiles of the
newly regulated TC organic waste
streams. Twenty DOE Field
Organizations responded to the data
request and provided waste stream-
specific data, including annual
generation rates and the inventory of
such wastes expected by May 1993. In
April, 1993, this Interim Mixed Waste
Inventory Report was prepared and ;
included a national inventory of all .
mixed wastes that are currently stored
or will be generated over the next five
years, and a national inventory of mixed
waste treatment,capacities and
technologies. The report provides waste
stream-specific and treatment facility-
specific information for each DOE site
in each state. EPA has not completed its
review of the data contained in this .
report, and consequently, the data were
not available for use in this proposed
" rule. Additionally, the six-month public
comment period for the Interim Report
has not yet expired. EPA will update the
results of the capacity analysis for the
final rule with the results from the Final
Mixed Waste Inventory Report.
Data on some of the other DOE
facilities were derived from other data
sources. DOE also submitted data .
gathered from its Field Organizations on
the availability of its existing and
I i II j lull i II in t J I I i';i rn I ( t T i i i
-------
Register / Voi 58> No 178 /Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48143
planned'capacity to treat mixed RCRA/
. radioactive wastes, including TC wastes.
While DOE has provided its best
available data on mixed waste
generation, uncertainty remains about
mixed waste generation at DOE (and
npn-DOE) facilities. For example, not all
DOE Field Organizations responded to
DOE's request for information. In
addition, DOE recently completed an
Interim Mixed Waste Inventory Report
:(April 1993}. This information will be '
incorporated into the final capacity
- analysis. In addition, the data submitted
to EPA generally did not include DOE
environmental restoration wastes
which, when generated, will increase
the quantity of newly identified mixed
wastes that require treatment.
Although DOE is in the process of .
increasing its capacity to manage mixed
RCRA/radiOactiye wastes, information
supplied by DOE indicates that a
significant capacity shortfall currently
exists for the treatment of mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes, much of which is in
storage facilities awaiting treatment.
^ DOE has indicated that it will generally
give treatment priority to mixed wastes
that are already restricted under
previous LDRrules (e.g;, radioactive
wastes mixed with solvents, diqxins,
California list wastes, or First Third,;
Second Third, or Third Third wastes.)
DOE is also concerned about the
availability of .treatment capacity for
mixed wastes that will be generated as
a result of site remediation activities.
EPA's review of non-DOE data sources
-also showed.a significant lack of
, commercial treatment capacity.
* Despite the uncertainty about
- quantities of mixed radioactive wastes
containing newly listed and identified
wastes that will require treatment as a
result of today's proposed rule, any new
commercial capacity that becomes
available will be heeded for mixed ,
radioactive wastes that, were regulated '
in previous LDR rulemakings and whose
' variances have already expired. Thus,
EPA has determined that sufficient
alternative treatment capacity is not
available, and is proposing to grant a
two-year national capacity variance for
mixed RCRA/radioactiye.wastewaters
and nonwastewaters contaminated with
newly listed and identified wastes
whose standards are being proposed
today.
E. Required and Available Capacity for
High TOC Ignitable, TC Pesticide, and
Newly ListedWastes Injected into Class
IDeepWells
As explained in previous rules '; .
concernirig land dispbsal restrictions
(see e.g., 52 FR 32450, August 27,1987; :
53 FR 30912, August 16,1988; 55 FR
22520, June 1, 1990), EPA is allocating
available capacity first to those wastes
disposed in surface units, second to
wastes resulting from CERCLA and
RCRA clean ups, and finally to
underground injected wastes. Based on
this hierarchical approach, the Agency
is proposing the following effective
dates for injected wastes.
EPA has very limited information
which differentiates high TOC DOOl
ignitable wastes from low TOC DOOl
ignitable wastes, particularly with
reference to the type of Class I injection
well (i.e. nonhazardous versus .
hazardous) the wastes are disposed into.
However, the information the Agency
does have indicates that both DOOl
ignitable wastes and D012-D017 TC
pesticide wastes are deep well injected
into Class I hazardous wells with no.-
migration petitions. EPA estimates that,
based on management practices, little if
any diluted high TOC ignitable waste is
injected into Class I nonhazardous
wells, and no more than 419 tons of
D012-D017 pesticide wastes are deep
well injected into Class I wells without
no-migration petitions.
The following wastes, are the newly
listed wastes for which numerical -
standards are being proposed, and
which current data indicate are not
being underground injected:
Coke Production Wastes: K141, K142, K143,
K144, K145, K147, K148
Chlorotoluene Production Wastes: K149,
K150, K151"
Therefore, EPA is proposing that these
wastes be prohibited from underground
injection upon the date of final
promulgation of this rule. EPA is not
proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for.any of these waste types.
The Agency requests further comment
on whether any of these wastes are
being injected. Comment is also
requested on what quantities of wastes
are being injected, and on the
characteristics of these wastes,
F. Required and Available Capacity for
Hazardous Soil and Debris .
Contaminated With Newly Listed and
Identified:Wastes
This capacity analysis focuses oh
hazardous soil and debris contaminated
with wastes whose treatment standards
are proposed in this rule as well as -
hazardous soils contaminated"with
Phase I wastes.
Based on data currently available,
EPA estimates that 3 million tons of
hazardous s'oil contaminated with
previously regulated wastes are
presently disposed in hazardous waste :
landfills without prior treatment. These
wastes were granted a two-year national
capacity variance in the Third Third
rule (55 FR 22520) which expired in
May 1992. However, EPA granted a one-
year national case-by-case extension for
hazardous soil contaminated with
previously regulated wastes requiring
treatment by incineration, retorting, or
vitrification. This variance expired in
May 1993. Consequently,, these wastes
may undergo treatment prior to land
disposal. In order to determine the
capacity available to treat newly listed,
and identified hazardous soil, EPA must
consider the impact that the treatment;
of hazardous soil contaminated with ; :
wastes regulated, in previous LDR
rulemakings will have on'available
commercial capacity. EPA used several
data sources to estimate the total
quantity of land-disposed hazardous .
soil and debrisy These sources include:
responses to the Advance Notice to the
Proposed Rulernaking (ANPRM) for the
newly identified wastes (56 FR 55160);
the newly developed TC data set
discussed earlier; information provided
during a series of roundtable meetings
held by the Agency in May arid June of
1991 with representatives of companies
involved in the management and
disposal of hazardous debris and soil;
the Biennial Reporting System (BRS);
, Records of Decision (RODs) of
Superfund sites; the National Survey of -
Treatment, Storage, Disposal and
Recycling Facilities (TSDR Survey); and
the National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators.4
In general, EPA found severe
limitations in estimating the total
quantity of hazardous soil because the
available data are incomplete and
poorly defined. The reason for this lack
of comprehensive data is several-fold:
First, the regulated.community reported
that their data generally are not
classified by soil but rather by waste -v .
code and waste^description; second, the
data from the TSDR and Generator
Surveys were not collected and
categorized specifically for soil, and soil
was often mixed with debris5 and was
frequently contaminated with more than
one waste, thereby making the
hazardous soil quantity determinations
difficult; third, TSDR and Generator
Surveys do not include;data on
hazardous soil contaminated with
4 EPA conducted the surveys during 1987 and
1988 to obtain comprehensive data on the nation's
capacity for managing hazardous waste and the
volumes of hazardous waste being land disposed as.
well as data on waste generation; waste
characterization, and hazardous waste treatment
capacity in units exempt from RCRA'permitting.'
. 'Data submitted by TSDFs in roundtable
meetings sometimes combine contaminated debris
with soil! Furthermore, TSDFs have stated that
historical waste data are generally not kept by soil
classifications. '
-------
ซ! iafiijii! ..... ซt ; IB .......
?:1 ilt'i fi fiSiVfeR o; ,""f. sw 2
H^l^>^!!lJl!lJM^1ป|l^l|lli,ll!!rll!|l|!llll^!^llllllffi
.' :;' iliii ..... ifSIB SfSf KisiWfi I
TABLE 4.1993 QUANTITIES OF TC-
CONTAMINATED SOIL AND DEBRIS
REQUIRING OFF-SITE TREATMENT
Continued !'
[Surface Disposed Wastes in Tons]
IT! lill^^ iMlifll'1! Jiซ' VI IIIHil lll
'--48144 ' "Federal' "Register 1 Vo!L 58,"No.' 176 '/" Tuesday; September 'll,' 1993 /""ppggg5 RuL|e"s'
''i i1' .pi1,; *,: K "iiii.,71 xi'i iii11'/1:; , ;!;,* "'fj'!* - .^^v. m : i;:.:hul1
nifwly identified wastes because they
were not considered hazardous wastes
''', ifljIM; if^/ourBi^tb.e|BRง only covers
"''ic^lf e'gon'erators"of hazardous waste
and therefore may not capture soil
Volumes generated at inactive sites.
1. Waste Generation " ".
8. Hazardous soil. The hazardous sฐil
covered by this proposal includes soil
contaminated with Dqi8-D043 organic
TC wastes, soils contaminated with
coke-by product wastes and chlorinated
tolucno was|es, mixed radioactive soils
contaminated with Phase n wastes, and
soils contaminated with Phase I wastes.
Tlie largest quantity of hazardous soil in
this proposal is from hazardous soil
nated with Dp|8-Dg43 organic
TC wastes! Based on tfie results of the
Tฃ survey, EPA's current estimate for
this quantity that will require off-site
treaimeh! is 234,000 tons per year. Table
4 presents the estimated 1993 quantities
of soil and debris contaminated with
ne,wly identified TC wastes requiring
off-sltp treatment, by waste code and
type. The results of the newly
developed TC data set discussed in the
introductory section of this chapter have
been useS for these demand estimates
and are part of the (locket for today's
rule. Additional analysis of the survey
data will be incorporated in the capacity
analysis for the final rule.*
One commenter to the ANPRM
indicated that as many as 3,000
manufactured gas plants (MGP) may be
generating TC-contaminated soil and
debris. Most of the soil and debris
generated at these plants is expected to
bo contaminated with benzene. While
EPA acknowledges that the quantities of
TC-contaminated soil from MGP are
potentially large, the Agency expects
that most of this quantity will be
managed on-site and will not require
off-site or commercial treatment
capacity. EPA requests updated
information on the generation and
management of these wastes and on
whether there will be sufficient
commercial treatment services to treat
these wastes on-site.
TABLE 4.1993 QUANTITIES OF TC-
CONTAMINATED SOIL AND DEBRIS
REQUIRING OFF-SITE TREATMENT
[Surfjace Disposed Wastes inTons]
Code
D021
D022
D023 .
D024
DQ25
D026 . . .
D027 .........
D028 .
D029
D030
D031
D032
DQ33
D034
D035 -
D036
D037
D038
D039
D040
D041
D042 ...
D043 ...-
Total
Soil
29,760
139
31
30
30
111
1,795
976
1,831
28,938
17
59
60
60
461
113
336
567
2,789
3,967
17
17
66
233,845
Debris
212
71
57
50
. 60
1,270
244
314
324
90
13
68
103
29
293
65
227
538
961
878
22
22
85
33,781
, : .', : Code '.,';
dote :...,:.ป.,....:..:
D0i9 ..
D020 ........._ ...
Soil
161,166
184
325
Debris
27,574
195
16
ปThptqfปI quantity of all TC hazardous soils
ttnjiicitd"by LDR regulations may Increase as
further raguliHoiM are developed for TC wastes
which ate deferred to future rulemaklngs.
EPA believes mixed radioactive soils
contaminated withPhase II wastes are
currently generated. For example, DOE
informed EPA that mixed radioactive
soil contaminated with newly identified
TC organic wastes are generated at a rate
of 1.5 m3 per year. Additionally, 23.7 m3
of TC organic mixed radioactive soils
are being stored awaiting treatment.
Therefore EPA does not believe there is
sufficient treatment capacity for the TC
organic mixed radioactive soils
generated annually.
Soils for Phase I wastes are being
regulated under this rulemaking. The
largest source of hazardous soil
contaminated with Phase I wastes are
F037 and F038 wastes generated at
petroleum refining facilities. EPA
believes that the quantities of hazardous
soil contaminated with other Phase I
waste's are relatively small. EPA has
received information from petroleum
refineries indicating that most facilities
that were managing F037 and F038
wastes in surface impoundments are
modifying their operations in some way.
To the extent that a proportion of
surface impoundments will be closed .
with waste removal, hazardous soil will
be generated.
Information submitted to EPA by
some petroleum refining facilities
indicates that many surface
impoundments managing F037 and
F038 wastes will be closed with waste
removal and that a significant number of
these closures will occur during 1994.
Closures with waste removal may :
involve the generation of hazardous soil
Based on assessments of the "typical"
'quantities of soil excavated during
surface impoundment closures, EPA ,
estimates that as much as 90,000 tons of
F037- and F038-hazardous soil may be
impacted by this rule. EPA stresses that
these quantities represent a one-time
generation of soil and are not expected
to recur after 1994. EPA requests
comments on this estimate and the
timing.
EPA estimates that approximately 3
million tons of hazardous soil
contaminated with previously regulated
wastes are land disposed per year. EPA
believes these quantities will initially
have a significant impact on the
capacity available to treat newly listed
and identified hazardous soil. EPA
' solicits comment on this quantity
estimate. Comments from the
roundtable meetings indicate that
decommissioning of large chemical
plants and increasing remediation
activities can significantly increase the
estimated quantity of hazardous soil.
Several commenters to the ANPRM
indicated that EPA may have
underestimated the annual quantities of
hazardous soil generated. Some
commenters provided site specific data
on the quantities of soil generated
during remedial actions. The Agency is
incorporating these data in its analysis
of the required capacity for hazardous
soil. Other commenters indicated that
very large quantities of -hazardous" soil
contaminated with wood preserving
wastes and with former Bevill wastes
will be generated in the near future. The
Agency acknowledges these comments.
However, hazardous soil contaminated
with wood preserving wastes and with
former Bevill wastes will be addressed
in a future rulemaking.
EPA notes that the promulgation of
new soil standards may encourage the
development of on-site treatment
technologies or the increased use of
innovative technologies. EPA requests
comments on the use of innovative
technologies for hazardous soil.
Specifically, EPA requests information
on constraints to the use of these
technologies both on- and off-site,
including physical or chemical
characteristics of the wastes, and
logistical constraints such as permitting,
scheduling, etc.
b. Hazardous debris. This rule covers
debris contaminated with the newly
listed and identified wastes covered in
this proposal. An examination of the
data from the TC survey indicates .that
approximately 34,000 tons of debris
11 111
-------
Register / :Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 /Proposed Rules ." 4814S
contaminated with D018-D043 wastes
may be currently land disposed.
. EPA believes mixed radioactive debris
contaminated with Phase IJ wastes are.
currently generated. For example, DOE
informed EPA that mixed radioactive
debris contaminated with newly
identified TC organic wastes are ;
: generated at a rate of 46.36 m* per year.
Additionally, 957.42 m* of TC organic
mixed radioactive debris,is being stored
awaiting treatment. Therefore EPA does
, not believe there is sufficient treatment
capacity for the TG organic mixed
: radioactive debris generated annually. .
2.'Cunซht Management Practices
Waste generators and TSDFs repprt
that most of the .soils contaminated with
D018-D043 newly identified organic TC
wastes are currently landfilled without
prior treatment. Incineration is the
commercial qff-site treatment
technology reportedly available for
these wastes.
, Other than incineration for treating
organic TC-contaminated soil, EPA has
no information on the commercial off-
site availability of other treatment
technologies (e.g., low temperature
.'thermal desorption, bioremediation,
solvent extraction.) Although, several
commenters to the A^JPRM mentioned
bioremediation as an alternative to
incineration for the treatment of TC-
contaminated,soilsj no cpmmenter
. provided facility specific information on
commercially .available off-site
treatment capacity for bioremediation.
The lack of off-site commercial capacity
for technologies other than incineration
, was confirmed by responses to EPA's
request for voluntary information from
vendors of innovative technologies '
provided in the Vendor Information
System for Innovative Treatment
Technologies (VISFTT). Although EPA
has received no information that _
special-handling problems may limit the '
' quantity of hazardous soil that currently
can be treated by incineration, EPA is \
requesting information on special-
handling concerns with managing these
'wastes. - - - ' - ".: - '.- .' , '.
3. Available Capacity and Capacity
Implications
a. Hazardous soil. EPA is proposing
that hazardous soil be treated prior to
land disposal using one or more of the
following general methods of soil
treatment: Biological treatment,
chemical extraction, soil washing,
deehlorination,' low-temperature
thermal desorption, high-temperature
distillation, thermal destruction,
stabilization, and vitrification. EPA has
determined that available destruction
(e.g., incineration) capacity is
inadequate, although adequate
immobilization (e.g:, stabilization)
capacity exists. Inadequate capacity also
exists for many of the proposed
technologies in the extraction family
(e.g., so'il washing, chemical extraction).
Much of the capacity of extraction
. technologies currently used to
decontaminate soils, such as soil
washing, may not be permitted prior to
_the effective date of this rule, although
EPA is exploring options to expedite the
permitting of these technologies. In
conclusion, EPA anticipates, that the off-.
, site commercial capacity available to
.treat hazardous soils at the time this
rule becomes effective will be limited to
incineration and stabilization. EPA
recognizes that innovative technologies.
are also available to treat hazardous soil.
EPA requests comments on the
practicality and current availability of
these technologies. .
_- EPA is proposing to grant a two-year
national capacity variance for soils
contaminated with newly identified TC
organic wastes (D018-D043) and K141-
K145, K147, K148, K149, K150, and
K151 wastes. The variance is necessary
because of the general lack of capacity
: to treat soil contaminated with organics,
and the large quantity of soil
contaminated with previously regulated-
organic wastes, for which the variances
have expired. EPA is also proposing to
grant a two-year national capacity
variance to soils contaminated with
newly listed wastes covered in the
Phase I rule (i.e., F037 and F038
petroleum refining wastes; U328^U352,
and U359; K107-K110; Kill and K112;
K117, K118, and K136; and K123-
K136.) The quantities of soil
contaminated with F037 and F038
generated as a result of surface
impoundment closures are estimated to
be approximately 90,000 tons, EPA
expects the quantities of soil
contaminated with other Phase I wastes
to be relatively small.
As discussed above, EPA estimates
that as mu:ch as 3 million tons of
hazardous soil contaminated with
previously regulated wastes are land
disposed per year. Any newly proposed "
commercial capacity will be needed for
soil that is contaminated with wastes
regulated in previous LDR rulemakings.
The proposed .variance may allow
sufficient time for the installation and
permitting of the treatment systems
.necessary to handle the quantities of
soils contaminated with newly listed
wastes covered in the Phase I rule.
The Agency's qualitative argument is
based on this need and the lack of solid
incineration as well as other capacity for
managing hazardous soils. The Agency
solicits comments on this approach and
on estimates .of available .treatment
capacity,;
b. Hazardous debris.EPA estimates
that approximately 34,000 tons of debris
contaminated with newly identified
organic TC wastes are currently land
disposed and require off-site
commercial treatment capacity. The
capacity analysis conducted for debris
contaminated with Phase II wastes
indicates'that insufficient capacity
exists to treat debris:cpntaminated with
organics. '- '' /. "- "
EPA is proposing to grant a two-year ,
. capacity variance fpr debris"
contaminated with newly listed and
identified wastes covered under this
proposal (i.e., newly identified organic
TC wastes (D018-D043), K141-K145,
and K147-K151 wastes.) The Agency is
concerned that there will be insufficient
time for facilities generating these debris
and for potential treaters to plan for the
management of such debris after the
expiration of the one-year, renewal of the
hazardous debris case-by-case capacity
variance in May 1994. EPA also realizes
that there may be logistical problems
associated with the management of
hazardous debris cogeneiated with ....
hazardous soils contaminated with
wastes covered in this proposal. In
examining ithe generation of hazardous
debris, EPA has learned that debris and ,
soil are usually cogenerated; therefore,
EPA is proposing to grant a two-year
national capacity variance to debris;
contaminated with wastes covered by
this proposal. EPA requests comments
oh this approach. ;''
EPA notes that if soil and debris are:
contaminated with newly identified ;
organic wastes covered in this rule and
also with newly identified inorganic
. wastes whose treatment standard is
based on" an available technology, the
soil and debris would remain eligible
for the national capacity variance. This
is. because the hazardous soil and debris
would still have to be treated by some
technologies that EPA has evaluated asi
being unavailable .at present. * . ' ;
XHI. State Authority ' *'"''.' .,,,,.- /.. -,
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorised
States . . , ,
Under section 3006 c-fRCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States td
admhiister and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement'
authority under sections 3008, 3013,
and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are -
found in 40 CFRtpart 271. ;
-------
48146 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14. 1993 / Proposed Rules
Prior to tlie Hazardous and go! id*
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
pfB|rf m tri lieu of EPA administering
the Federal program in that State. The
Federal requirements no longer applied
!rป the authorised State, and EPA could
not .issue permits for any facilities that
the State was authorized to permit.
When new, more stringent Federal
requirements were promulgated or
enacted, the State was obliged to enact
equivalent authority within specified
time frames. New Federal requirements
did not take effect in an authorized State
until tha State adopted the requirements
as State law.
In contrast .""under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926fg)). new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is
directed to carry out these requirements
*na prohibitions in authorized States,
incjuding the issuance of permits, until
the Stute is granted authorization to do
so, While States must still adopt HSWA-
related provisions as State law to retain
final authorization, HSWA is
implemented Federally in authorized
States in tha interim.
Certain portions of today's rule are
bofng proposed pursuant to sections
3Q04(d) through (k), and (m), of RCRA
(42U.S.C. 6924(d) through (k), and (m)).
It is proposed that these be added to
Table I in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which
identifies the Federal program
requirements that are promulgated
Eursuant to HSWA and that take effect
i all States, regardless of their
Jlthorfzajipn.stalus. States may apply
fcrBit&erlnteTfm'o'r'Hnal authorization
for the HSWA provisions in Table 1, as
di^cjissed in the following section of
' :!. this preambteTfableYin 40 CFR
271.1(0 is also proposed to be modified
to indicate that this rule is a self-
implementing provision of HSWA.
B. Effect on State Authorization
As noted above, EPA is today
proposing a rule that in part, when final,
will ba implemented in authorized
States until their programs are modified
to adopt these rules and the
pjo/lifjcat|on is approved by EPA.
Because the rule is proposed pursuant
loHSWAra State submitting a program
modifiication may apply to receive either
{nferlm oฅ final authorization under
" ^ , ' RC^'se^pn^Opergft^ 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 firiaT authorization are described in
40 CFR 271.21. It should be noted that
HSWA interim authorization expired on
January 1,1993 (see 40 CFR 271.24(c)),
although EPA is currently developing a
rule which would extend this date.
Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and must 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
section 271.21(e). Once EPA approves
the modification, the State requirements
become Subtitle C RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
proposed rule. These State regulations
have not been assessed against the
Federal regulations being proposed
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 State law. In implementing the
Federal program, EPA will work with
States under agreements to minimize
duplication of efforts. In many cases,
EPA will be able to defer to the States
in their efforts to implement their
programs rather than take separate
actions under Federal authority.
States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations are not required to include
standards equivalent to these
regulations in their application.
However, the State must modify its
program by the deadline set forth in
ง 271.21(e). States that submit official
applications for final authorization 12
monfiis 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 proposed today
need not affect the State's Underground
Injection Control (UIC) primacy status.
A State currently authorized to
administer the UIC program under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) could
continue to do so without seeking
authority to administer the amendments
that will be promulgated at a future
date. However, a State which wished to
implement part 148 and receive
authorization to grant exemptions from
the land disposal restrictions would
have to demonstrate that it had the
requisite authority to administer
sections 3004(f) and (g) of RCRA. The
conditions under which such an
authorization may take place are
summarized below and are discussed in
a July 15,1985 final rule (50 FR 28728).
XIV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant
to Executive Order 1,2291
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 consists in
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: (1) An annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more; (2) A major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individuals,
industries, Federal, State, and local
government agencies, or geographic
regions; or (3) 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 estimated the costs of
today's proposed rule to determine if it
is a "major" regulation as defined by the
Executive Order. Today's rule is
estimated to have total annual
incremental costs of $330 million;
therefore, today's proposed rule is
considered a major rule. Because today's
proposed rule is a major rule, the
Agency has performed an Regulatory
Impact Analysis, analyzing the benefits,
costs, and economic impacts of today's
proposed rule.
More detailed discussions of the
methodology and results sections may
be found in the background document,
"Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Land Disposal Restrictions for the Phase
2 Newly Listed and Identified Wastes
and Contaminated Soils," which has
been placed in the docket for today's
proposed rule.
1. Methodology Section
a. Cost methodology. In today's
notice, the Agency is proposing
treatment standards for newly identified
wastes, consolidating waste stream LDR
requirements into a "universal" set of
LDR standards, as well as establishing
standards for treatment of hazardous
soil. The newly identified wastes
covered under today's rule include
wastes displaying the organic toxicity
*! ...:; a!!* { :;
''i '"It !,!:"'" I,,,,*'J''|; ft:!'1.1,
i !'ซ' SSIrWIiirr J1'1:", !i ! L'S: f'ป, I1' l!! VT, ylGi'll.;"!,!!!;, : A.l::' inf'"! i * i:ill[, ill" ?'! ;!li!i J.1 ,,'iil,!: I'llffi^
> Jin. I'm ii'l' Jlilb'..!!!^^'!!!!!!!:1!!.;!:!! .1 ,'!!:ii..., l.'nU'llllllil
I
': :*ป"
-------
FedCTal Register-/ Vpl. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14,' 1993 / Proposed Rules 48147
characteristic (TC), and pesticide wastes
that were not previously hazardous by
the EP leaching procedure (see Section
IV of today's preamble for TC organic
and. pesticide wastes), as well as Coke
Production wastes and Chlorotoluenes
(see section V of today's preamble.)
The Agency has not estimated the
potential changes in compliance costs
for the proposal to adopt the universal
LDR requirements. In general, the
Agency believes that many standards
would not change significantly, and
thus not significantly alter current
compliance costs. However, the Agency
requests comment on the economic
impacts of the universal treatment ,
standards proposal. Of the newly
regulated hazardous soil in today's rule,
the only newly identified wastes
contaminating soil are TC wastes. There
are some volumes of F037 and F038
listed waste which has been found to
contaminate soils, however these
volumes are only generated on a non-
routine basis, and are believed to be
negligible. The volumes of soils which
are under existing LDR regulations will
receive a potential relief from regulation
as the Agency is reducing the treatment
standards to which these soils must
comply. Finally, the Agency is
proposing some new testing and
recordkeeping requirements, as well as
reducing other recordkeeping
requirements. -""
The cost analysis seeks to estimate the
incremental costs which will be
incurred-as a result of the proposed
requirements. The incremental costs are
estimated as the costs incurred for
- management under the post-regulatory
requirements minus the costs currently
incurredTinder the baseline practices of
management. All dollar estimates are in
1992 dollars (unless otherwise noted.)
The potential cost savings estimated for
previously regulated hazardous soils has
not been subtracted put of the incurred
costs to obtain a total, but are presented
as a separate cost savings estimate.
.The effects of waste minimization
have not been thoroughly accounted for
in the Phase IIRIA. There are two areas
-of concern. '
The first issue is how to account for
waste minimization in the future, due to
the Phase II rule. To comply with LDR
requirements, generators will choose the
least costly means to comply: Either pay
for treatment and subtitle C disposal
costs, or reduce their waste volumes.
EPA has not considered waste
minimization as a low cost compliance
approach in the RIA. To the degree that
waste minimization will be employed to
comply with the Phase n rule, the costs
of the rule would be lower than are
estimated in the RIA. However, the costs
of the waste minimization activities
would then be a part of the compliance
costs of this rule.
The second question is how much of
the waste minimization indicated in the
1992 TC Census is attributable to the TC
Rule and how much is attributable to
the Phase II proposed rule. The volumes
assigned to .waste minimization in the
1992 TC Census database have been
removed from those volumes for which
compliance costs were estimated in the
Phase II RIA. If these waste
minimization plans were in anticipation
of the TC and the Phase II rule, then at
: least a portion of the costs for these
waste minimization activities should be
included in the costs for the rule. If
these plans were due to the TC rule,
then the costs of the TC rule may have
been overestimated, and there would be
not waste minimization costs incurred
to the Phase II rule.
These waste minimization timing and
accounting issues are difficult to
evaluate given the data and
understanding of facilities compliance
practices which currently exist. The
uncertainty noted, the EPA requests
comment on ways to account for these
costs in this rule and in future
rulemakings.
i. Organia-toxicity characteristic
wastes (D018-D043). The treatment
standards for the organicTC wastes
require the regulation of all underlying
. hazardous constituents. The TC wastes
covered in this analysis can be divided
into three groups: TC nonwastewaters,
TC soils and TC debris; while TC .
wastewaters are being regulated in
today's rule,.EPA believes any affected
volumes to be negligible. EPA relied on
existing unit costs which have been
:used,in past regulatory analyses to
perform the cost analysis of today's rule.
EPA describes below the method of
estimating the costs incurred in - ',
complying with the TC standards i
proposed in today's notice. i
The volumes employed for the TC
wastes, taken from the 1992 TC Census
Database, differ from those in the
capacity section. For the purposes of
developing the cost estimates for today's
rule, EPA used a different accounting of
the reduction in volume due to waste
minimization plans, which plans were
indicated in the TC Census. This
accounting approach used for the cost
estimation allowed more waste
minimization plans to be included in
the long term volumes requiring .
treatment under today's rule.
Approximately 90% of the TC
nonwastewaters are estimated to require
thermal treatment, either incineration or
thermal desorption. The unit cost
estimates range from $1850 per ton for
off-site incineration, to $213 per ton for
on-site thermal desorption.
Organic ToxicityCharacteristic . ,
Nonwastewaters (DO18-D043) '
EPA employed the 1992 TC Census
Database for the analysis of the TC
nonwastewater volumes under
regulation in today's proposed rule. As
there is no proposed variance for these
wastes, the Agency determined costs on
an annual basis from the proposal date
of the rule.
In establishing a baseline for the TC "
nonwastewaters, the Agency assumed
subtitle C landfilling on-site, for ,
noncommercial (company captive)
, facilities, and off-site,-for commercial
facilities. For the post-regulatory case,
EPA developed technology assignments
for the wastestreams at each facility
based on the standards being
established in today's rule.
Organic Toxicity Characteristic
Hazardous Soil
EPA employed the 1992 TC Census
Database, for the cost analysis of the TC
hazardous soil volumes under
regulation in today's proposed rule. The
Agency applied an adjustment factor
from the "Regulatory Impact Analysis
for the Final Rulemaking on Corrective
Action Management Units and ,
Temporary Units" (January 11,1993,
GAMU RIA) to soil volumes from
remediation to account for the effects of
the CAMU rule on these volumes. In
addition,"the Agency is proposing a two
year national capacity variance for these
soils, therefore, costs incurred from
these requirements do not begin until
'two years after tha proposal date of the
'rule. :.-'
In establishing a baseline for the TC
hazardous soils the Agency assumed
subtitle C landfilling on-site, for
noncommercial (company captive)
facilities, and off-site, for commercial
facilities. The Agency presents three
options for the post-regulatory case in
today's rule: (a) Universal Standards 10,
(b) Universal Standards 10, with 90%
Removal, and (c) 90% Removal (taking
comment on a possible cap for option
(c).) EPA modeled the, costs for the soil
standards under two approaches:
Options (a) and (b) as roughly
equivalent options, and (c) separately.
For each approach, the Agency *
developed technology assignments for
the soils at each facility based on the
standards being established in today's
rule. In all three options, EPA assumed
that thermal desorption and soil vapor
extraction (SVE) would be used
approximately 90% at a cost between
$515 to $213 per ton. The assignments
include a treatment technology
-------
I'
48148 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
residuals management, subsequent
disposal, and transportation as needed.
The Agency requests comment on the
methodology and unit cost estimate.
Organic Toxicity Characteristic
Hazardous Debris r
EPA employed the 1992 TC Census
Database, for the cost analysis of the TC
hazardous debris volumes under
regulation in today's proposed rule. As
for the TC soil, the Agency applied an
adjustment factor from theCAMU RIA ...........
to debris volumes from remediation, as
was done for the soils volumes, to
account for the effects of the CAMU rule
on these volumes. The CAMU rule is
expected f q reduce volumes by
approximately 54%. In addition, the
Agency is proposing a two year national
capacity variance for TC debris,
ii,i
riq"ulremohts do not begin until jwo
years after the proposal date of the rule.
In establishing a baseline for the TC
'hazardous i'debris the Agency assumed
; , SHljtitli.C jftp^ftHing on-s%,Jor .................
noncommercial (company captive)
facilities, and off-site, for commercial
facilities. For the post-regulatory case,
EPA developed technology assignments
for the wastestreams at each facility
based on the standards being
established in today's rule. The
assignments include a treatment
technology (treatment train where
requiredjTsubsequent disposal, and
transportation as needed.
IF, Remaining wastes. In addition to
organic TC wastes, the wastes affected
by today's proposed rule include coke
by-product wastes and chlorotoluenes.
; 'BasOTpnianiiiiec-onomi|cianalysJsofcoke
by-product waste management, EPA
aMinnes that generators of these wastes
will, for the most part, ba recycling
', ';|,'thps&ii,wasiesiiiratheril,thaniiidisposuigof
'
, , ......
. .: - EpA estimates th at negligible coEe By-
product wastes will bo affected by this
rtile. For the chlorotoluene waste
.. , ....... vplumes,JEP4,conducted a detailed cost
' ป! 'analysis using site specific data.
iifcPreyiousIy regulated hazardous
feOjI. The hazardous soil regulated under
today's rule can be broken into two
groups: Hazardous soil which is under
existing regulations, and newly
regulated hazardous soil. The newly
regulated hazardous soil is
contaminated with TC wastes, and were
described above. The previously
regulated hazardous soil represents soil
contaminated with listed or Extraction
Potential Loadiing Procedure(!EP}
toxlclty wastes. Treatment standards
, were placed on these soils during the,
'.icIiMuIed waste rules (First Third LDR,
Second Third LOR, etc.) These soils,
having existing standards established
for their treatment,'are being placed
under new proposed standards, which,
are specifically developed for soil
treatment. To the degree that these
standards are less stringent, there will
be an incremental cost savings
calculated for the impact from today's
rule. . ."
The Agency estimated 9 volume of
previously regulated soil of 2.1 million
tons per year which would incur costs
un.der today's rule. This estimate is
derived from the capacity analysis work
performed for today's rule, applying an
adjustment factor to account for a
reduction,,lathe volumes being treated .
due to the recently promulgated CAMU
rule, As the Agency is unable to grant
a national capacity variance for
previously regulated soils, the costs
sayings'is assumed incurred from the
date of proposal of today's rule.
The standards being established in
today's rule for previously regulated soil
are the same three as those being
established for newly regulated soil (i.e.:
TC soil): (a) Universal Standards x 10,
(b) Universal Standards x 10, with 90%
Removal, and (c) 90% Removal
(comment is taken on a possible cap for
this option). The Agency did not have
facility specific data to develop a post-
regulatory scenario for these volumes.
Therefore, for the baseline and post-
regulatory alternatives, EPA used
professional judgment in interpreting
the available data to estimate
percentages of treatment for the post-
regulatory scenario. To determine these
percentages of treatment, the Agency
compared existing soil concentration
data (1991) from the CERCLA Record of
Decision (ROD) database with the
universal treatment standards, From
these data, the Agency was able to
d'etermine baseline and post-regulatory
technology percentages for the soil
volumes.
iv. Testing and recordkeeping costs. In
addition to the costs for treatment of
wastes, EP_A_estiniated_ the incremental
costs for tEe new testing and
recordkeeping requirements in today's
rule. Testing and recordkeeping costs
were developed for organic TC wastes
only, using the facility specific data
available for these wastes in the 1992
TC Survey.
The Agency employed baseline and
post-regulatory scenarios appropriate to
the testing requirements for each waste
to develop cost estimates for the testing
requirements in the rule. The Agency
made several assumptions as to how
frequent a generator would need to test
their wastes, and for how many
; constituents to test. The "Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the Land Disposal
Restrictions for the Phase 2(Newly
Listed and Identified Wastes and
Contaminated Soils," which has .been
placed in the docket for today's rule,
presents these approaches in full.
The Information Collection Request
(ICR) for today's rule, being prepared by
EPA, estimates that the recordkeeping
cost-is $41 per wastestream. For toe .
requirements in today's rule, it is
estimate'd to take one hour to develop
and submit the required notification and
one quarter of an hour'to retain copies
of the documentation and notification.
The Agency requests comment on this
estimate,
b. Economic impact methodology. The
economic effects of today's proposed '.'
rule are defined as the difference, '.-.'
between the projections :of the .likely
economic impacts on facilities that
result from regulatory compliance and
the industrial activity likely in the
absence of regulation (i.e., baseline
conditions).
The Agency has evaluated th^
economic impacts for facilities
managing organic TC wastes pn a'
facility-specific basis, limited only by
the extent that data were available. EPA
estimated the economic effects by
comparing incremental annual"
compliance costs to4 a number of
company financial measures; such as
revenues, cost of operations, operating
income, and net income. Financial data
were obtained from Standard & Poor's
Corporation Descriptions for the last
fiscal year reported. ,
Since EPA Ibelieves that no costs will
be associated with the treatment
standards for coke by-products in the
proposed rule, no economic impacts
will be associated with regulation of
these wastes. Economic impacts of
compliance for facilities currently land
disposing chlorotoluenes were
evaluated on a facility-specific basis.
c. Benefits methodology* The Agency
evaluated three types of benefits for
today's standards for newly identified
TC wastes: reduction in human health
risks via the ground-water pathway,
reduction in human health risks via the
air pathway, and positive effects on the
value of properties adjacent to waste
management facilities, EPA's analysis of
the benefits of today's rule covers TC
wastes only. These wastes dominate the
other wastestreams covered by today's
rule in terms of volume and costs.
Moreover, the Agency had better data
available for the TC wastes, in terms of
attributes such as constituent
concentrations and volumes which are
required in an analysis of benefits. The
Agency did not conduct a quantitative
benefits estimate of the universal LDR
proposal or the previously regulated soil
; ii1,!,!;i.'"i ,;:i|f!; l"!",;;!^',;!!ill'!1',dWiw ,Wf;'iiiinVM*itOf f 'Ai|,; JBiI'lijI'1 'ifK|||i!hy 1*!!: 'i.""i!,,; :;, *!ป,'ii "'f11;1"!!11''!*!!*;^^^
im
n'liHllh ::"n!"n ; '''S
'' "< i
r$'''$}$$)W*t"&&$'^
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14> 1993 /Proposed Rules 48149
-. standards. EPA believes that these
proposals could potentially greatly
reduce compliance costs, with
negligible change in protection of ,
human health and the environment.
However, the Agency requests comment
on this finding.- If commenters believe
the Agency should perform a quantified
estimate of the change in benefits of this
proposal, commenters should suggest
appropriate methods and approaches.
i. Human health risk reduction
ground water pathway. The
fundamental concept underlying EPA's
approach for assessing ground-water
risk reduction is that subtitle C
containment is completely effective in
the short-term, i.e., over a period of
about 30 years. However, the Agency
assumes that over the longer term,
. containment systems and monitoring
will fail. The benefits analysis
performed for today's rule captures this
long-term risk which could be avoided
under today's rule. EPA analyzed the
baseline risks, i.e., risks posed by TC
wastes in the absence of today's rule, as-
well as post-regulatory risks under two
options. In the baseline, TC wastes are
untreated, shipped off-site, and placed"
in subtitle C landfills. In the post-
regulatory scenario, TC wastes are
treated and placed in subtitle D
landfills. The difference in risks frpm_
the baseline to the post-regulatory
condition is a measure of the benefit of
an option.
The basic approach involves the
following steps (which are elaborated on
, in the RIA background document,
which has been placed in the docket for
today's rule):
(1) The Agency employed waste
concentration data from the 1992 TC
survey to represent waste
concentrations. . ,
(2) Where surveys reported total waste
concentrations, rather than TCLP
concentrations, the Agency used the
Organic Leaching Model (OLM) to
estimate leachate concentrations.
(3) EPA calculated the mean
concentration of each constituent at
each facility, weighted across the
volume of all TC wastes managed at that
facility. .
(4) EPA calculated the risk that would
be posed by consumption of leachate,
for both cancer and non-cancer effects,
at each facility. . , . '
(5) EPA developed a set of dilution/
attenuation factors (DAF) to represent
the effect of fate and transport processes
in a ground-water system, For each.
facility, the Agency dividecl the risk
:-, posed by the consumption of leachate
by the DAF (expressed as a probability
distribution) to yield .predicted
concentration at an exposure well.
(6) EPA then summed the 1800
predicted risks across all facilities (i.e.,
36 facility leachate risks times 50 DAFs)
to develop an estimate of the
distribution of risk at facilities managing
untreated TC wastes, The Agency
summed the risks across the distribution
to obtain a total population risk
estimate. The Agency employed
standard assumptions of a 70 kg person
drinking 2 liters of water per day over
70 years. ''."'"
(7) To simulate the,regulatory options,
the Agency reset the leachate
concentrations in Steps 2 through 4
with the universal standard
concentrations. EPA then replaced the
DAF distribution for subtitle C facilities
(from Step 5) with a DAฃ "distribution
for subtitle D facilities, because the
treated TC residues will not need to be
managed as hazardous wastes;
-if; Human health risk reductionAir
pathway. Constituents contained in TC
waste, soil, and debris may be emitted
to air through volatilization and dust
entrainment. Reducing the.
concentrations of TC constituents
through the treatment standards set in
today's rule significantly reduces the
potential for air emissions, and the risks
posed by those air emissions. The goal
of the air pathway risk analysis was to
characterize baseline (pre-LDR) risk and
the reduction in baseline risk resulting
from regulatory options. ;
In the baseline, untreated TC wastes
are placed in subtitle C landfills. In the
post-regulatory scenario, treated wastes
are placed in subtitle Cor D landfills.
In this .analysis, EPA assumed that any
air emissions due to additional '
transportation, storage.or treatment in
the post-regulatory scenario are '
negligible. ,
The Agency's basic approach involves
. the following steps (which are ,
', elaborated on in the RIA background
document, which has been placed in the
- docket for today's rule):
(1) EPA used bulk waste
concentration data from the TC survey.
to represent waste concentrations.
, (2) In cases where respondents
reported TCLP concentrations, rather
than bulk concentrations, the Organic
Leaching Model (OLM) was used to
"back-calculate" bulk concentrations.
(3) The Agency calculated the mean ..
concentration of each constituent at
each facility, weighted across the
volume of all JC wastes.managed at that
facility. * "".' "-'.;.',", '"''.,'
(4) EPA-calculated the unit area .-._.
managing TC wastes.
(5) EPA estimated annual average
emissions due to volatilization and dust
entrainmeht for each constituent at each
facility.. i;:v-.-'.'.,.-. ~ \.^ ฃ':'
(6) Using the same meteorolpgic
conditions assumed for the Corrective
Action RIA (CARIA),? atmospheric .
transport for each constituent was
evaluated. EPA then calculate
concentrations at several downwind
points corresponding to potential
exposure locations.
(7) The Agency calculated-individual
cancer risk and non-cancer risk, using
exposure assumptions from the CARIA.
(8) EPA calculated population risk for
exposed populations. "'
(9) The Agency simulated the
regulatbry.optipns. " ..
2. Results Section v, -
a. CoM results. In total,^today's
proposed ililewqti.ld have an:' . -
incremental annual .cost of $330 million.
Seventy percent of this cost would be
for the treatment of organic TC
nonwastewaters, and 18 percent and 12
percent would be for the treatment of
organic TC contaminated soil and
. debris, respectively. In a separate
analysis, EPA estimates that the
regulatory options proposed for all
previously regulated contaminated soil
could represent a potential annual
savings of approximately $250 million
to $560 million. .'-'-'.
i. Organic TC wastes and other newly
regulated wastes;..As described above,
EPA conducted a, facility-specific cost,
analysis for those facilities managing ;,
organic TCI-wasts. ^.'.; '--
Since EPAfbelieves no coke by-
product wastes will; be landfilled as a
result of the coke'by-product listing rule
(August 18,1992; at 57 FR 37284), EPA
estimates that no cost impact will be
associated with the treatment standards
for coke production wastes. The
incremental cost for chlorinated
toluenes is estimated to be less than
$0.1 million annually.
ii. Previously regulate fhazardous
soil. As described above, EPA relied on
available soil concentration data and
professional-judgment to determine the
effect of the proposed rule on previously
regulated hazardous soil. Exhibit XIV-1
presents the percentages estimated by "
EPA for the post-regulatory scenario for
the previously regulated soil. ,
-------
1111II IF II I III I ll| I
48150 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 178 / Tuesday," September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
EXHIBIT XIV-1.BREAKDOWN OF PERCENTAGES OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE PREVIOUSLY REGULATED
" 'SOILS POST-REGULATORY SCENARIO
Incineration ...
Stabilization ......
Sot} Washing ...,....,...,.....
' i' "" ' li 'V llhW'''?!!1!!!!1 'IN '" ' I"'1!' '!'
:/::Tj^j^;^,
1 , i ,'
III 1 1 1 ' * II 1 1 lf 1 Ml J II l( f
1 "" ' .
:; i!,,!; H.liiii,1 J iHiiJ'.i.iS!,!:,,; 1 'Si ?!WMrd -
9jD percent
only
0%-10%
10%
80%
10%-20%
110%
UTS only
5%-15%
10%
55%
15%-25%
95%
UTS+90
percent
5%M 5%
10%
70%
15%-25%
110%'
4~For the lits dn(y option, the total sums to 95% because 15% of the soil requires no treatment at all under this option.
Technology assignments assume a small amount of treatment trains are required.
=-Soil washing is assigned as a low cost technology where minimum treatment is required.
Both the data and the methodologies
used for the cost analysis have
limitations. The main limitations are
addressed in the background RIA
document which has been placed in the
docket fcjir today's rule. The Agency has
limited unit cost data for these
treatment technologies. The Agency
requests additional data and comment
dpi the assumptions in this analysis.
b. Economic Impact Results. For non-
commercial companies (company
cSi&tives) in the TC capacity database,
only one company would have a ratio of
Incremental compliance cost to cost of
operations greater than one-half percent.
Looking at the ratio of net income (i.e.,
after tax) to the incremental compliance
cost, five companies would have a ratio
loss than 20; four of these five
companies, however, reported a net loss
Jn the last fiscal year. Of these five
companies, only one would have a ratio
of operating Income to the incremental
compliance cost less than 20.
For the commercial companies in the
TC capacity database, only one has a
ratio of Incremental annual "cost to cost
of operations greater than five percent.
Since no costs are associated with the
treatment standards for coke by-
products, no economic impacts are
expected. Economic impacts for
facilities thaf generate chlorinated
toluene wastes are calculated based on,
the before-tax annualized incremental :
,_ costs, Theiiresuijts of the analysis,
hpJYpveC are aggregated since the data
used in the analysis are propriety. Based
on a ratio analysis of incremental cost
to total sales, none of the facilities that
generate these wastes is expected to
experience significant impacts as a
result of pig proposed rule.
'i^qjht|jงiii^atau,sj3djprii^e-iiecon_9irnic
developed have limitations. The main
'I- \;llJrfli|latJpnisiiiiare,addresseiฃji in the ; '
trtekgroun3 RIA document which has '
been placed in the docket for today's
:; "Mle, ' " ;,.; ;'; ;,":',,: :;,
i!'",;",.;,, ;.q. Benefit Estimater^-i, Results : ;;
, Groundwater Pathway. This section
presents results for the baseline risks
and two regulatory approaches. For each
case, resiilfs fpr individual cancer and
non-cancer risk are presented for both
high end and central tendency
approaches. The section concludes with
population, risk estimates for cancer
risks.
The results, presented in full in the
RIA background document which is -
included in the docket for today's rule;
show about eight percent of the
population having an individual
lifetime excess cancer risk above 1Q~*
in the high end baseline, and four '
percent between 10~6 and 10-4, and
approximately four percent above 10 -*
in the high end baseline. For the central
tendency baseline, the individual excess
lifetime cancer risk is approximately six
percent above 10 ~6, five percent
between 10-*and 10~4, and two
percent above 10--*. For both regulatory
bptipns, EPA assumed that all
constituents would be directly (option
1) or indirectly (option 2) treated to
universal standards. For the post?
regulatory cases, about five percent of;
the population has an individual
lifetime excess cancer risk level above "
Using the distribution of individual
risks, the Agency calculated baseline '
cancer population risk. EPA-used data
from the Corrective Action RIA on the
proportion of subtitle C facilities with
potentially exposed populations ' :
through ground water (23 percent),- and
the mean size of the potentially exposed
population (6,870 people per facility).
Using the facility/risk distribution of '
1800 points (lie., 36 facilities times 50
DAFs) the Agency multiplied the
individual risk for a certain "percentile of
the distnbutiot^by the number of people
represented" By each percentile (i.e.,
6,870 people per facility divided by the !
percentile represented by a single
facility. A single facility represents'100/
percent divided by 48 facilities, or 2'.08
percent per facility! Therefore, there arei ;
abojlt 3,300 people per percentile.) The
population risks were then Converted to
annual values by assuming an average
life span of 70 years. Based on these
assurriptions, EPA estimates the baseh'n^
population cancer risk to be 0.33 cases
per year for the central tendency
baseline. The post-regulatory population
cancer risk is about 0.031 cases per year
in the central tendency. In other words,
the regulatory option reduces 0.30 cases
per year in the central tendency.
An approach which would render the
same result would be to compute the
mean individual risk across the
distribution and multiply it by the total
number of people potentially exposed
across all facilities (i.e., 6,870 pebple
~per facility times 48 facilities times 23
percent with down gradient wells
equals 75:,800 people).
The analysis shows that the 99th
percentile baseline exposure level is less
than the reference dose. Because the
riskiest facility has an expected value
for non-cancer exposure that is below
the reference'dose, the Agency is : '-
assuming no significant non-cancer risk
in'the baseline. Post-regulatory non-
cancer risk is also insignificant for bpth
regulatory options:
Assumptions for the second ..',''.
regulatory option produced cancer risks '"
identical to those of the first option. For
non-cancer risks, however, the two
options produced somewhat different
results. ; '-"
ii. ResultsAir Pathway. This section *
provides results for the air pathway, for f
the baseline and post-regulatory .>
options. The Agency used two methods
to calculate potential emissions. Method
1 for limiting mass flux from ' :-
volatilization was never triggered; ~' <
Method, 2 limited emissions:for 30 of the
141 constituent/facility combinations
modeled for the baseline, which . ''-.- ,j
accounts for the difference between the
baseline'risks in the two approaches.
For both post-regulatory options, the : ' '
two methods produced virtually";; ' . ; !
identical results. '"."',' :; .; '".'"','.'''
Using Method 1, approximately 27 (75 ^
percent) of the 36 facilities modeled" : f'
have individual cancer risk exceeding "
(.!' I IP1
IK
-------
federal. Register I Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules ; 48151
10'ซ at the 140 m distance in the
baseline, 16 facilities (45 .percent) are
- between 10-.* and 1Q~4, and 11
facilities (30 percent) have individual"
cancer risk exceeding 10-'-ป at'the,140 m,
with the peak value at 2 times^ld-3. In,
the post-regulatory scenario, the
individual cancer risk is reduced so that
approximately 5 facilities (15 percent)
have individual cancer risk over lQ-fi.,
At the 600 m distance, using Method
1, approximately 18 facilities (50
percent) of the 36 facilities have
'. individual cancer risk exceeding 10 -ซ
in the baseline, 16 facilities (45 percent)
are between 10~ซ and.10-4, and about
2 facilities (5 percent) have individual
cancer risk exceeding 10-'.In the post-
regulatory scenario, the individual ;.
; cancer risk is reduced sO;that no ,; -
facilities have an indiyidual.cancer risk
- over 10~6. , '.. ,/'.; : ,
Using Method 2, approximately 27
facilities (75 percent) of the 36 facilities
modeled have individual cancer risks
exceeding 10 -ซ' at the 140 m distance in
the baseline, 22 facilities (60 percent are
between 10~
-------
,'il!
f 8152 '^^eMflf,'lฃe^ster'7'VbL 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
I ii,i,,iiiu,,! LpiIMn A ryi " INN' *ป',,' ' t, i h *. -i,, i i ป,' Mil sS'n' 'ปi!i iii i,!
biodegrade organic contaminants into
methane,-carbon dioxide, and cell
protein.
Aerobic bioslurry treatment involves
mixing contaminated material with
water to form a slurry in an enclosed
container. Nutrients and oxygen are
added to the water to provide
microorganisms with the proper
environment to facilitate
biodegradation, and the slurry is mixed
to keep the solids in suspension.
Bioslurry treatment has the advantage of
providing for careful process control,
and increased contact between !
microorganisms and contaminants in
the slurry.
Aerobic biological treatment may also
be conducted in the solid-phase. Solid-
phase treatment activities include
composting and prepared bed treatment.
Optimized conditions for solid-phase
treatment are maintained by tilling the
soil regularly for aeration and
contaminant mixing, addition of
required nutrients for microbial
metabolism, and supplemental
irrigation for moisture control. ... ,'
Anaerobic biological treatment may
be conducted in either a solid- or a
slurry-phase, using equipment similar to
that used for aerobic treatment.
Anaerobic treatment typically, requires
more time than aerobic treatment, due
to the slow growth rate of the
. methanogeiiic (methane producing)
" bacteria; Anaerobic treatment is most
effective on soils with a moderate to
high Ph, containing contaminants that .
are rionhalogenated hydrocarbons, and
soils with'low biochemical Oxygen
demand. ..''..'
2. Chemical Extraction
Extraction, technologies are used to
treat wastes containing a variety of
organic constituents and a broad range
of total organic content. This method of
treatment is accomplished using an
organic solvent in the liquid phase to
solubilize contaminants for removal and
can, be used on many solvent-soluble
contaminants. The effectiveness of this
technology depends on the solvent-
contaminant match. Two general
' extraction technologies are leaching and
immersion extraction.
In its most typical form, leaching is a
batch extraction operation in which an
organic solvent is sprayed onto soil in
a tank, causing the contaminant to leach
from the soil. The solvent, containing"
the contaminants), is collected at the
bottom of the tank after percolating
through the soil: In,the absence of, ?
agjtationi the liquid-solid extractionis a
slow and inefficient process; ' .;
Channeling of the liquid solvent :
through the Soil can result in untreated
tlnd,er thft Agency's Revised Guidelines
for Implementing the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, dated May 4, 1992, the
Agsncy committed to considering
.iTregulatory alternatives in rulemakings
when thtiro were any econoinic impacts
estimated on any small entities.
l^vriou$ guidance required regulatory
ilierrififives to be examined only when
significant Economic effects were
tort jmai#d on a subs'antjn 1 number of
gntiill entities.
In assessing the regulatory approach
for dealing with small entities in today's
rule, for both surface disposal of wastes
and underground injection control, the
Agency considered two factors. First,
j&at* on potentially affected small
ftntities are unavailable. And second,
duo to the statutory requirements of the
RCRA LDK program, rib legal avenues
ejdst fqrjlie Agency to provide relief
front the LffiVs for small entities. The
only relief available for small entities is
the existing small quantity generators
and conditionally exempt small
quantity generator exemptions found in
40 CFR 282.11-12, and 261.5,
respectively. These exemptions
basically prescribe 100 kilograms (kg)
per calendar month generation of
hazardous waste as the limit below
which one is exempted from complying
with the RCRA standards.
Given these two factors, the Agency
. . , ,, ,
entity options from which to select the
lowest cost approach; rather, the Agency
Wf ง !<*gซ% bound to regulate the land
disposal of the hazardous wastes
cbiyferj^ in today's rule without regard
to the size of the entity being regulated.
ฃ. Paperwork Reduction Apt
T!MJ information collection
^uirements in today's proposed rule
|i|y(| been submitted for approval to ,the
Office of Management ana Budget
tQMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
:. i ' ...... Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR jSlpr 144Z06)' and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer,
Information Policy Branch (PM-223Y);
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
' ', -;, 46i lyl"$C SW.J Washington; DC 20406
' 1-v?fWcallUng'(2d2)266t-2740.
Tfio annual public reporting burden
for this collection of information, is
estimated to average 2 hours per
treatment facility and 1 to 52 hours per
generator, including time for reviewing
..... " Inllrucjlons, searching "existing data
r." , .' ^ur^gr'gatherJrig'arid maintaining the
rsqufr|ia data, and completing and
reviewing ;the collection of information.
Tha annual recordkcepmg burden for
gent>rWors and treatment facilities is
estimated to be 15 rninutes per
respondent. i
Send comments" regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to
Chief, Information Policy Branch (PM-
223Y); U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; 401M St., SW.; Washington,
DC 20406; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA." The
final rule will respond to any OMB or
public comments' on the information
collection requirements contained in
this proposal.
List of Subjects .. . .,' .
40 CFR Part 148
Administrative practice and
procedure. Hazardous waste, Reportuig
and recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply
40 CFR Part 260
Administrative practice and
procedure. Hazardous waste.
40CFRPart2Sl
Hazardous waste, Recycling,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 268
Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
, procedure, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 31,1993.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Appendix A to the Preamble:
Description of Hazardous Soil
Treatment Technologies and
Performance Standards
1. Biological Treatment
Biological treatment is a destruction '
technology that uses microorganisms to
degrade and transform hazardous
organic compounds into compounds of
reduced toxicity. Bacteria, fungi, and
yeasts are the microorganisms most.
frequently employed for biodegradation
' of hazardous compounds. Under aerobic
conditions (in the presence of oxygen),
microorganisms biodegrade organic
contaminants to carbon dioxide, water,
nitrate, sulfate, and cell protein. Under
anaerobic conditions (in the absence of
oxygen), microorganisms can
'A;:"
:!"M!"i I I i .' i I
stiio-' f:?;;: i:;'" \ ซ;;< I\.~.x; ซ?: ^ <': v'^Sfc^jiikisw '! ss -i ปli;; V'
iin' i f*: ' nซ ii HI, ,,,'ซ-, \ij\n\ 11, ,r)/,'; ,;'!,>i;!, ,. T : ,,|,ปi < <,; , >''ซi, ',ป f\ij,,t', i\/ nm, 'EliinTltiiiii!;!, <',' siiii1!1111,!!*! >',[,' il f iiniiii'i''''!!^^!!!',!!,,.! ipii:' iu,ซST'i.'Biip hiii1' 'It1, i '"fiiiii:,: ill1':"!'1!!,: iii,i!,li'i''<''iiiimlilllltli, lui
", I i'1 IMIij ซl! .',1 i'Mili' "ili'lifi,!1',.!,!',: iJili:ซ''i|"!|! Mil,! iili.!,!iil'!rll;ป'i,^V,!v,,ii,l!,,lihii| -'|]lii|||i|l:l!i:iil;i ilP. *i"!i In' In, ; I 'I 'I' i'lill^i'll!!1:1!!'!!! u illllliilHiplliWIiiTilllililialiaiillliJliNiijIii JT Ililliilliiiii'iilliliiilllilliillllllliBIIIII'niill illil'liliillllll ili
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 7 Tuesday, September 14, 1993 7 Proposed Rules 48153
portions of soil in the tank, further
.lowering the efficiency. Further, the
presence of fines can stop the
percolation process while the presence
of coarse agglomerates with well-
imbedded contaminants often can only
be treated at the surface.
In immersion extraction, soil is,
suspended and thoroughly mixed in
Solvent b,aths operated at elevated or
ambient temperatures to optimize
, treatment. Secondary treatment (e.g.,
, distillation) is performed to separate the
solvent from the contaminant. After
treatment, it is sometimes possible to
reuse the solvent in the treatment
system.
' A wide variety of organic solvents are
commonly used, depending on the soil
. contaminant being treated. The choice
iof suitable solvent depends primarily on
chemical structures of the contaminant,
solubility of contaminants in the
solvent, soil type, and equilibrium
characteristics. Chemical extraction
treatment systems rely on differences
between the boiling points of the
contaminant and the solvent to facilitate
post-treatment separation (distillation).
A primary advantage of chemical
i extraction is the wide range of
applicability for treating hazardous soil.
( If the proper solvent is selected,
treatment of many soil contaminants is
: possible. Typical treatment times can
range from several hours to several days.
3. Dechlorination
Dechlorinationis a soil treatment
process whereby contaminants in the
soil are chemically reacted to form less
toxic compounds. The soil is mixed
' with a chemical reagent and agitated to
increase the contact of reagentwith the
soil contaminant. The reaction that
.takes place in the soil is a substitution
reaction, in which chlorine is removed
from the contaminant and substituted
with a less toxic element (usually
hydrogen). The contaminant arid.
residual reagents that remain in the soil
following the substitution reaction can
..be removed in a subsequent step using
an extraction process.
Another .type of dechlorination
treatment technology that is available
(although not commonly used) to
dechlorinate chlorinated organic
compounds in soil is photochemical
degradation; This type of treatment
technology uses photochemical energy
in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation,
usually artificial, to degrade
halogenated contaminants such as
polycnlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
(PCDDs), and polychlorinated
dibenzQfurahs (PCDFsjj. These
.compounds are xniite reactive in the
presence of UV radiation. The
photoreduction mechanism involves the
substitution of hydrogen for chlorine,
leading to the formation of detoxified
substances.
4. High-TemperatureMetals Recovery
High temperature metals recovery
0TTMR) is a technology applicable to
materials containing substantive '
amounts of metal oxides and metal salts
(including cadmium, chromium, lead,
nickel, and zinc compounds) at
concentrations ranging up to 70 percent
with low levels (i.e., below 5 percent) of
organics and water in the wastes. There
are a number of different types of HTMR
systems, which generally differ from
one another, in source of energy used
and the method of recovery. These
HTMR systems include the rotary kiln
process, the plasma arc reactor, the
rotary hearth electric furnace system,
the molten slag reactor, and the flame
reactor.
The basic principle of'operation for
HTMR is that metal oxides and salts are
separated from a waste through a high
temperature thermal reduction process
that uses carbon, limestone, and silica
as raw materials. The carbon acts as a
reducing agent and reacts with metal
- oxides to generate carbon dioxide and
free metal. The silica and limestone ;
serve as fluxing agents. This process .
yields a metal product for reuse and
reduces the concentration of metals in
the residuals. The HTMR process
consists of a mixing unit, a high
temperature processing unit (kiln,
furnace, etc.), a product collection
system, and a residual treatment system.
5. Soil Washing
Soil washing is used to describe a
number of te'chniques where
contaminants are either separated or
removed from soil with an aqueous
process. Soil washing has the potential
to be applicable to many different types
of contamination, including both
organic and metallic contaminants.
In soil washing, soil is mixed with
water arid the resulting solution is
augmented with a basic or surfactant .
agent that increases the solubility of the
contamiriantfs) in water. This is usually
done to remove organics. Soil washing
may be done with an acidic solution or
a chelating agent that chemically reacts
with metal ions and promotes their
solubility.
6. Solidification/Stabilization
Solidification/stabilization is used to
convert soil into a matrix that prevents
contaminants from leaching. ,-,.,: ...';
Stabilization techniques are most ';'. :
commonly used for hazardous wastes ;
with treatment standards expressed as a
concentration of constituents in ari .-'
extract of the waste. (Stabilization of
wastes (or hazardous soil) that have
treatment standards expressed solely as
specific concentrations of constituents
in the entire waste stream is not
appropriate.) .*. ;
Three types of solidification/
stabilization processes are used for
treatment of soil. The first involves
mixing the 'soil with cement, lime, fly
ash, kiln dust, silicates, or other
pozzolanic-type materials, and water;
the mixture then goes through a curing
process. The second process involves
mixing the soil with asphalt and/or
plastic. In this process, the mixture is
heated to slightly above the melting
point of the plastic or asphalt, which
causes the soil to be covered with a
polymeric or asphalt coating. The
mixture is then cooled and allowed to
cure prior to disposal. The third type of
solidification/stabilization technologies
use proprietary additives. These
processes are fixation technologies that
involve the addition of chemicals
(reagents) to the contaminated matrix
changing the form of the contaminant so
that it is no longer soluble in water.
Solidification/stabilization processes
increase the volume of treated material,
but leave no additional residuals.
To obtain a uniform stabilized ..,''.
material, the particle size of the soil
being stabilized should be kept fairly
small. Vendors of various solidification/
stabilization processes have different
size requirements, but the particular
sizes generally range in diameter from
6.35 to 100 mm. Sizing equipment, such
as ball mills or hammer mills, is
commercially available to size most soil
particles to meet the requirements for
microencapsulation processes. ;
Currently, shredding equipment may be
used to process debris-like materials
such as large stones or rocks that may
be found in the soil. .
7. Thermal Desorption
Thermal desorption systems employ
either a direct or an indirectly-fired
oven OT heating chamber to volatilize
organic contaminants. Usually soil is
placed into the system arid heated by
convection using heating fuel or an
electric heating element, or heated by * :
radiation using infrared radiation or
microwaves. For continuous operations,
screw augers or rotary kilns are used to
mix the soil while moving the
hazardous soil through the system. To
transfer heat to the soil in an-auger ;
system, a heating fluid is passed
through the center of the auger. Heat
: transferred to the soil -volatilizes the
contaminants from the soil. Treatment -
-------
II II11
I 1 I k , b
48154 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
systems have an oxygen deficient
atmosphere in order to prevent
' cbRliiimJnงn|sand soil from combusting
or exploding. Volatilized contaminants
can be separated from the gaseous
effluent by scrubbing or absorption, or
it pay tie incinerated. Thermal
:"de^qrpljon systems can be designed to
be run ,|ii either a batch or continuous
mode. " " " "
0. T^iermfflDestRiction
Ttiermql destruction includes
treatmentin an incinerator operated in
'.:, toSfd^nce witji tKe technical jpperating
requirement's of 40 'CFR "port "264 subpart
O and ^0 CFR part 265 subpart O, in
boilers or Jnduftrial, furnaces operating
' interiin.gtatu.i.orj RCRA
permit in accordance with the
nKjuIrqments of 40 CFR part 266,
subpart H, or in other RCRA permitted
thermal treatment devices, such as
pyrolysis units operating under interim
status in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 265,
subpartP.
Tnermal destruction uses heat to
cause contaminants to chemically react
to form nonhazardous chemicals.
Thermil destruction units may use
either an oxidizing or a nonoxidizing
StmSsphere. Units in which an
oxidizing atmosphere is employed cause
conj^ug|ib|e cpntaminantsto oxidize to
11 carfaon'Soxicie and" wafer. Units ffiat ,
imploy a non-oxidizing atmosphere
frequently employ a nitrogen
atmosphere in the combustion chamber.
; Jp.theseunlls^cpntaminantsarereacted
' "
ps.
Many incinerators require size-
i ;- reduction of soil orsoii agitation during
...,, . j. ซ,y,^,M_j., _ |n pJ3er to ensure that all _
of the soil being treated reaches the
operating temperature of the unit. Units
can be run under a sightly negative
'p're5s"ur5"to prevent emissions of
volatilized or Sncompletely combusted
contaminants. Thermal destruction
units rnust alsQ employ emission control
devices to prevent emissions of a variety
of combust ion products including
psrticulnto matter, oxides of sulfur and
nitrogen (SOx and NOx), and products
of incomplete combustion.
Treatmen^residualsfrpm thermal
destruction units include effluent gas,
wastewater and sludges from air
pollution scrubbers, and residual ash,
Ijvhlch coasjs|ฃofthe noncornbusUble ;
portion of soil and contaminants.
9. Vitrification
This technology uses heat to
transform wastes into a glass and
crystalline mass. The heat causes soil to
be broken down* into its mineral
components and oxides, which then do
not reform upon cooling. At the high
, temperatures associated with
vitrification, most inorganic
constituents fuse and become
chemically incorporated into the molten
mass or simply become immobilized.in
the mass without chemically changing
form. The exceptions include the more
volatile-heavy metals (e.g., Hg) which
^^y-jjgj-g^gp-jjjg molten liquid, but
may be removed with the other off-
gases. The organics are generally
pyrolyzed or oxidized and come out of
the process in the off-gases. Vitrification
can be performed in a treatment .reactor
at temperatures of up to 200QฐC. This
treatment is effective for soil containing
most RCRA hazardous constituents.
The temperatures required for
vitrification (up to 2000ฐC) can be
generated a number of ways. These
include: Joule heating by passing an
electric current through the -waste;
heating in an electric furnace; heating
by introduction of a plasma torch to the
waste reactor; and heating in an
incinerator operating in a slagging
mode. With each of these methods, the
waste stream (and additives, if
necessary) is heated until a molten
.liquid is formed. Additional wastes may
be introduced to the molten mass and
treated with the heat transferred from
the liquid. The molten glass can be
either quenched or allowed to cool more
slowly. In either case, an obsidian-like
glass is generated which can be in the .
form of a large monolith or any number
of smaller sizes down to small granules.
Off-gases from vitrification may require
further treatment.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 148HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 148
Continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 3004, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901, et soq.
2. Section 148.17 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as
(c) and (d) and by adding paragraph (b)
to read as follows:
ง 148.17 Waste specific prohibitions
Newly Listed Wastes.
* - * r:
(b) Effective [Insert date three months
from dale of publication], the wastes
specified in 40 CFR 261.24 as EPA
Hazardous waste numbers P012, D013,
D014rfWlS,l5bl6, DOIT^ tha|are ; ".'',
"foxicity Chiaracteristic toxic
halogenated pesticide wastes, and the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous waste numbers K141,
K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, K148,
K149, K150, and K151, are" prohibited
from underground injection.
PART 260HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
3. The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as follows: .
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(aj, 6921-
6927, 6930,6934, 6935, 6937,6939, and
6974.
4. In ง 260.30, the introductory text
and paragraph (b) are revised to read as
follows: * . .
ง260.30 Variances from classification as a
solid waste.
In accordance with the standards and
criteria in ง 260.31 and the procedures
in ง 260.33, the Administrator may
determine on a case-by-case basis that
the following recycled materials are not
solid wastes:,
* * * * *
(b) Materials that are reclaimed and
then reused within the original
production process in which they were
generated; and'
*****
5. In ง 260.31, paragraph (a)
introductory text, and paragraph (bj is
revised to read as follows:
ง260.31 Standards and criteria for
variances from classification as a solid
waste.
(a) The Administrator may grant
requests for a variance from classifying
as a solid waste those materials that are
accumulated speculatively without
sufficient amounts being recycled if the
applicant demonstrates that sufficient
amounts of the material will be recycled
or transferred for recycling in the
following year. If a variance is granted,
it is valid only for the following year,
but can be renewed,' on an annual basis,7
by filing a new application. The
. Administrator's decision will be based
on the following criteria:
* * ' '* * *
(b) The Administrator may grant
requests for a variance from classifying
as a solid waste those materials that are
reclaimed and then reused as feedstock
within the original production process
in vyhich the materials were generated if
the reclamation operation is an essential
part of the production process. This
determination will be based on the
following criteria; , ;; - ; ;'
|l) ttow economically viable the ''*
production process would be if it were
m\ :R
liS 5^'^SBR" iBw'1.^'
..;, lliiiii.'u..,"! "anlmlli niiiiT.',.li. Illli'''")'^!.^!!!! .1 "liim Iniilllilh.:"!:!''!!! ^ ..ill1;, Winl;:!';.
11 i,:, ,:t ,i,,. ป,"i .Iป. mi ln!i...", i., 'i;11 .m.: ,,i.'ปซ ซ, i p Li*!*!! BI 11!:.,!,,:ซ..41
:i!i iHii-n^^^
n: i: N.IUHII ;;n , |,.|i:., in J il il... i jr ,|i li.| j , [, iiNl! Wlr.;;. A , u "i .ihHQhllil v'lHIl gc.oll g.j llllllpi.'!:, llljll^ ...llllln.:1..! i g.fllillllllll^
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No, 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48155
to use virgin materials, rather than
reclaimed materials;
(2) The prevalence of the practice, on
an industry-wide basis;
(3) The extent to which the material
is handled before reclamation to .<
minimize loss; ".-
(4) The time periods between
generating the material and its
reclamation, and between reclamation
and return to the original production
process; " ; .,
(5) The location of the reclamation
operation in relation to the production
process; ,
(6) .Whether the reclaimed material is
used for the purpose for which it was
originally produced when it is returned
to the original process, and whether it
is returned to the process in
substantially its original form;
(7) Whether the person who generates
the material also reclaims it;
(8) In cases where the original process
to which the material is returned is a
secondary process, the extent to which
materials, are managed before return in
a protective manner such that there will
be little .potential for release of the
material or its hazardous constituents to
the environment (e.g., storage in tanks,
containers, and indoors such as' .
' containment buildings); and
(9) Other relevant factors.
* * * .* ' *
6. In ง 260.32, the introductory text is
revised to read as follows:
ง260.32 Variance to be classified as a
boiler.
In accordance with the standards and
criteria in ง 260.10 (definition of
"boiler"), and the procedures in
ง260.33, the Administrator may
determine on a case-by-case oasis that
certain enclosed devices using
controlled flame combustion are boilers,
even though they do not otherwise meet
the definition jdf boiler contained in
ง260.10, after considering the following
.criteria: .
*'.*. * * ' -* "
7. Seetion.26G.33 is revised to read as
follows:
ง260.33 Procedures for variances from
classification as a solid waste or to be
classified as a boiler.
The Administrator will use the
following procedures in evaluating
applications for variances from
classification as a solid waste or
applications to classify particular
enclosed, controlled flame combustion .
devices as boilers:.
(a) The applicant must apply to the ;
Administrator for the variance. The
application must address the relevant
criteria contained in ง260131 or
ง260.32.
(b) The Administrator will.evaluate
the application and issue a draft notice
tentatively granting or denying the
application. Notification of this
tentative decision will be provided by
newspaper advertisement or radio
broadcast in the locality where'the
recycler is located. The Administrator
will accept comment on the tentative
decision for 30 days, and may also hold
a public hearing upon request or at his
discretion. The Administrator will issue
a final decision after receipt of .
comments and after the hearing (if any).
6. Section 260.42 is added to read as
follows: - .- .
ง260142 Procedures f or contained-in
determinations for hazardous debris,
hazardous soil and other environmental
media.
(a) Any person may petition the
Regional Administrator to'exclude,
under ง 26J.3{f)(2) or ง 261.3(g) of this .
chapter, hazardous debris and
hazardous soil or other environmental
media, including but not limited to,
ground water, surface water, and
sediments, from regulation as hazardous
waste. (Such a petition is not necessary
for remedial actions conducted pursuant
to RCRA or CERCLA authorities
provided that a similar determination is
made by the Regional Administrator
based on information substantially
equivalent to the information listed
below including public notice and
comment requirements.) The petition
for a contained-in determination must
include information sufficient to
demonstrate that specific -constituent
concentrations in the hazardous debris,
hazardous soil, or other environmental
media to be excluded do not pose a
hazard to human health and the
environment at that site. Each petition
must be submitted to the Regional
Administrator and must include:
(1) The petitioner's name and address.
(2) An explanation, to the extent
possible, of the .circumstances by which
the affected debris, soil, or other media "
became contaminated with hazardous
wastes.
(3) Information-on waste and site
characteristics and conditions, to
include at a minimum, the type of
information listed in paragraph (c) of
thisTsection.
(4} After receiving a petition, the
Regional Administrator may request
additional information which may be
required in making a determination.
(b) The RegionarAdministrator will
make a tentative decision to grant or
deny a petition fora contained-in
determination after receipt of a
complete petitipn, and will publish a
newspaper notice of such tentative
decision, and provide the opportunity
for the petitioner and the public to
submit written comments within 30
days of the publication of the notice.
After consideration of the comments,
the Regional Administrator will issue a
final determination denying or
approving the petition. .
(c) The Regional Administrator will
consider waste- and site-specifiq
information in making such
determinations. Such information may
include, but is not limited to:
(l) Characteristics of the debris, soil,
, or other media; -.'-.- "'-.
(2) Waste constituent characteristics,
such as solubility, mobility, toxicity,
and interactive effects of constituents
present in the contaminated debris, soil,
or other media that may affect those
properties; - ' , "'
(3) All possible exposure pathways,
such as potential for direct human
contact with the contaminated medium,
and potential adverse ecological ~
impacts;'.-..'
{4) An "acceptable" risk range of 10ป
to 10-6;
(5) Surface and subsurface
characteristics such as topography,
hydraulic conductivity, permeability
and porosity of soil, aquifer thickness,
and other geologic and hydrogeologic
characteristics that may influence >
constituent mobility and migration '
potential at the surface and in the
unsaturated and saturated zones.
(6) Climatic conditions; and
(7) Other site or waste-specific
characteristics or conditions that may
affect the potential for constituents
present in the contaminated medium, to
migrate and/or pose a hazard to human
health or the environment. .':..
PART 261IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
9. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
, Authority; 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912{a), 6921,
6922, and 8938.
10. Section 261.2 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(l)(iii) to read as
.follows:
ง261.2 Definition of solid waste.
* ' * * ~ * *
(e) *-*-*
(1) * * *
(iii) Returned to the original process
from which they are generated, without"~
first-being reclaimed. The material must
be returned as a substitute for feedstock
materials. In cases where the original
process to which the material is
returned is a secondary process, the '.'
materials must be managed before
return in a protective manner (e.g.,,
-------
IF L
48156 Federa^ Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 19*33 / Proposed Rules
storago in tanks, containers, and indoors
such as containment buildings) such
fhaj there,.will_!>ง,1'ittle potential for
release b^ the'material or its hazardous
; c'p'rtslHueMs. to,the environment." '
"* * ป, * * ,I;
' .1 i1 ^, I'-J
"11. Section 261.3 is amended by
revising paragraph (fJ(2J and adding
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
ง 261.3 Definition of hazardous waste.
(2) Debris as defined in part 266 of
this chapter that the Regional
S 260,42 of this chapter is no longer
fc"",'. ; coiUfminated with hazardous waste.
(g) Sot withstanding paragraphs (a)
through (d) of this section, soil and
cither environmental media including,
but not limited to, ground water, surface
wjjter, and sediments, that is
contaminated or mixed with one or
more wastes listed in subpart D of this
part, or that exhibits a hazardous waste
' , yiaracteristjc.m subpart C of this part.
* "are'not subject to regulation under 40
CFR parts 260, 261 to 266, or 270
provided that;
(1) The Regional Administrator
determines under ง 260.42 of this
chapter that the soil or other
environmental media is no longer
contaminated with hazardous, waste;
,. and " ' " ' ! ', ', ! "" "..
(i) The soil or other environmental
rriedia does not exhibit a hazardous
waste characteristic in subpart C of this
part.
12, In ง 261.4, paragraph (aj(l3) is
added to read as follows:
i i n n ii i n n i n i i 11
ง261.4 Exclusions.
,' ..;y,w.* *. '. '; '.
(13) Environmental media, including,
but not limited to soils, ground water.
surface water, and sediments, that
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic
in subpart C of this part, or that is
contaminated or mixed with one or
more wastes listed in subpart D of this
part, or with residuals derived from the
If^itmehf7s!brage. or disposal of a waste
IF',""! ""S'JJs.led in subpart D of this part with
constituent concentrations below those
'"", " ',* that .aredotermined^bytlie Regional
Administrator to represent minimized
threats to human health and the
environment. Such determinations will
ba made in accordance with ง 260.42 of
'-',' ifiiis phapter. ' "'
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921,
and 6924.
Subpart AGeneral " -
: 14. In ง 268.1, paragraphs (c)(3)(ii).
(e){4) and (e)(5) are revised and
paragraph (c)(3)(iiil is added to read as
follows:
ง268.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
*****
;(C)* * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Do not exhibit any prohibited
characteristic of hazardous waste at the
point of injection; and
(iii) If the injected wastes are D001
High TOG subcategory wastes or D012-
D017 pesticide wastes, they have been
treated to meet the treatment standards.
of ง 268.4Q before the point of injection,
or they are disposed in an approved no-
migration injection well as
demonstrated pursuant to ง 148.20 of
this chapter.
RESTRICTIONS
1 '
13. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows;
(e) * * *
(4) De minimis losses to wastewater
treatment systems of commercial
chemical product or chemical
intermediates that are ignitable (DOG1),
corrosive (D002), or are organic
constituents that exhibit the
characteristic of toxicity (D012-D043)
and that contain underlying hazardous
constituents as defined in ง 268.2, 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
1 discharges.
(5) Land disposal prohibitions do not
apply to laboratory wastes displaying
the characteristic of ignitability (D001),
corrosivity (D002), or are organic
constituents that exhibit the
characteristic of toxicity (D012-D043),
that are commingled with other plant -
wastewaters under designated
circumstances: ignitable, corrosive, and
TC organic 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 laboratory wastes'
combined annualized average
concentration^ does not exceed one part
per million in the facility's headwork.
15. Section 268.2 is amended by
redesignating paragraph^ (i) as (j) , (e) as
(i), (h) as (e), (d) as (h), (bj as (d), (g) as
(b), (c) as (g), (a) as (c) and (i) as (k) and
by adding paragraphs (a) and (f) to read
as follows: '
ง268.2 Definitions applicable in this part
'* ..... *""' " * ' * ' * ' ' ..... .
(a) Constituents subject to regulation
means those constituents for which
treatment standards are established in
ง 268.48 at levels above the universal
treatment standards,
* . * * * * . '
(f) Hazardous soil means soil that
contains RCRA hazardous waste(s)
listed in 40 CFR part 261, subpart D, or
that exhibits one or more of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste as
defined in 40 CFR part 261, subpart C. ,
* * * * *
16. In ง 268.7, paragraphs (a)
introductory text, (a)(l)(ii), and (a)(8) are
revised, paragraph (a)(9) is removed,
paragraph (a)(10) is redesignated as
paragraph (a)(9), paragraphs (a)(10) and
(a)(li) are added, paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)
and (d) introductory text are revised,
and paragraph (e) is added to read as
follows:
ง 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeeplng.
(a) Except as specified in ง 268.32, if
a generator's waste is listed in 40 CFR
part 261, subpart D, the generator must
test his waste, or test an extract using
test method 1311, the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure,
described in "Test Methods for .
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods," EPA Publication
SW 846 as incorporated by reference in
ง 260.11, or use knowledge of the waste,
to determine if the waste is restricted
from land disposal under this part.
Except as specified in ง 268.32, if a
generator's waste exhibits one or more
of the characteristics set out at 40 CFR
part 261, subpart C, the generator must
test an extract using test method 1311,
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching -
Procedure, described in "Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods" (SW-846), 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 exhibits:
(1) The characteristic of ignitability
(D001) (and is not in the High TOG
Ignitable Liquids Subcategory or is not
treated by INON, FSUBS, or RORGS of
ง 268.42, Table 1), or the charac^rstJ"
-I||JL!''I !,' i ""'I'Hiii! v '!!' ''!' r ',!!'' Bill , 'ii'iili,, ! !"ป ,''
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176I Tuesday, September 14, 1993 /Proposed Rules 48157
, of corrosivity (D002), and is prohibited
under ง268.37; and/or
(2) The characteristic of toxicity, and
. is prohibited under ง 268.38, the
generator must determine what
underlying hazardous constituents (as
.defined in ง268.2), are reasonably
expected to be present in the D001,
D002, or TC waste.
*. .*
* * *
.
(u) The waste constituents for wastes
F001-F005, F039, wastes prohibited
pursuant to ง268.32 or RCRA section
3004(d), and for underlying hazardous ,
constituents (as defined in ง 268.2), in
D001 and D002 wastes if those wastes
are prohibited under ง268.37, and
constituents subject to treatment in TC
wastes that are 'prohibited under
ง 268,38. Also included must be the
applicable wastewater (as defined in
ง 268.2(fJ) or nohwastewater (as defined
in ง 268.2{d)) form and the applicable
subcategories made within a waste code
based on wasterspecific criteria (such as
D003 reactive cyanides). . . ' .
* * .* * ''*., '".
(8) Jf a generator is managing a lab
pack that contains prohibited wastes,
and; does not include any wastes louhd
at ง 268.42(c)(2), and wishes to use the
alternative treatment standard under
ง 268.42, with each shipment of waste
the generator must submit a notice to
the treatment facility in accordance with
paragraph
-------
I I I < II
481158 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993* / Proposed Rules
underlying hazardous constituents in
jDOTlj'DOOZjTC wastes, or characteristic _
hazardous soil (if applicable).
Disposal
lC In Subpart C, ง 268,38 is added to
read as follows:
"Wasto "specific pronlSWons^'1
newly llstod and Identified wastes.
(a) Effective (insert date 90 days from
date of publication], the following
"wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.24,
Table 1 as EPA Hazardous Waste
numbers D012, D013, D014, D015,
D016, D017, D018, and 13019, D020,
D021, D022, D023, D024, D025, D026,
DQ27, D028S D029, 0030. DOil, D032,
'" ..... -
D039. 0040,0041,0042, D043
'"nonwa^tgvjiatersj and the wastes
" gpwjpe;jj~'4'0lc^1gl26|;32llllSEPA
Hazardous Waste numbers K141, K142,
K143. K144. K145, K147, K148, K149.
K150, and K151 are prohibited from
land disposal.
(b) Effective [insert date two years
from date of publication], radioactive
wastes that,are mixed wjth,Dplii8J-D043
nbnwasiewatersjDOlOxjl7v^stes ffiat,
pa'ss the EP toxicity test but fail th'e
TCLP test, K141-K145, and K147-K151
are prohibited from land disposal.
(c) Between linsert date of
publication) and [insert date two years
from date of publication), the wastes
Included in paragraph (c) of this section
may be disposed of in a landfill or
sitirfacoimpoundment, only if such unit
Is fn compliance with the requirements
specified in ง 268.5(h)(2).
(d\ The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b), and (c) of this section do not
apply if:
fl) The wastes meet the applicable
Standards specified in subpart D of this
(2) Persons have been granted an
e^epption from a prohibition pursuant
16 a petition under ง 268.6, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by the
"' petition; '""
(3) The wastes meet the applicable
alternate standards established pursuant
to a petition granted under ง 268.44;
(4) Persons have been granted an
extension to the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to ง 268.5, with
respect lo these wastes covered by the
- - extension.
1 (e) To determine whether a hazardpus
waste identified in this section exceeds
the applicable treatment standards
specified in ง268.40, the initial
generator must test a representative
sample of the waste extract or the entire
waste, depending on whether the
treatment standards are expressed as
concentrations !n the waste extract or
the waste, or the generator may use
knpwlgdge of the waste. If the waste
contains constituents in excess of the
applicable subpart D of this part levels,
the waste is prohibited from land
disposal, and all requirements of 40 CFR
part 268 are applicable, except as
otherwise specified.
1*9. Section 268.39 is added to read as
follows:
ง 268.39 Waste specific prohibitions-
Hazardous soil, and debris contaminated
with certain newly listed wastes.
(a) Effective [insert date two years
from date of publication), soils that are
contaminated with F037, F038, K107-
K112, K117, K118, K123-K126, K131,
K132, K136. U328, U353. U359, D018-
D043, K141-145 and K147-151 wastes,
soils that are contaminated with D012-
,D017 that pass the EP toxicity test but
fail the TCLP test are prohibited from
land disposal. , ,
(b) Effective [insert date two years
from date of publication), debris that are
contaminated with D018-D043, K141-
K145, or K147-K151 wastes, and debris
that are contaminated with D012-D017
wastes that pass the EP toxicity test but
fail the TCLP test are prohibited from
land disposal.
^(c) Between [insert date of
publication] and [insert date two years-
from date of publication), the wastes
included in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section may be disposed of in a
landfill or surface impoundment only if
such unit is in compliance with the
requirements specified in ง 268.5(h)(2).
(d) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section do not apply if:
(1) The wastes meet the applicable
standards specified in subpart D of this
part; , .
(2) Persons have been granted an
exempllon from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under ง 268.6, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by the
petition;
(3) The wastes meet the applicable
alternate standards established pursuant
to a petition granted under ง 268.44;
. (4) Persons have been granted an ,
extension to the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to ง 268.5, with
respect to those wastes covered by the
extension.
(e) To determine whether a hazardous
waste identified in this section exceeds
the applicable treatment standards
specified in งง 268.40 and 268.48, the
initial generator must test a
representative sample of the waste
extract or the entire waste, depending
on whether the treatment standards are
expressed as concentrations in the waste
extract or the waste, or the generator
may use knowledge of the waste. If the
waste contains constituents in excess of
the applicable subpart D of this part
levels, the waste is prohibited from land
disposal, and all requirements of 40 CFR
part 268 are applicable, except as . ..
otherwise specified.
Subpart DTreatment Standards
20. Section 268.40 is revised to read
as follows:
ง 268.40 Applicability of treatment
standards.
(a) A waste identified in the Table
Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Wastes in this section may be land
disposed only if it meets the ' '
requirements found in the table. For '
each waste, the table identifies one of
three types of requirements ("treatment
standards"):
(1) All hazardous constituents in the
waste or,in the treatment residue must
' be at or below the values found in the
table for that waste ("total waste
standards"); or
(2) The hazardous constituents in the
extract of the waste or in the extract of
the treatment residue must be at or
below the values found in the table
("waste extract standards"); or
(3) The waste must be treated using
the technology specified in the table
("technology standard!').
(b) For waste covered by the total
waste standards and waste extract
standards, compliance is based upon
grab samples, unless otherwise noted in
the table. For wastes covered by the
waste extract standards, the test Method
1311, the Toxicity Characteristic ;
Leaching Procedure, must be used. An
exception is made for D004, D008,
K031, K084, K101, K102, P010, P011,
P012, P036, PQ38, and U136, for which
either of two test methods may be used:
Method 1311, or Method 1310, the
Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test, both
found in "Test Methods for Evaluating
Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods", EPA Publication SW 846 as
incorporated'by reference in ง260.11 of
this chapter. For wastes covered by a
technology standard, the wastes may be
land disposed after it is treated using
that specified technology or an
equivalent treatment technology
approved by the Administrator under
the procedures set forth in ง 268.42(b).
(c) When wastes with differing
treatment standards for a constituent of
concern are combined for purposes of
treatment, the treatment residue must
meet the lowest treatment standard for
the constituent of concern.
i n i pi nil
-------
Federal Register i Vol. 58, No. 176 7 Tuesday. September 1^4; 19937 Proposed Rules 48159
(d) Notwithstanding the prohibitions
specified in paragraph (a) of this
.-section, treatment and disposal facilities
may demonstrate (and certify.pursuant
.to ง 268.7(b)(5}) compliance with the :
.treStment standards for prganic :'
constituents specified by a footnote in
the Table Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Wastes in this section,
provided the following conditions are
satisfied:
(1) The treatment standards for the
organic constituents were established
'based on incineration' in units operated
in accordance with the technical
requirements of 40 CFR part 264,
subpart P, or 40 CFR part 265, sufapart
Q, or based on combustion in fuel
.substitution units operating in
accordance with applicable technical
requirements;
(2) The treatment or disposal facility
has used the methods, referenced in
paragraph (c)(l) of this section to treat
the organic constituents; and
(3) The treatment or disposal facility*
has beep unable to de;tect the organic
constituents despite using its best good-
faijth efforts as Defined by applicable
Agency guidance of standards. Until
such guidance or standards are
developed, the treatment or disposal
facility may demonstrate such good-
faith efforts by achieving detection !
limits for the regulated organic
constituents that do not exceed the
treatment standards specified in this
section by an order of magnitude.
(e) If a treatment standard has been
established in the Table Treatment
Standards for Hazardous Wastes for a
hazardous waste that is itself hazardous
;debris, the waste is subject to those
standards rather than the standards for
hazardous debris under ง268.45.
(f) Hazardous soil may be land .
disposed in a subtitle C unit only if all
constituents subject to treatment in the
hazardous soil are equal to or less than
applicable total (fof organics) or
leachate (for metals) concentrations
found in ง 268.47.
(g) Soils that are hazardous solely
because they exhibit the characteristics
of ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity,
must be treated by deactivation , '
technologies which eliminate these
characteristics. If other constituents
subject to treatment are also presentj
they must be treated to achieve the
technology-based treatment standards ;
found in ง268,48.
-------
l( , " -. . fc . ,, .
48160 " Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
ฃ
i S TO jg .
ป_-6,-$g2 j_
of? = งo o
ggffigz S
<
.
<
2
<
2
3
B
oc
w
"E
aj
kg
O
1
.8 8 . s
-*T <
E
CO
S
o
S
a
o z
S 8"S
Q q: o
S
II
CO
-------
Federal Register /- Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14; 1993 7 Proposed Rules 48161
p.
o
*
'!
ซ
i
i
: : :
i i
: f
1 -' i .
1 - =L. '
: ?t t
I of 3 or
:..:*- oc x - 10 a
i :
i - :
: i"
\ \
1 - .-S '' .-o
: Sซ 2 <
: .022, o?
j . :
1
i
; o < < o <
', r-z.-z. 10 z
' - i ". ' - :"
:~ .:
"' I "' ' S
0> 0> eo
* . -L JL -1 .
co co. S-
li< -<
\ -' - '
,
' : - =
'-' 1
EH" |
~ - - ง
. ' E E : ฃ
[
j
I
i a
-,'*>
. 1
' c
-
7439-92-1 .
:
n
1 ' " - . . '-
t
Q g
i2 c
-1 ' S
, '
. ' - - '
.
< . <
2 . "2
s '.'.; :-'': i
' =
1
v- ' : Y-
5 , 2
,*"-.- . --.;S
-i ' ' '
'.' -I
"I
' 1
1
n J,
- , "
>
i ' ' - t
1 i "- -- - ' ' " - 5
: . '" , .;- . . ".. ''a
i ' ..
-. ' . ' ;\."- ' '
.-' . . '; .": " '-;I
, '." . ' ." ;I
-'
- . ,
.'-<
- ".-.- / '-, '2
.-."' -'-
. ,
i
: '
!
ป a
J CV
: . a
'
' |
a
;
g
0
''3
' S
-. E
a
1
-
;
<
z
ti
' 1
. S
>| a
2 LJ
!* : 1
^ .
: ''*
-'.2
'"i
.-. --. ;1
' . ...-
i. .. -
! . -
i: ..:-[
^' 2
. -
3.
v N-
: f-
!
" '- 1
'I
-' ' '- &
'j
?
'<
I
,. \
: 1
-': a
.'!
cc
:
; ' .
:
;
!
-
-------
I J
48162 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
ini iiqiL ",i^dppipKi jpppgpip,'' ilium i1!,i HI; pHiiplPi'iii'' i 'Bit,, f; spill i; i iiliUljiw^ iiiipiillii^ pun1 w1' IIP ' iป i I'lpi'iiii'iimpi iv,
"Sra
22 2
ฃ? ฐ
2
2
2
ง!
ฃฃ
1 1
ฃ ฃ
mx
i
i
CD:
-
C3Z
eoooj
oo
A
If,.
lit
13
. <09.ซ0>0><0>
1ซ IB-
Is p<
ฃ ^ t x .
T2a>^.T3eo .
tปl
; o
3
!{O ,
S2
Q) W
ES2
^|is^ซ^^^f &
Jtffl
;"
ซ7> CJ o *0* *0
"2
ra
ซ
zz
CD
ZZ
o o
00
.
cp CD
3 ฃZ)
OO
mm
cam
croc
yy ซ
mm OO
zz
is
So
11
OO
zz
o o
CD CD
aa
OO
mm
CD. CD
Q Q
Q .Q .
cnzmz
Q"Qง
JS-JS-
o >-o s-
X ฐ
o
X
o
zz
00
ZZ'
o o
DO
XX
OO
XX
OO
I
Si
in i
OO
งง
CD
2
O
CD
4
<3>
? -fe
II
aiiu
>
i'o1 5
a o
, ,;' . :" 5',
. ! ,;' ,'':!!, ' ;
11 ;. ",f\ .-;',: , .i-,;;;*/;; :,;;!ซ;*I;;^
' ,.:':,ฃ"'" i ' - ;,.'-:;^;if.;iซ;:t'SiWfrsi'^^.Stf! sffi i;i! I'st^BffflS^^I^ !
-------
0023
"" D024
j>*
0025
, D026
if
4 D027
0028
0029
0030
7 0031
0031
c
4 0032
I 0033
0034
, 0036
,003*7
=0033
J
. D039
t
rD040
Managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-Class 1 SDWA
systems.
Managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalentfnon-Glass I SDWA
systems, '..'.
Managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-Class 1 SDWA
systems.
Managed jn non-OWA/non-OWA
equivalent/nen-Glass 1 SDWA
systems.
Managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-Class 1 SDWA
systems.
Managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-Class ,. 1 SDWA
.systems; .,-... .
Managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-Class 1 SDWA
systems; '
Managed \ft non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-G!ass : f .SDWA
systems.
Managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/hoh-Class 1 SDWA
systems.:
Managed in 'nbn-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-Class 1 SDWA
systems. ; .
Managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-Class i SDWA
systems.,
Managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-Class I SDWA
systems, -:.'.;
Managed in. non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-Class 1 SDWA
systems.
Managed in noivGWA/norv-CWA
equivaj&ntmon-Class 1 SDWA
systems,
Managed in nohซฃWA/nOT*eWA
eqyivalent/non-eiass i -gDWA
systems.
Managed. - in fibn-eWA7n6fi-<6WA
equivaiefit/noiveiass I SDWA
Managed,; in WrpeWA/ncrMSWA
equivalenVnon*Class I gDWA
systems.
Managed in non-OWA/non-CWA
equivatent/fi6nซeiaS9 | SDWA
systems. . ; :
Managed in non-CWA/non-CWA
equivalent/non-Ciass 1 8DWA
systems'. '
A o^Oresdl HUU.....^. Ul i
rA ". : ..: . , --'... " "
A m-SresQl * ..,.ซ.ซ,.,.*, '
A ,:"-. ' ' -..; | - _ -
A >Cresol .. ...,...,..., .
A . '-'-.:'
A Gresol ซ!...,.,........,...,..,, .,
A: '} -:.,- ::'" '""""
A 1 s4*Diohi&fGbSR2^f1@ ....;.... ' i
*.- .-....... .
4 i,2-Di6hi@reethane ......>..,
4 . ' .. , . " ,
* I,i-Dicnier8etriyl0iie
V .-,-..'..,. '. . >'
\ M'BIrtitrot&Iugfie
1 - . '- ; ' ."'"
' ' , '.'*-.-" ' ' _ ' _
\' Hepaehfof ,.,....,...,.... ....". . ,
\.-; :'..;;- ' ,-.-'""
i Heptaehter epoxide ,..,
k ,: .--''. "
Hsxaehterebgrizena .....
1 ' ' - ... . - ,. .
^exa6hlsf$ปi ,3^butadisflง ป..
, . '.. , " ' ;
Hexaehtefesthane ....'..ซ..ป..........
Methyl ethyl ketona ,... ...,
Nitrobenzene ป>>)''ซซปซปปซ.ป-,ซ.,-ป,'
Pentaohlorophenol .,ซซ.,.ซ.,
TetrachioreethylgnB .,;,.
Tricfiloroethylene .....,;,.,.. ..'..
iSS-44-5 .'.>..;..'..
NA ,..,.,
106-41-7'. .,
1.07-06-2
71=48-4 ..,,........
. ". ;' ..-^
76=44=8 ;
118-74-1 .,..'
^ ._.
110=86-1
12'7-1'M ............
* . .
?Ml-6 ..........I..
011
8,77 ซซ,. . m -, -ป .
0.77 .....................
077
0.21 ...,...:
0.02S ..........;.,;.....
0.316
0.655 ,..;.,.,.....
0.055 ซ.....
0,28 ....ซ.,.-".;.
0.068 ..
0,89.....
aoi4 ,...,:....,......,.
0.556 ,....i,li,,.ซl...
0.054".,.
grab ซ,,'..ปซ...
Grab ;..... .
Grab
Grab ;';.;.
firah
gfSk '
' - J . '''. . :
drab ....l..ntl!l.tiisi.
Grab i-i
ฉrงb ....;.
Qrafe ;...
(3rab ^i...i.,..,....,.:.
Srab .,.,......., , .,.,
5.6 (and meet
ง268.48 stand-
ards).
3.2 (and meet
ง 268.48 stand'"
ards).
3.2 (and meet
ง268.48 stand-
ards).
8,8 (ana meet
ง268.48 stand-
ards).
.6.0 (arid ffleet
. ง268.48 stand-
ards).
6.0 (arid ffleel "
ง288.48 stand-,
ards).
6.0 (and meet
ง268.48 stand-
ards).
140 (and meet
ง268.48 stand-
. ards).
0.066 (and meet
ง268.48 stand-
ards). ,
0.066 (and meet
ง268';48 stand-
ards).
10 (and meet /
ง268.48 stand-
ards),
5,6 (and meet
ง268,48 stand-
ards),
38 (and;meet
. ง268.48 stand-
ards).
36 (and meet
ง268.48 stand-
ards).
14 (and meet
ง2i8.48 stand-
ards).
7,4(anam&@t
ง268.48 stand-.
16 (ana meet
ง268.48 stand-
ards),,
6.0 (arid me.et
ง268.48 stand-
ards).
6,0 (and meet
ง268.48 stand-
ards).
Total (rflfl/ka).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Tetai (fflง/kg).
Tetai (mง/kg).
Tetai (mgvkg).
Total (mg/kg).
Totai,(mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total, {rug/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Tetai (rng/kg).
total (mg/kgj.
Total (mg/kg).
TotaJ; (mg/kg). :
-------
[[[ I ,: .................. : ............... : ............... p ....... , ............................ | .............. n ............. ' ..... ................................... i ......................... ............. ' ..... i; ..................... MI, ......... ],:i, ,: ......................... ............... ;, ,ip,,, ...... h; .................................... : ....... * .............. :,
.................... ' ..... ; [[[ I,; ........................................ ;; ..... . ......................... :J; ....... ; ,4, ;,': ......................... pi!,,, ,: nlK , j, , ........ ,p .................. " ............ ;:T ........ Jti, " ..... , "j; , ,1)111 i,, . i, , ,,!"', HI!I > ; , I, HH|ni '"'l ,i',' i'1 ....... ",n j
'" . ' , ",,:_ '!T ' ,i, ' ' !!"! ......... !, ' , ''!!':' p!'!,; , .1! ......... "liliEt" ' ' ..... . "' ..... 'il;!! ..... ,;::<ซ I, 'ii'"! ..... . IO CO IO O
-------
> -.
-F007
F010
F011
Fdl2
F019 : ,
- - ; ' ; .1-
F020-V
F023,
and ".
F026-'
F028
"ป V" .'' -
;";''' .-'- ;.. '". '.;
s" . . ....
1 ' ' " ' .' "'-...,
' ' - ,. .'
" : .' ' " -' ' " ' - '- :. .V
Bioxin containing wastes (these
.waste codes are not
subeategorized into wastewater
and nonwastewaters).
Niekel.,,,^....,.;.........,.! ....,.,.
oaomium ............. ,.*>,(,;.,.;<.,...ซ.,.
Chromium (Total) ....,.ซ*,.,.,.,.,.,.
Cyanides (Total) "",..,;...,..-,...,.,*,
Cyanides (Amenable) ซ.....,
Wick6r"!ri2ปni^!]"i!!^!l!!"!r"
Silver >ซซ.,..,.,.,'...-;,,ซ.ซ.
Chromium (Total) ซ.,,ซ,,..,,.,,
Chromium .,ซ..,,,...-;,!,;,,
Cyanides fTotal) ...ซUu.,kซซN.ซซ:,ซซ
Cyanides (Amenable) ปซ.ป<ฃป,.-:,ซ
lead ป.ป.,,,ป,,,ซ.ซ,.-,,;.-,
f*a^miii*ri -' -
Chromium (Total) >.ซ,,.ปปป>:,ป.-.-,,
Cyanides (Total) .'..;ปปซ,ป.ปซป!!ซซซ
Cyanides (Amenable) .ซปป,ซ,ป
Lead '.>.li.ini;niป..>.nป!..-Mซunป.ซ,.ซ..ป.ป.ปซซซ,ปซป,
CwsmfumjTofal) a,,,,,.,,,.,,.,,,,,,,.,,,
Syanides (Amenable) ,;.,,
NiCkel ปป.ซป..ซ,..ป..,,m.,,...j.,n,,
งi(V8r ..,;.,..ซซ,.
shromium (Total) ,,.. .ป.ปซปซป.ซ.,
Cyanides (Total) ,;..ป.,,..,..,
Cyanides (Amenable) ,..'.,,.,,,
GhfemiurBjTsial) ป,ป> .,..,....,,.,^,,.,,4,
j/anidss (tetal) ..,ป.ป.,..,.,ป,..,
iyanides (Amenaoie) ซ,ปซ.ป,;.ป<ซ....
HxCBp-*AI( Hexachlorfldibenzo^
disxirts, . . .//.- ' , ;.-. . ; ; .-
HxeBFAll : Hdxaehiorddibengo'
furanl V
PeGD& All PentashlorddibenzcHp*
dioxins. . -
PeCDF All Pentaeill@f6diben2o-.
furans.
.dioxins,' ;
GDF All , Tefrachlorodibenzo-
furans. . ; : '
7440-02^0 .....^
,7446-43-4 .,-...,
7440-47-4
57a*i2'^5
7439-ง2'-1 ..,,,.
7440-62^0 ........
7446*22-4 ...,.,
744M7-4 ,....
744o-47*S ....,..
74l9-ง2-1. .
7440^2-4. l"^'."
7440-47-3 ,
7440-47-4 ;
57~1 g*5
l744&-Og-o"Z."
67-12-5 i.ซiiiimซ
7440-43-9 ป,.,..,ป
7440-47-3 ,...
Sf-12-^5 ,.ซ..<...
74ง9-92-1 ป.,
7440-62-0 ,<
744Wg-4
744(3-47-^ ..,.,,
5/-12-S ..,,..
743S-S2-1 ซปซป.
7440-62-6 ...*
4iJQ"'*!3^ '& ' '
?A A Qim ^yujs
||:j2-|
>IA
NA ....,...,.,;..,...;
NA .....ป..,..,..
NA ,.!.,.
0^4' . ""
NA .,...:.....;
NA ., ...,
0,32. s.
1.2 ซ.;..,- ... ;
0.86 <(... ... ,
o;o4 ,,....:; ,.
0.44 ,,...,....;..v., .
NA ..,..,,.....,...;,
NA .ป,....... '....
NA i..................;,.
1.2 .,.,...,.,,,,,....
0.8& -
0,04 ,...,....,
0.44 .,.,.,..,ซ.
NA ซ.,..ป.,.,....,.
NA .,.,.,.,
0 8ง
0.04 ,..,.,,,
0.44 ;,.,,ซซ;..
NA.... .;
0.8& ,,.,,,.ป..,ซปป
1,2 ,..,,ป,.ซ
NA ...,,
)M ,, tnmtm't
)ซซ
1,ง ,..ป,..ซ.,ซ'
<1 &fi& iVmiuunnm
' .(,'"'
..,.ป,
NA:ซ.'...ป.ปซ.,nปซป
gf'T
dfab .ปซ..,ป..,,.ป
GfaB , ,, , ,
Grab !-.,,(- ,-- s.'s
GfStS ,
Grab
n w \
0.072
0,066 ^....
590 '
3d
0,ง1 '
;0.32 .......
0.072 .....;
0.066
5.2 v ,
NA ,...
5^0,.,... ,...,
Ort
0<51 ^,^,,..,...,.,,,
0.32 .,..;,.
0,072 .,..,..,.,.,
52 ---,. - ' V
NA iiitiiiiiiiitiiiHiiii
cfift
30
^ r^c. " **ซซซ-*ซ"
0.072 -.....,,.....
MA
n flRR
.110, .,,ซ,,,,,,
9,1 ,.,>.
0.51 ,,,,,,.,,,
0,066 ,,-;.,,
9,1 ,!,...,,
0,5t ,,,ซป'ป),,-
tfowi.,^^.,^,
590 4,, -..ซ.ป.ปป>ป
38 */".""" '""'"
. . :
.; : -.
_
rGlsP (ppb/s .
* '. . "
TGLP (ppb),
TGLP (ppb),
TBLPfppB),
TCLP(ppb^ ':
->"
OJ :;
e. .-..
li
-
en
-------
TREATMENT STOO/WIWHJ^^ s
5 (
!;
iii-
HI
#
I :
: r; Waste
code
i- .; .:ฃ" ^.t.
; -"-' * F024
: : i, ;*' F024
i'l1! ' , ffilliii1 ''IFiiiJIi'iiiitf'^^];;'1*!; IHiffi * .'i: Hi!!1!1 C ' ' "li ', ,;;
(Bisii: y&awun RIIM ! iii a-vJiii aiijiti11; ,m"A:. 'maw ปซ 'ii' isiM iiซ:ป!ซ > <ซlfe' iir ' i -.,-M i> ' t.w :, ; ป ."; )/ ,
'':;ป -M iJicaiaiiiiii f! jiithjii-ii'i-iiii vfiB!*xi6 & 'Mswati;,] - ifta"'! 1!"; iifi! ,:'Lw; .s >?' iWiB. y ; '(.A1'1
1 .' , ".:'.! '::,-.'' !,' ';' " . , T< ' ' g
fi
U *
Waste description and/or treatment
nubcategocy
Spent filters/aids and desiccants
subcategory.
:.r,' ,-:,:; -_.
Rซaotet6d hazardous conabtuont
Common name
2.4 .5-TfJcniof ophenoi
2 4 6-TricWoropheno)
2.3/4,6-Telrachtoropheno)
Pentachtoropnenol .....
AM F024 organic standards .............
1 1-rHrhlomfitharwi
1 ,2-Dtehloroethane ..
1 ,2-DkJhloroprQpane
cls-1 ,3-DtehIoropropene .........
trsns-1 3 Dichloropropene
Hexachloroethane
Lead ...
Nickel
1 2-Dichloroethane ;
1 1-Dichloro8thyl6n0 . ซ .
Carbon tetrachloridte
Trtehloroethylene
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachlorido
1 1 9-Trirhlnroethane
Hexachlproethane
Acenaphthene
Benzene
DM>butyl phthalate ซ..
WanhthalenA
Phenol
CAS No,
95-95-4 .
88-06-2 ..............
58-90-2 ....
NA ป.."ZIZ!
126^99-8 .... .
107-05-1
75-34-3
107-06-2
78-87-5 ......
10061-01-5
10061-02-6
117-81-7 ............
67-72-1 ....:...
7440-47-32
7439-92-1
7440-02-0 ..........
67-66-3
107-06-2
75-35-4 ......
75-9-2
56-23-5
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-01-4 ......
67-66-3 .
75-9-2
56-23-5
79-00-5 ..............
79-01-6
75-01-4
118-74-1
87-68-3 :
67-72-1 ......
83-32-9
120-12-7
71-43-2 ........
56-55-3
50-32-8
117-81-7 .....
218-01-9 ......
84-74-2
100-41-4 ............
86-73-7
91-20-3 .......-:
85-01-8 ......
108-95-2 .... ..
129-00-0
108-88-3
1330-20-7 ...
Wastewatws ~. ;
Concentration
(mgfl) w tech-
nology code
<0.05 ppm ..
<0.05 ppm ...........
<0.05 pprn ...,....
<0.01 ppm ......
INCIN .,
058 ... .
0.28 ...
0014 ...................
0.014 ...
0.014
0,014
0.014
0.036
0.036
0.35
NA .....
0.47 ,
0.046 .........
0.21 ,.
0.025 .....
0.089
0.057
0.054
0.054
0.27 i
0.046 ...
0 089
0.057
0.054 .. ....
0.054
0.27 :.
0.055
0:055 ...................
0.055 i
0.059 .....
0.059
0.14
0.059
0.061
0.28
0.059
0.057 .....
0.057
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.039
0.067
0.08 ......
0.32 .....
Sampling basis
Grab ^
Grab
Grab .,....,.
Grab ... .......
NA .... ........
Grab
Grab
Grab ....................
Grab J ,..
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab ,......
NA
Grab
Composite
Composite ...........
Composite ......
Composite ....
Composite ...
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite ...:....:...
Composite .....
Composite:... ...
Composite
Composite
Composite ...ป
Composite
Composite
Composite ...
Composite'
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite ...........
Composite
Composite
Composite .s.........
Composite ............
Composite ...........
Composite
Composite- ...........
Composite
Composite .*........
Noowastewaters
Concentration or
technology code
<0.05
<0.05 ...-ป..
<0.05 ... ,.
<0,01 -..
INCIN .
0^8 ..., ..
0 28 ........ .
0.014 ,.,.,.,..
0.014
0.014 A.
0.014
0.014 ....
1.8
1.8
0.073
0.021 ;
0.088 ...,...
6.2
6.2 ..., .....
6.2 ....
31
6.2
6.2
5.6
33
6;2 :
31
6.2 .....
6.2
5.6
33
37 ....
28 J...
30 ,
NA
28 ... .......
14
20 ........
12
7.3
15 ..
3.6
14 .
NA . ......
42
34
3.6
36
14 .....
22
.' ฅ - * '
Sampling basts
and units
TCLP (ppm).
TCLP (ppm).
TCLP (ppm).
TCLP (ppm).
NA.
Total (mg/Vg).
Total (mg/kg).
Totel (mg/kg). -
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP (mg/l).
Total (mg/kg). .
Total (mg/kg).
-Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg)^
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA;
Total (rng/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Totel (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). -
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). ,
CO
>*
o
o
Or
O
3
I
I
01
OS
O5-
CO
CB
T3
cr
CD"
1-1
CO
CO
en
CD
o.
-------
F038
"" '". \ -'''-
. * "
- " . " -V ."
;. r .,,-.-_" h
-': , , .-..-.. n . .
'"" '",:' '' ' -..".--
-' -\ -:\\: -._,': :-. ; -v
:-:-/"\:^:'"j: r ;>!:;. ; .:
-T^.,-:'-i --V ;.0 -MX '-. ,;.
Cyanides (Total) ...:..........................
.Chromium (Total) ,... .
Lead , , ,
Nickel
Benzene ....' ' .
Berizo(a) pyrene ,. .
Bis(2-ethy1hexyl) phthalate .............
ChrysSne ,. ..
Di-n-butyl phthalate ',.
Ethylbenzene ..,: .......i .... -
Naphthalene ..,..:.............
Phehanthrene * :
Phenol i............
Pyrene... ,
Toluene :.
Xylene(s)
Cyanides (Total) ; .,;
Chromium (Total) .-..;
Lead ........................!........
Nickeh..,.....;.......
Acetone ..;;......'........;.
Acenaphthalene .............:
Acenaphthene .......',............
Acetonitrrle v......v;..........L.....~:.........
Acetophenorie ...:,.
Q AXAfwr .,-"
aminofluorene ;. ..;.......;
Acrolein ...". ..,..
Acrylonitrile .........t......
Aldrin ....:.,.;;.......................;...... '
4-Aminobiphenyl ,.......;
Aniline ....... ........;..,
Anthracene ..........; ;
Aroclor 1016 ...,!;....,......l.. .. .
Aroclor 1221 .......'.....-. ,....
Aroclor 1232
Aroolor 1242 ......;....^ ;..;.;...
Aroclbr 1248 .\.....ป..............',f..... ..
Aroclor 1254 .I....'.... ...r
Aroclor 1260 ......;;....... ..........;,.
alpha-BHC .:. '..,
beta-BHC i. .. ,
delta-BHC ;....;.;....:............. .
gamma-BHC .... ;........
Benzene ;..;...:.; ....'..,.
Benz(a) anthracene -.
Benzo(b) fluoranthene
Benzo(k) fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i) perylene
Benzo(a) pyrene ....,..:..........
Bromodi chloromethane .... .
Bromoform ,
Bromometbane (methylbrbmide) .;..-."
4-BrornoprtenyJ;phenyl ether ...........
n-Butyr alcohol .:.:..................
3utylbenzyl phthalate .-.
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
57-12-5 ...
744CM7-3 '
7439-92-1
, 7440-02-0 ,.......
71-43-2
50-32-8 .....I
117-81-7..
218-01-9
84-74-2 ...,;.........
100-41-4
86-73-7
91-20-3
85-01-8 '
108^95-2
129-00-0 ...........
108-88-3
1330-20-7 ...'. ;
57-12-5:...
7440^47-3
7439-92-1
7440-02-0 ..........
67-64-1 ." :......
208-96-8 .....::....;
83r-32-9 .....'....
75-05-8
96-86-2
53-96-3
107-02-8
107-13-1
309-00-2
192-67-1
62-53-3 ,;,;..
120-12-7 ............
140-57-8 i..
12674-11-2
11104-28-2 ...
211141-16-5 ......
53469-21-9
12672-29-6 .;....:..
11097-69-1
11096-82-5 ........
319-^84-6 ............
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9 -...i..........
71-43-2 .............
56-55-3
205-99-2
207-08-^9 ...:...
191-24-2 ............'
50-32-8...
75-27-4 .......:..;.
75-25-2 :.!..;,
10.1-55-3
171-36-3 .... .,
0.028
.0.2'.,.;
0.037 ;....
NA '.....................
0.14
.0.061
0.28
0:059
0.057,....
.0.057
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.039'
0.067 ;
0.080
0.32 ..;...,
0.028 ...,.;...
'0.2
01037
NA ... '....;......
0.28 ....;.........
0.059
0.059...
0.17
0.010
0.059
6.29 . ..
0.24
0.021 ..'........,
0.13 ......:'.....:.! '.'
0.810 ...:..!
0.059 ..,..,.; .,
0.36 *.... I...
0.013
0.014
0.013 ....;..,
0.017 ....:..............
0.013 ...:,.:........,...
0.014
0.014
0.00014
0 '000 14 t
0.023
0.0017 ....;
0.140 ....'.....
0.659
0.055
0.059
0.0055
0.6&1 .,,.
0.35 .;..,...........{..
0.63
0.11 ..,..:,.,..........
0.055
5.6 .
B5-68-7 0.017 ....................
B8-85-7 I 0:066 ....................
grab .; ...: t..
grab
grab,
NA
Composite ...........
Composite ' ;
Composite ...;...:...
oomposite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite ..........
.Composite
Composite
Composite
grab :.....;....
grab ...........>...
grab
NA
Composite ..-.
Composite
Composite
Composite .....
Composite ...........
.Composite ^
Composite ,.
Composite ............
Composite"
Composite .,..,<.
Composite ...........
Composite ...........
Composite ...........
Cornposite ;,.......
Composite ...........
Compdsite
Composite ...........
Cornposite :*
Composite ...........
Composite ......
Composite:...,...,..*
Composite ..........
Composite "
Composite....
Composite
Composite :
Composite ...
Composite ..;..,
Cornposite ,..
Composite ~
Composite
Composite '
Composite v
Composite5 ......
.'1.8 :......
1.7-.......'....: ;.,.
NA
0.20
14 .:,
19
7.3
15
3.6
14 .
NA
42
34-.,
3.6 .......................
QC
14 ..,.,
oo
1.8 ;.................
1.7
NA .
6.20
160 ,
54
4.0 --,., ' ' ' "
NA .......
140
MA
84 :
0.066 ....,......./
WA"
14
4,0 .;.
NA
0.92
0.92 ;...............
0.92
0.92
0.92 .....;
1 R
1.8 i
0.066 ..:
0.066
o.o66 .........;.
^ "
8:2
34
34 '
1 .5
8.2 .,........,.....;....
15...;... .".;.
15 - - ''"'
15.. ' ,; :'
26
79
2.5
Total (rhg/kg).
TCLP (mg/l).
NA .
TCLP (mg/l).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
total (mg/kg). .-
Total (mg/kgj.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mgAg), .
NA.. " ' .'
Total (mg/kg).
Total (rrig/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
.Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). .' .
Total (mg/kg). ,
Total (mg/kg). '.
TCLP (mg/l). :
NA. . '
TCLP (mg/l), : .
Total (mg/kg).; .
Total (mg/kg)..
Total (mg/kg),
NA. " ,
Total (mg/kg). :
Total (mg/kg).
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA. i '
Total (mg/kg). " ;
Total (mg/kg). .
NA. ' . . ;
Total (mg/kg). '
Total (mg/kg).
Total (rrig/kg).
TotaJ (mg/kg). :
Total (mg/kg). .
Total (mg/kg). .;
Total (mg/kg).l
Total (mg/kg).
Total, (mg/k'g).
Total (mg/kg). -
Total (mg/kg). .
Total (mg/kg).
Totar(mg/kg). '
Total (mg/kg),
Total (mg/kg). ,
Total (mg/kg). : .
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). .
Total (mg/kg). . ;
Total (mg/kg), -
Total (mg/kg). .
Total (mg/kg):
Total (mg/kg). ;
(D
,|
I
CO
Z
9
-------
IIII'liillI'Lj'iillillilllillllll'TJIi; fa,11| II1'!
>'l!lllllli\ HJilll'lllll!1''!II' Iit'lUni!hllllUlllll1 UN,MtiiSNir11:111 Si!;,'.., mt";SSSl,. I'VilKiLI'lllil'llllllll'llillll
,[ ,; ,,,,,, I,,,, ,,',,,,,, ,",' ".I, ,," ,,jj ,,,,,;,!,;,' ,i,,,,,,,;,,,,;', ,'; inii'iiili ,,,", i", !,,,|iii|||,,,,",,,,'!i!iii|iiilmiiiiii Ii,:ซ,:ซซ,ซ'ซ: \L ป*" ', il'!, i,,u' '..i,,, i ,,' ,,,,,;! !,! I,,!!,, !,; I,,,],, I ," j,;],,,',! ,"!',I!''i!',!!,,1',ซ!!!'ilii!;!!!!'!;;!' ,7*!!!"'lu n'l!!11' '' J["!,'liiil''"!' 'I illlll!,,, I,:':" ill,>' >< l<< ii'lhilih n. .illl'li;,:!:,!'1!! rii'dllllllllllllllllP.jiljLii, ,,,f'I'lillliiilllllJiilllllllillliri'lilVMiliili,1!!!; iil'iJIIi'lliilti-i1 \,\\!M li,, ill ilill'llliUiilllilptlll.iiii, i-o>in'*com.^N.cDr-c\i
c3o^roT-oooioooooT-ooooir^-co-r-o
do cxaa E 6 a.a
nu i n ii in linn in i Inn I i" i
-------
S,-4-Dimethylphenol .,...,........,,...
Dimethylphthalate ...
Di-n-butylphthalate ...:.,.........
1 ,4-Dinitrobenzene ....,
4,6iDinitro-o-cresol ...........
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-binitrotoluene
2,6-Din'rtrotoluene
Di-n-octylphthalate
Di-n-propylnitrosoamihe
Diphenylamine .
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Diphenylnitrosanine ...,.;....,.'.
Disuifotbn , ,
Jindosulfan I, .,......,.............'..
Endosulfan II ...;..........;
Endosulfahsulfate '.
Endrin '...
Endrinaldehyde .;...
Ethylacetate ....;.....
Ethylcyanide :..........
Ethylbenzene ...: ., ,.-.
Ethylether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Ethylmethacrylate ....
Ethyleneoxide ...
Famphur ,.; ..
Fluoranthene . .
Fluorene ......,....
Fluorotrfchlofomettlane
Heptachlor .,... ..,.'.
Heptachlorepoxide /........,.,...;
Hexachlorobenzene .......................
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene .............
Hexachlorodibenzo furans ....:. ..,
Hexach'lorodibenzo pdioxins
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropene ..'....
lndeno-(1,2,3,-c,d) pyrene .
lodomethane ;..
Isobutanol
Isodrin
Isosafrole
(epone ,
rtethacrylonitrile ."
^ethanol -.
Methapyrilene ..,
Methoxychlor ..".........,..-......i...............
-Methylcholanthrene .....r.......
4,4-Methylenebis(2-chtoroanilihe) i...
-Methylenechloride ......I.
/ethylethylketone
Methylisobutylketone ...,.,
Jiethyimethacrylate
tfethylmethansulfonate ....................
Methylparathion1....
Naphthalene ,..'.,
105-67-9 ..........
13111-3
84-74-2
100-25-4
534-52-1
.51-28-5
121-14-2
606-20-2
1 17-84-0
621-64-7
122-39-4
122-66;-7
621-64-7 '
123-91-1
298-04-4
939-98-8
33213-6-5
'1031-07-8
72-20-8 ...:
7421-93-4
'141-78r6
107-12-0
100-41-4
60-29-7
117-81-7
97-63^-2
75-21-8
52-85-7
206-44-0
86^-73-7
75-69-4
76-44-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
87-68-3
77-47-4
NA ....... ...
NA
67-72-1 ..............
1888-^7,1-7
193-39-5 ' ' "
74^88-4
78-83-1 ...
465-73-6
20-58-1
43-50-8
26-98^7'
67-56-T ....... ".
91-80-5 ' .,.
72-43-5 .............
6r49-5 ,
01-14-4
5-09-2
8-93-3 .v.....
08-10-1 ............
0-62-6 ....... .
6-27-3 .........
98-flO-O
1-20-3
0 036
n 047
032
0 28
0.12
0.32
055
0017 "
040
05?
0 087
040
019
n 01 ? '
0029
00?Q
0.0028
0025
0.34
0.24
01?
028
0 14
0 12
0017
0068
0.059 ...................
0020 '
0 0019
0016
0 05*>
0 057
0 000063
0 000063
0.055
0 035
0 OO'iS
0 1Q
56
0 081 -
nnnn
0 24
56
0 081 "
2.5 ; ""
.0055
.so : .'.
.089 .
.28 .........'..,
14 'M ' " '
14 :
.018.......
014
Composite,
Cornjipsite.
Composite,
Composite.
Composite.
; Composite,
' Composite,
Composite,
Composite.
Composite,
Composite.
Composite,
Composite.,
Composite,
Composite,
Composite.
Composite,
Composite,
Composite.
Composite.
Composite.
Composite;
Composite.
Composite,
Composite,
Composite,
Composite,
Composite.
Co
Composite,
Composite.
Composite,
Domposite,
Composite;
Composite,
omposite,
iomposite,
Composite,
Composite,
iomposite,
'pmposite,
Composite,
Composite,
fcmposite,
Composite,
Composite,
tomposite,
Composite,
Composite.
lomposite,
lorhposite.
Composite,
Composite.
"tomposite.
iomposite.
tomposite,
Composite.
Composite.
Composite,
te
te
..........
te
te
te
te
te
te ....;
te
e
e
e
e
e ,.
e
e
e ........;.
e ....,....._
e ,.
e ...........
e
e \.
e
e
8
3 ...........
9 ....
9/ ;.....
3 .......'.,.,
3 ...........
* .
3
3 ...
3 .,.....'....
j ........i,.
i
i
}
)
(
)
> ..,.
... ...
',
14
28 ....,
28 ...~
23
160
160 .....:
140 ..'-
28
28
14 1
'NA .
NA
NA ...........
170... .
6.2
'0.066 .,
0.13
0.13 ....;...
>0.13
0.13
<33
360
6.0
160
28 .... v.....
160
NA
15
8.2
4.0
33
0.066
0.066
37 ..;.'
28 j... .
3.6
0.001 .,;.........
0.001
28
28 . ..
8.2 ....'. .....;..,..
65 1....:. ...
170 ......;. . .
0.066
2..6 ...: .....
0.13...
84
NA,
.5
0.18 .;.'.
5 ..... ....
35 ..i..............
33
36
33 ....................
60
NA
.6 ...........;...
.1
.total (rrig/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). .
Total (mg/kg). ,
Total (mg/kg). ,
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total.(mg/kg).:;
NA. .
NA.
NA. ' .
Total:(mg/kg). :
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). ' '"
Total (mg/kg). , ,
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). .
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). ,
Total (mg/kg). '
Total (mg/kg).
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). ,
Total (mg/kg ).-.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). ' .
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). :
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (nig/kg). ;
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). ,
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). ...
Total (mg/kg);
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg J.
NA.
'otal (rng/kg). "-
otal (mg/kg). .
'otal (mg/kg). '._
"otal (rfig/kg).
bta) (mg/kg)."
Total (mg/kg)..
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA, . . ;.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
^,-
-
2?-
S.-
A
&
a-'-
(8
H
**:
f*>
$
r
'OT.
00
Z
?
LA
pa* _
^1
'O> '
-*
H
CD'
W
CL.
^d
ป
^
03
CD
*^
ST
ง
ง
$
M '
^
t-i .
CO
CJ3
CO,
^
*d
a
s
CD
O-
j[
5"
m
*ป
eo.
M
O)
CO
-------
4817g EgfesJฃ?8isler ' Vol. 58ป No- 176 /Tuesday, Septecilber 14,4993 / Proposed Rules
-------
K001;
KOQ2.
KO.Q3-
K004
K005
K006
K006
K007
K008
KOQ9
K010,
K011'
K053
4
*- ป ;;_ '
>
;, " ;" .
Anhydrous
HydratecT
*, ' .
( " .
Fluoride ;:....:.'...:..'.i....!....;.".. .
Sulfid? .....;,...,...,.. . ,.
Antimony
Barium .........'....... ...
Beryllium ..'.... ;...:,....'..'.
Cadmium ;.......;...........,..
Chromium (Total) .: .
Copper
Lead ........
Mercury l
Nickel .....,...............: .
Selenium .;......
Silver ...........:.;..........:........,...........
Thallium
Vanadium ....I....:...;.
Zinc :..
Naphthalene .........; ....'.
Pentachloro phenol .....:..........I..^..
Phenanthrene
Pyrene ;.;
Toluene .'.,.:......... ;
Xylenes (Total) ;
Lead ................ : ......... .
Chromium \ i otai;
Lead ....,.:,.......... ............;........
v/hromium (Total) :;........
Lead
Dhromium (Total) .
Lead
Chromium (Total) .. ..
_ead :
Cyanides (Total)
Lead ,... . ;...>....;...
Chromium (Total) ....
Lead ;...; ;............ . .,
Chromium (Total) ;............
Lead........ ........'...,.....
Cyanides (Total)
Lead ..;... ..;...,....
Chloroform ,.
Acetonitriie ,..........:.!...,....,
Acrylonitrile .....,.......>...::,.........
Acrylamide .;......*................. .......'
Jenzene ..;.
Cyanide (Total) .;..
Acrylonitrile ...;....... ...............;..
Acrylamide :...;...,......
enzene
Cyanide (Total) .'
crylonitrile ...............;. ..-
enzehe . i.'..' - :
yanide (Total) ............;....
16964-48-8 ...
8496-25-8
7440-36-0
7440-38-2 ........
7440-39-3
7440-41 7
7440-43-9 ........
.7440-47-3.........
7440-50-8
7439-92-1 ....;....
7439-97-6
7440-02-0 i
7782-M9-2
7440-22-4 .........
7440-28-0 .........
7440-62-2
7440-66-6 ......;..
91-20r3
87-86-5 ....;..
85-01-8
129-00-0 ....,
108-88-3 ,....
1330-20-7 .........
7439-92-1 .........
7440-4/-3 "...
7439-92-1
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7440-47-3
7439-92-1 .
7440-47-'3
7439-92-1
57-12-5 ,...;....;....
'440-47-3
7439-92 1
7440-47-3 .
7439-92-1
'440-47-3
7439-92-1
57-12-5 ..............
'440-47-3
7439-92-1 i
67-66-3 ..........u..
C7_ec o
75-05-8 ......:.....;.
07-13-1 ............
79-06-1
71-43-2 ...............
7-12-5 ..............
5-05-8
07-13-1
9-06-1 ..............
1-43-2
57 12-5
5-05-8 .....:
07-13-1 .....:......
9-06-1 .:
1-43-2
7-12-5 '..;.'. ....
35
14 :........ :.
1.9
1.4 .
1.2
0.82
0.20 ..:.
n 77
1.3
0.28
.0.15
,0,55
0.82 :...
0.29
14
0.042.
1.0 .....t................
,0.031
0.18 .....>........
0.031
0.028 .,
0.028
0.032 ...j..:....;.....
0.037
0.9-
3.4...... .....:......
0.9
3.4 ......;.....
3.9
34
no
34 - '
0.74
).9
34
09
3.4
).9
34
0.74 ....;..;
).9
3.4
0.1
38
0.06
9 ,. .
0.02
21 ............:...........
38 .....;
.06
9 .....;............
.02 .... ',
8
.06 ......;.....
3
.02 .........;.........
Composite ........:
Composite :...
Composite .........
Composite ..,
Composite
Composite
Composite ..........
Composite ..........
Composite
Composite ..........
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite ..........
Grab ...................
Grab -
Grab ;
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite ........'...
Composite ."..
Composite
Composite
Composite ..........
Composite ...........
Composite
Composite .,.;..
Composite
Composite .......:...
Composite .....
Composite
Composite ...........
Composite
Composite
3omposite ...........
Grab
Grab :.
Grab ....................
Grab ....................
Grab
3rab .....;
Grab
Grab .......
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab .<
Grab
Grab
Grab
3rab
Grab ..:................'.
MA
NA
0.23
5.0
52 ..........;
MA
0.066 :...
5.2
NA
0.51
0.025 .'...
0.32
57 '
0.072
MA
NA ;...
NA
1.5 .......:
"74
1 ซ;
1
n ni
57 ,...,
.8
.4
3
7
NA.
NA.
TCLP(mg/l)._
TCLP(mg/l).
TCLP(m'g/l).
NA.
TCLP (mg/l). ,
TCLP (mg/l).
NA.
TCLP (mg/l). .
TCLP;(mg/l).
TCLP(mg/i). ,
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP (mg/l). ;
NA. -
NA. -
NA. -
Total (moykg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). '
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). /
Total (mg/kg).
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP (mg/l). ;
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP (mo/1)'.
TCLP (mg/l). ,
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP (mg/l).'. ?
NA.
TCLP (mg/l); .
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP (mg/l).
NA.
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP(rhg/l).
NA.
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP (mg/l). .
Total (mg/kg):
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Tota! (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
"otal (mg/kg).
"otal(mg/kg).
'otal {mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
otal (mg/kg).
'otal (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). :
Total (mg/kg).
'otal (mg/kg).
'otal (mg/kg).
'otal (mg/kg). :.
Total (mg/kg).
ปq,
{B
a.
ป
.&
""..
ป
!ป
!'
ป
i
^^'
3
*-*
en
03
z
?
H*
VI
.O '
ป,
H
C -
CO
en
f^
ง .
^
CO"
ฎ
"T^
w -
sr
3 ';
-s* :
^ '
ป-ป
-^
i->
to
CO
.w.
v.
ซ
8
1
o-
w
'
-------
t "I P M I i| T y
48172 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
^ 5 2 2 2 2 5 2 E<
) O O (3 (D O CD O O Z
-------
FederalRegister / Vol. 58, No. 178 /Tuesday, September 14. 1993 /Proposed Rules 4*173
!SJ5SSS2S'S .i j?J ro m ra 15 ro
1ai2ฃฃeฃ12g$Hyeฃlฃ5g<<.o^.o
8 SSS 3 3 ฃj S'S .3 3 3 S SlSJSS B a ^ ra "5
.o .o o ฃ O^S ฃ ,0,0 o ฃ o ,o p ฃ . .o o .-5 .-5
10 CM 00 O CM CM CO CO CO CO CO
OzBC -SL- 'z-
X 'X- C
lฃฃฃ
1 H-5 SS.K o 9 ฐ ^ >.ง ."ง g '6 dxxx
1,11
!s|
ฃ1 s
i.i
c 'ex c "ฃ E c
.O .0, O fi P
'.is,. ..'ซ:.. o
:S:^Jig
S O O -^ X: u. w '_.-^. T;
OX XX XซฃQO3 O QiTu:
::< CD 03 o o c iE ฃ
>ป i!u> CO N."', CO
8 S . ง S. g
.*y. "^ \ฃ. v5- ( gg
-------
i'1"^;--, M= jiii ป,;ijr ^ปป
IJjTHBffMEHTSbw^
Waste
code
K036
K037
K038
K039
K040
K041
K042
K043
K044
K045 -
K046
K047
1K048
Waste description and/or treatment
subcateflory ,
".
Filter cake from the filtration of
diethylphosphorodithioc acid in
the production of phorate.
: '" '
Wastewater treatment sludges from
the manufacturing and processing
of explosives.
Spent carbon from the treatment of
wastewater containing explosives.
Pink/red water form TNT operations
Regulated hazardous const tuent
Common name
Cresols(m- and p-isomers) ..............
Naphthalene .......... . .......
Phsnanthrene ..................................
Phenol .....<
Disutfoton .........................................
Disutfoton ......
Toluene ....... ,
Phorate . .
NA
Toxaphene ..
1 ,2,4,5-TetraohIorobenzene
1 ,2 4~Tnchlorobenzene ...
2 4-Dtchilorophenol
Tetrachloroethene
Pentachtorodibenzofurans
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
K1A
MA
KiA "
IMft * .........
Benzene .....w.
Benzo{a)pyrene
Bis(2-elhylhexy!)phthalate ....
Naphthalene ........ ..........
Phenanthrene .....ป...ปซ....ป..
Dhanrtf '
CAS No.
NA ., ...... .
91-20-3 .
95-48-7 ...
85-01-8 ~ ._.
108-95r2 _....
129-00-0
298-04-4 ....
298-04-4
108-88-3 ....
298-02-2
298-02-2
8001-35-1
95-94-3
95-50-1
'106-46-7
608-93-5
120-82-1
120-83-2 ......
87-65-0
95-95-4 ."..
88-06-2 .....
NA
87-86-5 .......
79-01-6
NA .........
NA
NA
NA ......
NA
NA . .
NA
NA
7439-92-T
NA ..
71-43-2
50-32-8
117-ftl 7
218-01-9 ..,..
84-74-2 . ...
100-41-4 ...
86-73-7
91-20-3 ...
85-01-8 ..............
108-95-2
129-00-0 ............
Wastewaters
Concentration
(mg/T) or tech-
nology code
0.77
0.059 . .,
0,1 1 ...
0,059 .,. ....
0,039
0.067
0.025 ...................
0.025 ...........
0.080 ;.........
0.025 .' <..
CARBN; or INCIN
0.025 ...
0.0095
0.055
0.088 .-.
0.090 ..
0.055
0.055
0.044 :
0.044
0.18 .'........
0.035 .........
0.089
0.056 .......
0.000063 ...
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063 ....
0.000063 .............
DEACT ....
DEACT
0.037
DEACT
o.i4 ..: .
0.061
028
0.059
0.057 ...
0 057 ~.
0.059
n nso
0.059 ซ..
0.039
0.067
Sampling basis
Composite ..,ป.
Composite .-....,.
Composite . .......
Composite ,......
Composite .,
Composite
Composite .......
Composite ..
Composite ...........
Composite
NA
Composite ...,
Composite ..,
Composite
Composite ...........
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab ....
Grab .,..
Grab .,
Grab
Grab ..'........
Grab '--. .....
Grab '.
Grab .... ...
Grab ซ
Grab ..,.....,....:.
Grab
Grab
NA
NA
Grab :...
NA-.M.
Composite ..........
Composite
Composite
Composite ...
Composite ...........
Composite ....
Composite
Composite
Composite ....
Composite ....
Nonwastewatws
Concarttration or
technok5gy code
NA ...
3.4 .
NA
3.4
NA ,.....ซ
0.1 ........
0.1 J....M.
28 ...
0 1 ..... .;
FSUBS; or INCIN
0.1
2.6 ..,v
4.4 ..;...... .....
4.4
4.4 ....-
4.4
4.4 ,.
0.38
0.34
8.2
7.6 .......
0.68 -..
1.9 ...
1.7
0.001 ;,...,..............
t.001 ,.....;.....
.004'. v.
0.001
0.001 ..........
0.001' ;...:...
DEACT -.
DEACT
0.18
DEACT
14
12 .-.
7.3'.
15 ........
3.6
14 .... ! : ....
NA ...:......
42 i !
34 ...;..,
3.6
36
Sampling basis
and units
NA
Total (mg/kg).
NA.
Total (mg/kfl).
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). '
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg);
Total (rng/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mgTkg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA.
NA. ! ;
TCLP (mg/l).
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg)..
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg7kg).
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
1?
t.
CO
s)
05
ง
en;
03
CD
to-
co
05"
O
8
^
-------
K049 '
. "- - '. t
Kbso. ;! ;;
.K051 ':'
v>-'ป .-'.'. : '-
K052C;
'.'-] ",;- .-'.: .-.--. -:..'
-n -- - - '.-.',. - ( --
"--".' ' '"' '*' " - ""'-.,- ,
iv;-v; .':-- ...-. . ... '- ' '.-.-, '..[.; .
- "" ' "-...' '" 'i " ' .'.." ''
' '"-. ''': " ~ "-''' ' - .
, ' .. '
ซ*!.",' "'.."" ' '' ' '
.':-.- '. ';"" ' '.'";: ''..'-: '; ..:/ ";
Toluene .........:....
Xyfene(s) . ......
Cyanides (Total) ;...,.....
Chromium (Total),...,.,.,
lead:....... ..
Nickel ,......,.
Anthracene .,.;...
Benzene ...,,..,,,..,.
_Benzo(a)pyrene ,..;. ....".
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate .........
Carbon disulfide
.Chrysene .., ,....;
-2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
;Phenanthrene
Phenol .....'.
Pyrene
Toluene :
'Xylene(s) "..........;.....:.... ....,...,.
Cyanides (Total) ....;'.l.....................
Chromium (Total) ...-.-:...:
Lead :.....ป.,:.ซ......,.\
Nickel ..;...................;..............
Berizo(a)pyrene ;...;.......;,................
Phenol .;.......... :........:........;;.
Cyanides (Total)
Chromium (Total) ........I.
Lead .;.......,.!;.;.,.
Nickel .......:....... .
Acenaphthene
Anthracene .;......, .;...........
Benzene .
Benzo(a) anthracene .......................
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)- phthalate .............
Chrysene ,
Di-n-butyl phthalate ..........................
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene ....."............,.............i..
Naphthalene ...,....;.................
Phenanthrene ...
3henol ... .....;.....'.,..ww........... .
'yrene ;..... ...;
Toluene ....".... I.... .;.....:.,:
Xylene(s) ............;;..;..
Cyanides (Total) .:.......,.........,.,.....
Chromium (Total) 1..............,.;. ..;..
Lead1......;...................; ..,.,......,
Nickel
3enzene .....i....;...
Benzo(a)pyrene:. ..;...........,...'.. ....
o-Cresol ........;.,.>
p-Cresol .....,.;.....,."....
2,4,-Dirnethylphenol ,........;,...
Ethylbenzene .ซ,...1.............,ป........'..
Naphthalene ......,,,..,....;.,.,..,.,
Rhenarvthrene ...................................
'henol .,..."... .....,........,,...
108-88-33 ..:.
1330-20-7.
57-12-5
7440-47-3. ..,....
,7439-92-1 :,;.....
7440-02-0 .........
.420-12-7...'...;..:.
71-43r2
50-32-8
117-81-7
75-15-0
2218-01-9 .
105-67-9
100-41-4
91-20-3..
85-01-8
108-95-2 ...........
129-00-0 ......
108-88-3
1330-20-7
57-12-5
7440-47-3
7439-92-1 ..........
7440-02-0". .
50-32-6 ...
108-95-2
57-12-5 :......
7440-47-3 ..........
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
83-32-9
120-12-7
71-43-2
56-55-3
50-32-^8 ...,.......;
117-81-7 ....,
22184)1-9 ....;'
105^67-9 ',,........
100-41-4 ...,.,....
86-73-7
91-20-3 :
85-41-8
108-95-2
1"29-00-0:. ...;.....
108-88-3
1330-20-7 ..........
57-12-5 ....:
7440-47-3
7439-92-1 ..........
7440-02-0 .......:.,
71-43-2 ;...
50-32-8 ....,.,.....
95-48-7 ..............
06-44-5 ............
05-67-9 .'.
00-41-4 ..
91-20-^3 , ...
08-95-2"Zl.".".'^
0.080 ;
,0:032
0.028
0.2
0:037 .. .
NA
.0.059 .'..
0.14
0.061 .......
0.28.
0.014 ......:
0.059
0.036
0:057
0.059
0.059 :...
0.039 ..................
0.067
0.080 ....: <
0.32 ....;....;..........
0.028
0.2
0.037 ...
NA ' ,
0 061 "
0.039
0.028 .;....,............
0.2
0.037 .,
NA ;.......
0.059 ..,.
0.059 ...................
0.14 .... ...,
0.059 .....,.
o.06i ......;;;.
0.28
0.059
0.057
0.057
0,059 .........;
0.059
0.059 ...:..
0.039 ..,..;...
0.067 ...;..;;.......
0.080 ....................
0.32
0.028 ...................
0.2
0.037...
NA
0.14 ;..
0.061 ;........;
0.011 ..;....;......,....
0.77 ....;..;....
0.036
0:057 ..;................
0.059 ..,..;..,...;..
0.059' ..,..,..,...
0.039..,....,..,;
Composite "
Composite ..........
Grab " .
.Grab .
Grab
NA
CojnpositB
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite ..'. ;.
Composite .;.......
Composite
Composite
Grab ....,...,.
Grab
Grab
NA
Composite ......;..
Grab.......
Grab ;'. ,.,.....
Grab -* '
NA ........;;
Composite
Composite
Composite- ,
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite . . , .
Composite .
Composite /
Composite ...........
Composite ...........
Composite.....;
Cortipbsite .......
Composite ...
Composite . ...
Grab
Grab
Grab....... :.
NA ....,... -
Composite ., ....
Composite . "
Composite
Composite ,
Composite :.,,.,
Composite ,,..,
Composite ,...;.....
Composite .,.....;..
Composite ', ....
U. '
22
1 8
17 '
NA
n^n
"no
14
7.3 :,...,
NA
15
U", "
42 ,.,...
34
3,6
35 ;.....,.
14
22
1 8 ...
17
NA
C\9f}
3.6 .,..,,
1:8 ; ..
1.7 ,...,...;,.;
NA
.0.20 ....;..,..
MA
28 - ' ' '
14
20
12 .
7.3
15-"'"
36 ' '
14 '
NA :
42 ..
34 .
3.6 ..,.....;
36 ,.
14
22
1.8 .,.......'.......
17 ' v
NA
0.20 ..: ,...,.'
14
12
62 /
6.2 ..,....;
NA ....,., ,......
4 ;
42 .....:
34 .........
3.6 ,
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg), ; '
Total (mg/kg). {
TCLP (mg/l). >
NA.
TCLP (mg/l).
Total (mg/kg). >
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). '"
Total (mg/kg).
NA. '
Total (mg/kg).
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg)._ .'-,
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). ' <
-Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). . :
Total (mg/kg).
TCLP;(mg/l). . -
N'A.
TCLP (mg/l). V
Total (mg/kg).
Total (rng/kg):.
Total (mg/kg)
TCLP (mg/l). .
NA. : :>
TCLP (mg/l). -
Total (mg/kg)\ ;
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). :
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). ;
Total -(rug/kg). ;-
Total-(mg/kg).
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).,' '
Total (mg/kg). '-'. .
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). ;
TCLP (mg/l).
NA. ' .
TGLP(mg/l),
Total (mg/kg);-
"otal (rhg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).;
Total (mg/kg)..
NA.: : ,
Total (mg/kg).
"otal (mg/kg).,
'otal (mg/kg).
Total (mo/ka).. .
|
:H ..
en .
-XJ,'
. ,Tyesd.iay,: September. 14
0
'j3
I
|
5"
*>
I
(a
-------
Ill I
II
I nil I 1 i i n i n i i i inn i n i in ii ii 11 i n mi n in ill 111 in in 11 in i i in I in il| nil I iiiiiwi i hi ,11 in I ill i i in fin i i in 11 In 11 in 11 IIL "i jinn i in ii i MI ii inn I in in in n llfin i ill i h 11 ill I ill
48176 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
3-31
0-O.CLD-Q-Q.D-CLD-CLD-CLQ.i
PPPPPPPPPPP P.P f
D.Q.
2 2 2 2 2<
OCDOC3OZ
: cj> CM co N. en co T-co o c\i ป o
iioป-cor-CMi^-CMo>CMco
CM CM o CM CM CO ^.
ococococococOf-
ซ
zz
,ป CO < O CD >* TT
*-- IO Z O U5 tj- <ป
.
>;: o o o o o o o o o <
C3PPPPPPPPPZ
POOOO
CO
งllili:g|o.f |i
2 P P x ฃ T-"CO < Q Q co
.' , ' i.
,1" .'I,
= z .
e'lfS)
Us
co
CO ^
s ^~
-jg o
^ o
CO
5
~&
p
งง2
. 1 3
1
CM
(O
o
Sen
co
o o
:*: ^
ii
CO
co
o
-------
'K086
-K087
K093
K094
K095
'O^Dichlorobenzene ป.... ,.
m-Dichlorobenzene ...
' p-Dichlorobenzene .......:.
1 ,2,4,-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrgchlorobenzene .:. '....
Pentachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene ......'.
Aroclor 1016
Aroclor 1221 ,,.........., ..:...........
Aroclor 1232 .".. ..1
'ArocloV 1242
Aroclor 1248 ..-:... ....,..,.......;.
Aroclor 1254 .;..,;'. , ,.;'.
Aroclor 1260 ; ,;,.., , ...
:Acetone ; ,,,.,.. .
Acetophenone ,i...:,.......,...,.l
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ...... .........
n-Butyl alcohol ....
Butylbenzylphthalate i ,
Cyclohexanone ......................I,;.......
'1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene ............,; ...i
Diethyl phthalate ,,
:Dimethyl phthalate ..........;..,........,
Di-n-butyl phthalate ,.. , ., .
Di-n-octyl phthalate .-
Ethyl acetate ..,..........,..,.,..
Ethylbenzene ...,. .....
Methahol ....,..,. .
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl ethyl ketone ;...,..;...
Methylene chloride ....:...... '
Naphthalene ;., ,....,..;,.'.
Nitrobenzene ,......... , .',
Toluene .,..,.,..,.'
1,1,1-Trichloroetharie ,
Trichloroethylene ..,.....;.....-.,..,,.
Xylenes (Total) , ".
Cyanides (Total) ;.,*......,..,...,...
Chromium (Total) ,..', ;.. .
Lead . .. -.>
Acenaphthalene ...;...v,jt
Benzene ............................. , . .
Chrysene ....,.,.......... ,.. , .. , .
Fluoranthene .,..". .-, ,...,./.......
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrerie ...,..'....;.,.
Naphthalene ',..'...."......*..,.
Phenanthrene ........:,.,.,.;........( '.'
Toluene ,'. ',.,....,,...
Xylene(s) ,... ,......,..'....,
Lead"-.,; ,.......,. ..
Phthalic anhydride (measured as
Phthalic'acid). .".-''
Phthalic' anhydride (measured- as
Phthalic acid). '. .
1 ,1,1 ,2-Tetrachlorbethane .'.
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane \ ..'...
Tetrachlbroefhene ....,......,.;
1,1 ,2-Trichloroethane .;...
Trichloroethylene ....,........;......;......
g5_50_f .
541i-73_1
106-46-7
120-62-1 ...
-95-94-3
608-93-5
518-74-1
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
-1-1'141-16-6 ..:.....
63469-21-9
12672-29;-6 .;:...,.
11097-69-1 ,
11096-62-5
67-64-1 -
96-66-2
117-81-7
71-36-3 ...
gii_RR_7
108-94-1
95-50-1 ... '
84-66-2
131-^11-3 ............
84-74-2 ;
117_84_0.
141-78-6 ..'...
67-56-1
108-10-1
78-93-3 ,
75-09-2 ; ' -
91-20-3 .
98-95-3 .
71-55-3 .,; ซ...
79-01-6
1330-20-7 '''
57_12^5 -- '-
7440-47-3
7439-92 1
208-96-6
71-43-2
218-01-9
206-44-0 '
193-39-5
91-20-3 ..............
85-01-8 ,
108-S8-3 . ;,. .
1330-20-7 ... ,.
7439-92-1
85-44-9 ..,..:,...,
85-44-9 -.",'....
630-20-6 ,;.;
79-34-6 ,.,...,...,...
127-18-4' :..,.,:.....
79_or>s ..............
79-01*6 ...1...
0088
flTrtfi
0 090
0055
0 055
0 055
0 055 ^
0 01 3 A : '
0014
0.013 ........I.,...,,..
n D17
0.013 .. ,
-0014
0 014
028
:0.010 V.......,.V..,...:..
0.28 ...:.............
56
n ni?
036 ' .
0'088 -
020-
0.047 ........,.....,
0057-
0017 * ' '-"
0'34 .-.!...';.""!!"".'"
0057
56 .
0-14
028" ; '-" :
0 089
0 059 ,
0 068 , --' '
0080 . '
0.054 . /"', : -
0 054
0 32
12 - '
0 32 ':
n nv7
0059 -
0 14 ;
0 059 -
0068 :
0 0055
0.059: Z;.!.Z
0 059
006 ,'.
0 32 - ,
0037
0.069 ....... .'. ,
0.069 1.,,. .,...
0 057 '''
0057 -...;;
0.056 ..;..............
0 054 . '
Composite'...........
Composite ..........
Composite i.
Composite!....:,...:.
Composite
Cornposite .,
Composite ......
Composite .... .-....:,
Composite ..:>.......
Composite
Composite1...,....;..
i Composite ....;,.
Composite '..;....,.
Composite ...,;'.
Grab ;.......;
Grab' !...........,
.Composite -,.!
Grab ;........:.,.;.
Composite-.....:."..-..
Grab ... .. ...
Grab :. .. :
Composite ;.
Composite ...^
Composite .. ........
.Composite ............
Composite .. ;'.
Composite ....,..
Composite ...........
Grab
Grab .!,.,........;,.
Composite .......... ,-:
Composite "... ,ป..
Composite ,..,,;
Composite ,.,,..,.',i.
Composite ,.,....
Cornposite ...........
Composite ...
Grab ....,....,..',
Grab ,,.,.....
Grab
Composite ..;.,
.Composite :..,,..,..,.
Composite .,..,....
Composite-.-.
Composite
Composite ,......,.
Composite j. ..,...:
Composite ,,..,;.
Composite ,.-,..
"Grab ,...,...,..,
Grab ,..,......,.
Grab ...,..,;..,,
Grab ,..; ,
Grab ...;......
3rab ....................
Grab .......;....:
Grab ;...........,
:4.4 ".'...i ..- .
4:4
44
4.4 .'...'..'..J .'
4.4
'44 . '
44 . , '
0.92...,
0.92
0.92
0.92., ......:.......;
:0.92'.,.,.:.. ;'..,:
1.8
"160 -' ( > -
-97 ' \ :
28 .....;....!.. ..
2.6 ...;.
7.9 .:;
NA --- "
6.2 -..
28
28
28 ..;....
28 ป''
33 ...,.;..... ;.,.
60 .. ;
NA i
33 ,...;..*
.36 ,
3,1 .,., :... ... .
14 ,. . ,;, ...
28 ...... ..... , "!
5.6
5.6......
28 ,. ,' '".
1.5 ., . !
0.094 .:^;.,...."...;.:'
0.37 : .
3.4 ;.....,:..:'.....,
0.071 .., ,.....,.,.
3.4 .. ,
3.4 ..;..:;..:....;..;
3.4 ...,..;..;;
3.4..
3.4 ,
0.65 .,.
0.07. .......
0:61 ..... . . , .
28 ,..;....,... . :
28
5.6 ...,....;.....,....
5.6 ; ;..;
6.0 :........;...,.
6:0
5.6... .:...........
Total'(mg/kg').
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg)
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).'
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
.Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).-
Total (mg/kg)..,
.Total (mg/kg).
N;A. ; -
Total (mg/kg).'
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).'
Total (mg/kg).'
Total (mg/kg).'
"Total (mg/kg).
-Total (mg/kg).
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).'
Total (mg/kg).'
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (ntg/kg).'
Total (mg/kg).
YCLP(mg/l). ,
TCLP- (rhg/l).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg):
Total .(mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg)."
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
TCLP (mg/l), =
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).;
Total (mg/kg)..
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg),
Total (mg/kg)7."
:9
H
C/l
C8
Ni
05.
ri
,ง-
01
ง
03
a-
I
I
co
M
-------
48178 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
oBBPPPPPS
1- T- 1- 1- r- T- CO
000000(0
O O OO O O
in in in CD co' in in in
2 2 2 2*2^2222 2ฃ2 2
oo
O ซ3 P (3 CD O O O O O
OOOCDCDCJOOOOOOOCDOCDOOCDOOUCJOCDCJOOO
C3 O O O O O (D O <3 O
_
งง88080888888
-------
'Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 /Tuesday, September 14. 1993 / Proposed Rules 48179
&
<
2
l|
i
m
o
DC
LU
0
0
0
Z
: :
: :
i<
:
0
Z
O
z
i
g <3 co co
o o o o
t
o
< ~
Z
<
Z
9-S
ll
|
1
I
j
u>*t a
332
ooc
1 j
; J
! : 8 w - "ฐ ซ- ฐ"ป_ ' ฐ w :. :Q ^ .'" Z :Z ' Z
: S XZ" X2" XZ Xฑ" 'XZ z iz Z
8 J 1 I II : 1
ง 8 < oesSoesS oesooemS sgo-esSSs a: ^c ' b:
0 ฐ 2 , ^ . - ? dซ=2 0 S , dง ง '
!,
: :
i 11
Ei*4s 'ฃ j
*"5?J 5
IO _l m CD
rtiASg jf < <
oo o> T- t>- h- Z 2
-
"
1
I
s
S
:
:
:
:
;
:
^1
s
ii"
-;=
ป-
.-'.[ -,-.
I -
t
1 1
:
' i
' : - -
:
i !
: I
5 i
.5 - >. -- >. i
E o 3 S i
p g e a !
: -
:
: ,
i 2
j
;
: .-
: .' .. -
:
:
:
:
:
|
:- : : 1
1 |
\ I
: :
?1
-ง2
' ' '!'
*-
i
\
งs
3 S
Js
1 II !
1 f 1 " i
^1 it 1
< < ?$ <
2 Z |>i Z Z
,
*3 J
c 'c i -
DQ 5
1 N -!-..
! M i
I .::-:,
1 ! 1
: : : :
; : : : :
; ! i ;
: : : :
i j j j
. : : : I
1 -11 !
: : .1 t
: : :
I s ! !
.
Q-2
<
Z
<
Z
Z
i
|i|-g)k.llll
s K2ฃ-8ifsSฐ
. ,&E=|>
te
of
g
0
ง
g
r- CM
2 2
m
^-
2
uปn
* T
22
2
2
-------
I I
48180 Federal Register / Vol..58, No. 176 / Tuesday* September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
CD D) C
S-S-5
.o<
1:
II
i !
t 3
,:
Z
o
1.Q
CO CO JO to in
ocidoocioo
cvj CM cj'to ป- N-
: g c
R 2
I TO SL
m
2
. .i OJ -J ^ C
: w jc TOcg ง
;S88gS
S&'s-i*s-
-! ง e 2a-o
o> ^ w .2 "* S 2
& ra? ^ "^ w
il-|||?ซ.
511 ai
t-l-
C3C3
O> i-
IO a>
mm
ill
ซ g
-------
kl43
K144
K145
: K147
K148
Process residues from the recovery
of light oil, including, but not lim-
ited to, those generated in stills,
decanters, and wash oil recovery
units from the recovery of coke
by-products produced from coal.
Wastewater sump residues from
light oil refining, including, but not
limited to, intercepting or contami-
nation sump sludges from the re-
covery of coke by-products pro-
duced from .coal.
Residues from naphthalene collec-
tion and recovery operations from
the recovery of coke by-products
" produced from coal.
far storage tank residues from coal
tar refining.
Residues from coal tar distillation,
including, but not limited to, still
bottoms. . ,.:
Benzo(b)fluoranthene ...... ,.
Berizo(k)fluoranthene ......,'.
Chrysene . .
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzene .'.
Benz(a)anthracene .. .....,...:...
Benzo(a)pyrene ..;....
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)flouranthene
Chrysene .. . .
Benz(a)arithracene :.............,.;..
Benzo(a)pyrene ' .-..'.;!
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluorahtriene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzene '.t
Benz(a)antfiracene
Benzo(a)pyrene '
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Naphthalene ...*.. .'.;
Benzene ...........
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz{a,h)anthracene .....;....
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Beriz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene ....1 -........
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene ;....'..!.!......:
Chrysene , ..,...,... ..
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene ', ....................
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene .,;...............
205-99-2
207^)8-9 ............
218-01-9
53-70-3
193-39-5 ............
71-43-2 .
56-55-3
50-32-8
205-99-2 .. ..
207-08-9. . .
218-01-9 * .
71-43-2 . .. : ..
56-55-3 ........:....
50-32-6
205-99-2 .......
207^-0&-9
218-01-9 '.
53-70-3
71-43_2 .... ...
56-55-3 ........ ..
50-32-8
218-01-9 '
53-70-3
91-20-3
71-43-2
56-55-3 ..;......:....
50-32-8 ....
205-99-2 .
207-08-9 v
218-01-9
53-70-3...:
t93-39-5
56-55-3 .............
50-32-8 .....;...;.}.
205-99-2 ............
207-08-9 ............
218-01-9 ....
53-70-3 .............
193-39-5 ...........
0.11 ....... . . .
0.11 ....... .. .
0.059 .. .
0.055 ..
00055...
6.14
0.059
0.061
011
0.11
0 059 . .
0 14 .
0059 . .
0061
0.11 . .
011
0059
0.055 ...:...
0 14
0 059 i '
0061 '.."
0059
0.055
0.059 ;,.....;...
0 14 '"
0.059
0061 .
011
0.11 .,......:.
0059 ' '
0.055 .;..........
0.0055
0.059 .
0 061 . .
0.11 ...... ......
p.11 ...,.....
0.059
0.055 ...................
0.0055 .................
Grab .....
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab ...... .....
Grab
Grab .................
Grab ................ ..
Grab
Grab
Grab ....................
Grab ....
Grab
Grab.
Grab .-.
Grab
Grab :
Grab
Grab :...........
Grab ......
Grab
Grab i
Grab .....'. ......
Grab
Grab
Grab ....................
Grab ......
Grab ...
Grab .............
Grab ...............
Grab ..'.,
.Grab '.
Grab .
68 .. .. .
68.
3.4 ;....
8^2
3.4 ..,.....;.....:
10 ................
34 ...... . ^.
3.4 .... .
6.8
6.8 ..
3.4 .....................
10
3.4
3.4 .-;
6.8
68 .. . J
3.4 ..
8.2
10 ;.... .
3.4 ...
3.4 ,.
3.4 .
82
5.6
10 .;............
3.4 ,
3.4
6.8 ..
6.8 .
3;4 .....
8.2 :..... ...
3.4
3.4 .... ......... .
3.4 .......'.,......
6.8 . :
6.8
3.4
8.2 ........
3.4
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mgVkg).
Total (mg/kg).
total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Tota| ((Tig/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg),
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg),.
Total (mgVkg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total _(mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
-------
ii I
:i!
HAZARDOUS WASTESConlinoed
Watte
"code
K149
-K150
-K151 f
-ฃ
Waste description and/or treatment
subcaleflory
Dtstlation of fractionatton bottoms
from the production of alpha- (or
methyl-) chlorinated toluenes,
ring-chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl
chlorides, and compounds with
mixtures of these functional
groups, (This waste does not In-
clude still bottoms from the dis-
. filiations of benzyl chloride.).
Organic residuals, excluding spent
carbon adsorbent, from the spent
chlorine 'gas and hydrochloric
acid recovery processes associ-
ated with the production of alpha-
(or methyl-) chlorinated toluenes,
ring-chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl
chlorides, and compounds with
mixtures of these functional
-groups'/
Wastewater treatment sludge, ex-
cluding neutralization and biologi-
cal sludges, generated during the
treatment of wastewaters from
v ,:; the production of alpha- (or meth-
yl-) chlorinated toluenes, ring-
. .chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl
chlorides, and compounds with
; mixtures of these functional
; -groups.
- ] - BeguWed hazardous cons Wuarrt
Common name
Chloroform ^^.Mซ^.._.,ปw.ซmป.
Chloromethane ,
Chlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichldrobenzene
"Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene '.;
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Toluene ...:: ".
Carbon tetracHtoride ......... .,..
Chloroform
Chloromethane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene ,ซ _.....,...v...
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachloroben-zene . ซ.
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene .............
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetra-chlortheane
Tetrachloroethylerte:i..ii....M..........
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene . ............
Benzene ;......;.....>:............................
Carbon fetrachlbride ..
Chloroform
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethvlene ..:..............: :
CAS No.
97-66-3 Mป
74-87-3 ...
108-90-7
106-46^-7
118-74-1
608-93-5
95-94-3
108-88-3
5ฃ-23^5 ,
67-66-3
74-87-3
106-46-7
118-74-1 ...........
608-93-5
95-94-3
79-34-5
127-18-4 ........ ...
120-82-1 ....
71-43-2 ...
56-23-5 i ......;.
67-56-3
1-18-74-1
608-93-5 ...........
95-94-^ ....
127-18-4 ......
Wattswaters
Concentration
(mgfljortsdv
notoayccxte
0.046 ".. .
"f
ff.19
0.057
0.090 ;.
0.055 ,.
0:055 ,:.... :.....?.
0.055 .......: ;....
0.08& '...,;..
rj.057 :
0.046 ":..,......
0.19 ..V...:
0^)90 .........;
0.055- :!....
0.055 '.... ....
0.055 H;i.
0.057 ..-ซ^.^..ซ
0.056 i...1..
0.055 ^.i..,.....
0.14 ..,....:...,...
0.057 ..I.;;..
0 046
0.055 ..,.;...,
0.055...^...:.
0:055 .....'.;.
:0.056.U. ......
Sampling basis
Grab
Grab
Grab
drab
Grab
Grab >
Grab ป...
'Grab ..,.ป..
. i r ** '
Grab
Grab ป
Grab,
Grab ......'., ....
Grab
Grab .
Grab
Grab ....., ....
Grab .'...
Grab
Grab
Grab .
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab ...
Nonwastewsters" "
Concentration or
tjchnotogy code
6 0 .
30
6.0
6.0
10
10
14
10
60 ,
6.0
so ,:.:...;...:..:...
6.0
10 .....
10 .....
14
6.0
6.0 ............
19 .......i........
1 0 ...............V.'ซ;......
6 0 ........
60 .
10
10 .....
14 . ...,.,....
6.0 .............
Sampling basis
aixl units
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
.Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mgW.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
.Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mgflcg).
Total (mg*g).
-------
. *-,.
.'*",,'r:
'."*"'- , ""
poot , .
.poos4".
P004 .
P005"
P007^
P008-
Si:!
* ~;.' '-..;/
pdio. '<
">POtJ ,. i
P012
PJ113 ' - : '
.:P01* ,;;'
pole ;
P017
po2b ? - ;
*W -.-'.
P022:
_ซ..>!.<-. .; - -_-', -' ;
Warfarin;(>05%> ;....................,...
i-Acetyl-2- thiourea ..._....:.;
'Acrbfein .................................... .
AWffn\...ซ.......,..._,..j.. ..;.......
Ally! alcohol ^...............
Aluminum phosphide *...............,....*
5-Amlnoethyl 3-isoxazolol ........
'- '. .' ' . .", ' ," - \ .
,4-Aminopyridrne ................................
Ammonium picrate ...................Mป....
' ' ." r > ,' ," " ' :.. .-.,-,
Arsenic add ..;....:.....,w..........
Arsenic pentoxide! ......i;..ป"ป....rt"..
Arsenic trioxida ................... ........
Banurfl-ciianide
Thiophenol (Benzene thiol) .........
,";",-""., ., ^ -'/
Beryllium dust ............
Bls(cHldrOmetnyl),ether i..........M..,..
Brohwacetone .......................;........
.-. -.. ..-!..' ; '-- -
*' ' -'. - - '1 . .- ,
2-sec-ButyJ-4jiBKflnitrophenol
"- tDfnoseb). ^ - - ---
Cateium cyanide, ..........;......;
Carbon disulfide ..........,,...,.,..,,. .'.
'---.!'- , -1
Toluene...,. ..
Wairfarin. .;.....,...............,.....
1-Acetyt-2-thtourea .....;;..:
Acrolein ,...
Aldrin
Ally! alcohol >....................
Aiumiriium phosphide
5-Aminoethyl 3-isoxazolol
4-Aminopyridirie .......... .. .
Ammonrum picrate :.......;...;..
r-". . ซ.' -. .- . .-,'...,.
i.. > ' .... ' _ -"_ ,-,.., ...
'." _ " v
Arsenfc
Arsenic .._.... ....
Arsenic ..,....."...... .
Barium
Cyanides (Total) ............ ..... .
Cyanides (Amenable) .,.........,...,..
Thiophenol (Benzene thiol) ..............
V . ',. _.-. - ' ' . -;" - , , . i .'
Berylftum dust '....*....
Bisfchtoromethyl) ether ....................
Bromoacetorie
'(Dinoseb). ' - - - -
Cyanides (Total) .,..;.....;.-.;.;;.......
Cyanides-(Amenabie) .;..:..;;...;.:...'...
i^irbon disulfide .i................... ........;..
'108-88-3
81-81-2
591-08-2 .
107-02-8
309-00^2
107-18-6 .
20859-73-ซ ........
2763-96-4
504-24-5
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
7440*39-"3
57-12-5 ..............
,1CI8-98-5"ซ'ป'
s^i^^-i
357-57-3 ..
88rซ5-7 ^ .
g-j||:-ป"
75-15-^0 ...,..,ป.
0.080 i.j..............
(WETQX6Y, '
CHOXD) fb
, CARBN; or
, INCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXD)to
CARBN; or .
INCIN.
029
0021
.(WETOX or
r CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN;
CHOXD; CHRED;
or INCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
"CARBN; or
INGIN.
n/upTOX or '
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
CHOXD- CHRED'
GARBN;
BlODG;or
INGIN.
079
0.79 ,
0.79 ..
1^ -
(WETOXor"""""
- CHOXD) ft
CARBN; or
INCIN. '
NA".. "'..'
(WETOXor
GHOXD)fb
- CARBN; or
INCIN.
(WETOX'Or
CHOXb)fb
GARBN; or ,
INCIN. "'
(WETOXor
CHOXD) fb,. ...
- CARBN; or
INCIN; .
1 9
IซW. ซปซf ซ* tfffttftrft
0.1 .. "'" '"";
Grab
NA ..........:.
NA ...........:.........
;MA "
NA V.......... .;...:.
NA .................
NA
NA
Grab
Grab ,.;..
NA
Grab. '.
Grab .... ...
NA
^;:;;r' . .'
NA"
Grab ........... ..
Grab .,.,..........
Grab ' " " ' '
GRAB ...................
;10 "" "-' "
: FSUBS; or iNCIN,
ilNCIN .._ ....;.
^CCI IDC. ftr IKlAlM
A flftfi
FSUBS: or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED;
or INCIN.
INCIN .1.
IM/^IKI
INMN i
P^I IRR- PMrtyn-
GHRED;or
INGIN.
56
56
56
52
110 .......... ''.(. .
9,1 ..... .......
INCIN
RME-TL- or
RTHRM..
INCJN
INCIN
- V , ' - . '
2.5 .......;..........
110 .............. .'....
91ป .--,''
INCIN
Tnfal fmnf\en\
NA.
NA. '
NA.
Total (mg/Kg).
NA
NA;: /':.-,
NA *
NA.
MA
TPI P /nin/n
TCLP (main
Tfl p /nvi/n
Tolsl (mo/ScQ)
Tola! (mgfl
-------
: TRBOMEffllSTANOMWe RปปซปWXXซ;W^T^-Continuซd _ ~ ^ __
Waste
cod*
P023
P024
P026
P027
P028
P030
P031
,P033
P034
P037
P038
P039
P040
P041
P042
P043
P044
P045;
Waste dwcripUon and/or traaimant
subcateflory
CWoroacstaWehyds .........................
p-Ch!oroanllino .................................
Ho-CHofophenyl) thtourea
S-ChJofopropionitriia ^^^ป..WM_.ซ_
Copper cyanide ...... ,,...,........ ............
Cyanides (soluble salts and com-
plexes).
Cvanooen ._......ซ.............................
W/WM W)^^l.ซ *^ซซซMMซซ.Mปซ..ซ^ซ..... . .-
Cyanogen chloride ................
Dichtorophenylarsine .._....... ....
Dieldrin ...; =...
Diethylarslne ,............_.....................
0,0-Diethyl O-pyrazinyl phosphoro-
thloate.
Diethyl-p-nitrophenyl phosphate .
Eplnephrine ..,..... .,.._......ซ...........
Dusopropylfluorophosphate (DFP) ~
/.',*:- - .- ;;- T , ,.. . . ,
FUSdtted hezardou* corw*u*ot
Common name
Chtoroacetaldehyde -.
p-Chtoroanlne -.ซ. ........ ....
1-(oOhlorophenyl) thiotirea -..ป.~~
Cvflnidos '"fToteiy *
Cyanides (Amenable) ...... ....
Cyanides (Total) . ..
Cyanides (Amenable) .. ......
Cvflnoosn * " ......a
X^JCUtWyOM **^ ป* ป**4 **** &*ปซป*ซ*ซ*ซ ********
Cyanogen chloride ^.ป..
2-Cyctohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol .
Dieldrin ...... -. ..........
Arsenic r..............ป i ....
0,0-Diethyl O-pyrazinyt phosphoro-
thioate,
DlethyHKittrophenyl phosphate *...ป
Diisopropylfluoro' . .ปป.*ป*ซซ..**ซ
phosphate (DFP) .^.... ...... .............
CAS No.
107-fiO-O ซ .M...
106-47-8
5344-82-1
542-76-7 -
100-44-7 ..
57-12^5 _
57-12-5 1
57 12-5
460-19-5
506-77-4 ....
131-89-6
7440-38-2 ....
60-57-1 ..- ..
7440-38-2 ..-
298-04-4
297-97-2
3l1r45-5
51-43-4 ..ซ^.M.
55-91-4 .............
60-51^
39196-18-4 _
W&stawmtwx
ConctntraSon
(mg/J)ortech-
nokigycodฎ
(WETOXor
CHOXD) ซb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0.46 ^..ป,^..ซ
(WETOXor
CHOXD) to
CARBN; or
INCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) to
CARBN; or
INCIN. -
1.9 , .,
0.1 ......................
1.2 ...............
0 1 ..
CHOXD; WETOX;
or INCIN.
CHOXD; WETOX;
'or INCIN.
(WETOXor
CHOXDJfb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0.79 ~-
0.79 M....ป.ป...
0.01-7 ;.......;.
CARBN; or INCIN
CARBN; or. INCIN
(WETOX Or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN:; "
CARBNfor INCIN
CARBN; 'or INCIN
(WETOX-or.
' CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
Sampling basis
NA
NA .
Nn .*ปซ..>*ป.**ปป.**
Grab ....................
Grab ....................
Grab
NA
Grab .....!
Composite ..
Grab ...................
Grab .Ui:.-.....
NA
NA .....................
NA _^.- ..........
NA .- ซ.
NA
NA
NonwaiUwaters
Concentration or
technology code
INCIN ....
16 ...
INCIN ป
INCIN .
INCIN ......
110 ..........
91
110
9 1 .
CHOXD; WETOX;
or INCIN.
CHOXD; WETOX;
or INCIN.
INCIN
5.6
0.13 .....................
01 .....:....~ ......
FSUBS; or INCIN
FSUBS; or INCIN
INCIN
FSUBS; or INCIN
FSUBS; or INCIN
INCIN
Sampling basis
and units
NA.
i
Total (mg/kg). ป
NA. ;'
NA. ij
NA. !
j
Total (mg/kg). \
Total (rrig/kg). !
Total (mg/kg). 1
i
Total (mg/kg). i
NA. . J
NA. j
NA. J
-. - -. ; j
TCLP (mg/l); I
Total (mg/kg) I
TCLP (rrig/l): , ]
Total (mg/kg). 1
NA. |
t
N/u 1
NA. '.,;.-. {
ji
NA. :l
NA. ' ""' :!
.NA. . "j
Ji
-------
P046
P047
P048 -
P049 :
.. . ; ... '_....'
P050
'.'
-P051 ;
P054
P056
R057 '
P058
P059
P060
P062
P063 ,
.P064
"-.'.". ''"' '
P065 :
P065-
P065
-- ''"" :
;atpha, .;- alpha-Dlmetnylphene-
' thylarnine;. .. . ,...,;,, j
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol .;!..:..
2,4-Dinrtrophenol ...I...;...... ......
;2,4-Dithiobiuret ..........;.... .-.
Endosulfan .......:... ,... .
Endrin..... ..,:.......,..,.;....
Aziridine .
'-' .""'' " : .. ' -
Fluoride . ;
Fluoroacetamide ...........iu................
Fluoroacetic acid, sodium salt ....
Heptachlor* ,.....l ;.........
fsddrin
Hexaethyttetraphosphate >.-....i.>.s....s
Hydrogen cyanide l,..ll..I...l.l...ll.;
Isocyanic acid, ethyl ester ....].'.!.
Low Mercury Subcategory-less than
260 mg/kg Mercury-residues from
RMERC-Mercury fulminate.
Low Mercury- Subcategory-less than
* 260 mg/kg Mercury-incinerator
residues(and are not residues
from RMERC)-Mercury fulminate.
Mercury, fulminate: (High mercury
Subcategory-greater than or
equal id 260 ;mg/kg total Mercury-
either incinerator residues or resi-
dues from RMERC)..
alpha, alpna-Dlmethylphene-
4i6-Din"rtro^>-cresol ,
.^e-Oinitro^OTcresol salts
^ n '.--,,... a . ^
2,4-Dithiobiuret ...... .. ..
Endosulfan 1
tndoisulfanl ..:;.................
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin 'aldehyde .-.
Aziridine ..
Vv ." . '.' . V. -. "' " "' ' ' . -
Fluorkte ..................... .. /
Fluorine Til............'.,..
-'-' . . v '- -' ...: '.-:' '. '.-. .'-'- "- -
'Fluoroacetamide
Flubfbacetic acid, sodium salt .,...
He'tacTlldf-''-^ "
Heptachlor epoxide
isodrin '.;..'.:. .'......'....:...: ...
Hexaethyltetra- phosphate :
Cyanides (Total) .-. -
Cyanides (Amenable)
Isocyanic acldf ethyl jester .,... ,
Mercury ....:........
Mercury- ..-.-..'
Mercury Fulminate - .....,.....v;.;..;......
"122-09^8
534-52-1
TV " r* ซ-
P1St-*28-*i
541-53-7
3,
Q3Q_QQ_0
33213-6-5 .
1031-07-8 .
72-20-8
742t-93-4
151-56-4
16064-48-8
7782-41-4
640-19-7
62-74-S
76-44-8
1024-57-3
465-73-6
757-58-4
57-12-5
57-12-5
624-83-9
7439-47-6
7439-9.7-6
628-86-4
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN; ;
0.28 .......
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb .
GARBN; or ,
INGIN.
O.f2 ,-. ....
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
" INCIN.
0;023
0029...
0.029
0.0028
0.025
(WETOX or
CARBN; or
INCIN. :
35
NA
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN* or
INCTN. ;
0.0012
0.016 ...
01021 ., -
CARBN; or INCIN
1.2.
0.10 , , ....-
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or " r
INCIN.
0,030, .;..
0.030"
NA" .;.
NA .I..........,;
Composite
NA .............;...;.,.;.
," !.-..' - ,
" Composite'r;;;U."..V.>
NA
Composite....;
Composite ' * ป
Comoosite .^ . ...
'Composite .,
Composite ;....../..
NA .....i.
Grab i
NA ...... . . .
'NA .....................
'NA ..,........;.
'Composite
'Composite -
Composite lซ.v
NA .................;..J
Grab .1.........;.....,.."
Grab " ~ .
MA ............'; .-:
Gratf v;:;..:..;;;:;.;;;;:
NA .............. ... :..
INCIN .;.;!;
160 I:..:!... I..'-
INCIN ,:..,,;;i;..:,.;..
:,^'.:':^-r^f
INCIN
Q 13 : : "'
^013 ,
0 13 7
INCIN I.....
NA .
rtJEUfRl ;n
INCIN ;...,.....;.;;.i
0 066
0 066
0.066 i. ..
FSUBS- or INCIN
110 ..;... ... v;.
INCIN ..... '-'-
020^.:::^.^;*
RMERC " .'
','":" v. . 'T '' '.''''- . .: "'
NA
Total (mg/kg)' '
NA.
>..,-. .-.,. :-.-, :
Mitel l(malk)
NA
rTotal Irnafkn}
'Totsl /rnci^kQ)
Total frfto/ktil [
Total (mg/kg).
NA
NA
NA
;NA. ';
Total /mfj/knl ' '
.Total (mg/kg)
Total (mg/kg) :
'NA -
Totfiii (nioilcs) ""'
Tofcil (mfiftcn\ -->
NX - ;" -
TCLP (mo/n
TCLP (mg/f)
NA '-- -"
I;
I'
I
r
U1
co
''Z-
?'
^3
..-Cft
#"-
TJ .
s
I
ฃ
w
T3 '
B.;-
g:"
%
pป'-
I
5ET!
CA
*.
CO
s
en
-------
:
Mi
TR6WMEMT STANDARDS FOR HAZiWOCKJซ V/ASTEECoottnosd
! Wastฎ
;."c0de
-
P066
P067
pees
,P069
P070
P071
P072
P073 -
P074
:P075
P076
PQ77
P078
P081 - ,
P082
P084
pnss
Waste description ahO/or treatment
tubcttegory
POeSMercury fulminate: (All
nonwastewatefs that are not In-
cinerator residues from RMERC;
regardless of Mercury Content).
Methomyl
2-MethyIaziridirte
Methyl hydrazlne
Methyllactonitrile
Aldicarb .
Methyl parathion
1 -Naphthyl-2-thiourQa
Nickel carbony! ' ~
Nicotine and salts ! =:
* . - - - -
: '-)"'" '
p-Nitfoaniline ซ..
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitroglycerin ~ * ...
N-Nitrosodimethy!amine
nrrfflmethvlnvronhQsnhnrflmirtft' ! .
Regulated hazardous constant
Common nams
Mercury Fulminate ..ป., ,..
Methomyl ............... ......
2-Methylazlrldlne , ..
Methyl hydrazine .
Methyllactonitrile
Aldicarb ..,.....,
Methyl parathion
1-^Japhthyl-2-thiourea - ....
* " ":
Nickel .' '. .
Cyanides (Total) .......<............
Cyanides (Amenable)
Nickel
Nicotine and salts ...
Nitric oxide ฐ .....
p-Nitroaniline :....,, ............
Nitrogen dioxide
Nitroglycerin .;;.........;......;....J...........
N-Nrtrosodimethylamine .,,....:........,:...
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
Octarnethulnvronhosohoramide ......:
CAS No.
628-86-4
116762-77-6
75-65-8
60-34-4
75-86-5 ......
116-06-3 ......
298-00-0
86-88-4 ........,.
7440-02-0
57-12-5 ....
57-12-5
7440-02-^).;.,.
54-1 1-ง ..............
10102M3-9 .
100-01-6 .^.
ldl02-44-0 ........
55^63^0 ..............
82-75-9 .....,.^.-....
4549-40-0 ,
1S2-1&-9 ..:.,..
Waiiewttefs
Conc&rrtratxxi
(mg/l) or tech-
nology coda
NA .ป^..,ซ~.ซ
(WETOX or
CHOXD) to
CARBNior
INCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) to
CARBN;or
INCIN.
CHOXD; CHRED;
.CARBN;
BIODQ; or
INCIN.
(WETOX or
. CHOXD) to
CARBNior
INCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) to
CARBN;or '
INCIN.
0.025
(WETOX or
CHOXD) to
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0.32 M.
1.2 ,..,...... ......
0.10 ;..........
0.44 . ,.
(WETOX Of -;
CHOXD) to
CARBNior
INCIN. :
ADGAS .. .;..
0.028 ..... ...
ADGAS .....
CHOXO; CHRED;
CARBN;
BIODGiOf
INCIN. =
0.40 -. ....
(WETOX or
CHOXD) to
CARBN; or "
INCIN.
CARBN: or INCIN
Swiping basfe
NA ^^.^.^...w.^..
NA ....,..._
NA .........
NA ......^,..............
NA '.
NA..., ;
Grab .......
NA ~..
Grab ...................
Grab ...... .
Grab ....................
Grab ...
NA
NA .......,-...;....
Composite ....
NA"..;:...................
NA'.:^.;.;;.;;..:....^.
Composite .;...-.,..-..
NA -:. :
NA L. ..;...;.
Nomvftstiwt! (in
Concsfrt/aton or
technology codฎ
1MERC
INCIN ................
INCIN ....,,....,.....
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or
. INCIN.
INCIN
INCIN .... ......
0.1 ..;. .........
INCIN ,
0 32 .......
110 j ............
9.1 ........;............
032
INCIN .-.....'....;.......
ADGAS ..............
28
ADGAS ......:.......
FSUBS; CHOXD;
'GHREDior
INCIN.
INCIN .....;.../..;....,
INCIN .....:...^....
FSUBS; or INCIN
Sampling basis
and units
NA.
NA.
NA. ;
NA.
- f - .. .
NA.
NA. : .,, "., -
Total (mg/1 V:^': :
NA; . --
NA. " ':* :-:-
NA.- H
i _
Or-
--=ป"
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 /Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules 48187
1 sL o) O)
gE E
\Y
H- H f- 1- H-l- Z
2
O
o
OC U-
o
CM
O O, O
o
*ฃ
i
2
O
O2.
Q
LU
DC
oz
ง1
O O T- 0>
O CO U.
tO r-
\a
!OD .
o t-
O> O LL , ป- O
< < 22
Z Z CD CD
9-
2
O
9
2
CD
:
.< 2"ง
2 O CD Q CD CD CD
-11 S<
p ^ .0.0 .'
o 2 2 2<
OOCDO Z
22
CDO
ei_
,_ 0
"oz1.
S
ฐ Z
O o-^o T^ ooo
MS
: :- OC
I IS::Q
O O
*?'.
CM CO
5 . ?2
to in
^3 ^ฐ
i!
cp
f
g
I
e
1?
TT,
CM
Ol
m
n^IS
5Ssi^
ch
"
ST
'S
E'
O iS
f งf j
i -
Jc
a.
ฐr
-z.
S
O)
a. a.
ฃ
.-ง
i.|-|-| s fc s-
co ฃ
i'i
8
"I
C'
O ill
lisll
ฃ,te Jjฃ &.
o> ซ o co .E
! .3 eo .2 o
:t ^o^-s
!ง 2 = = ฃ
iง -5.1 ป&
ฃo>^
S
~ >. -^= -- i^ฎ^ cac
's^||i& tf||S 8ซ1
S>3 . a -s ฃ.tl ป _: co 13 ro
a^ a
ป ฃ.02 *
:
S
. J
-
ซ8
w (D
a.
i J|
H 3
| f i-'
'Q. . u. a.
>. O)
^.g.
iB ฃ
m
Sodium azi
ium cya
. t*ป* CO
a. a.
o
a.
So
0.' O.
ฐฐ
KCL
-------
48188
"""'' ll " 11 'iii' iiiiiiiii"" ii 111111 ' !ii i,"ii"!" i.ii""ii i i '!, i" (ii' i", nii "j'" ' Mi 'li "ii"1 i'iii iii'i i* 'S' iili'JiiiiiiiJliiiiiii iiP iiii'iiiiniiiiii \ "flfiii ii "i" 11!"' i iii'i i1!!"" i" 'iii"! i" nii iiiji!! \ ' in! . ii'i'iii'iin 'nil^^ iijijii StSr I
Federal Register / VoL 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
igS
"Bi
ซ oซ
zz F-zz
<
z:
ซ;
Ii
<
i= :Q
>
i
i
m :COrr i=
' <
b_.
SOD
0:5
Efc
r-<
ฐ_i
25
?ฃ?.
ESo
inZ EC ฃ
z
O
COZ
: Q
: UJ
:tr
ioz
ioS
:XS
4-
5c,
CV) O> .
Cj? o> f
CP CO <7>
ra ^r o
CT t>-ซo
S3
i5
^ป- co
r*ป T-
o> co co
m
d,
r-
s
g
Cj1ปCN.T
CM IO OJ CVJiO
nn!
^- O ^t T- |
TT CO Xt- CO N-
h* r*. r- ^~ u>
<ป (
|5|-ง
s.?ti
!"!ig
rs-rl
i
s^-
5*
Q-'g
ll
sis
ilo
8
8 8< 8
< <
E E
,3 .2
ll
o
'f
s
I
S
I
I
ซ'
'c
CD
T3
1
CD
Q.
^
O
V
i 1
O Q.
i g
M
IM
CO
2l
CO CO
II
CO
C "'
O)
i
111
ปS'ง1
e> ,ฑ:.
c c ,
o o o co
8?8^8-
CD
T>
.ฃ
5
3
51
en oca
O ป r-
a. a. a.
co
r-
51
* m
KK
(O
ป
a.
co
*
^~
a.
C7> O *
J- CM CM
c\j co ป-
ca CM o
SI E 51 51 51 :D
SSScSS
o o o o o
fe
o
-------
* - . ..- .ซ
uoos
U009
' ' U010
U011
U012
U014
U015
U016
U017
U018
U019
U020
U021
U022
U023
U024
U025
U026
U027
U028
U029
U030
U031
U032
. U033'
Acrylic acid
Acrylonitrile ,..,..
Mitomycin C .....
Amitrole ......
Aniline
Auramine.......
Azaserine ....
Benz(c)acridine
Benzal chloride '.
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzenesulfonyl chloride
Benzidine
3enzo(a)pyrene
Benzotrichloride
3is(2-chlorpethoxy)metharie
Bis(2^hloroethyl)ether
Chlornaphazin
3is(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
3js(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.
Bromomethane (Methyl bromide)
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether*.......
n-Butyl alcohol ...;.......
Calcium chromate
Carbonyl fluoride ..;...;...,..... ..;
Acrylic acid ..... ; ,*....
Acrylonitrile ..,.'..
Mitomycin C
Amitrole
Aniline ,
Auramine ,
Azaserine ...........,, ...... t...
i .. .'
Benz(c)acridine ."'...
Benzar chloride ....
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene ;
Benzenesulfonyl chloride ....'.;.......;.
Benzidine .........I.................,......;......
,Benzo(a)pyrene ,
Benzotrichlqride
Bis(2-eh!oroethoxy)methaf!e ......:.....
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether .....................
Chlornaphazin ; ..........
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Bromomethane (Methyl bromide)
l-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ..
n-Butyl alcohol
Chromium (Total)
Carbonyl fluoride .......;....;..,..., .,
79-10-7
50-07-7
61-82-5
62-53-3 .............
492-80-8 ......
115-02-6 .
225-51-4 :..
98-87-3
56-55-3 .............
98-09-9 ....,...;.,...
92-87-5
50-32-8 .......;
ga-07-7 ..............
111-91-1 a
111-44-4
494-03-1
39638-32-9
117-81-7..,....,.,,.
74-83-9
101-55-3 ...........
71-36-3 ..............
7440-47-3
353-50-4
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0.24 .......
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or ,
. INCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
' CARBN; or-
INCIN.
0;81 ,;
{WETOX or
/ CHOXD) fb'
CARBN; or
INCIN.
(WETOXor
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or,
INCIN.
(WETOXor
CHOXD) fb
GARBN;or
INCIN.
0,055
0.059
0.14
(WETOX'or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
(WETOXor
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0,061 ...... ............
CHOXD' CHRED'
.CARBN;
BIODG;or
INCIN.
0.036
0.033 ,".....
{WETOXor
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN:
0055 "
0,28 .......,..;.....
0.11 ....:....:...;
0.055 .v.......
5.6 ;....................
032
WETOXor '
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
NA
.i
Composite
NA
NA
Grab
NA
NA
Composite .......,.
Composite
Composite
NA
NA
Composite
NA ..
Grab .......
Grab
NA
Grab ...
Grab ;
Grab ...
Grab ,. .
NA
FSUB"?- nr INCIN
84
INCIN
14
INCIN .................
FSUBS'- or INCIN
82
36
INCIN
INCIN
82
FSUBS' CHOXD'
CHRED; or
INCIN. ,
72
72
INCIN
72
28 i, .,
15 .. ,
15 ..... ' .-.
26
0 094
NCIN
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
NA. .
NA;
Total (mg/kg)i
NA.
NA:
NA.
NA. .
Total (mg/kgK
Total (mg/kg).
NA. ,
NA.
Total (mg/kg)
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg):
TCLP (mg/l).
NA.; i. '
-------
Waste
code
U034
U035
U036
'U037
"U038
U039
JJ041
U043
U044
UQ45
U046
-U047
U048
U049
U050
-U051
i
U052
U053
U055
U056
Waste ctescripOan and/or treatment
subcategory
Trtehforoaeetatdehyde (Chloral)
Chlorambucil . ~, .1...
Chlordana (alpha and gamma) .,.,....
Chlorobenzere ., .. ... .
Chlorobenzilate ซ
p-Chloro-nvcresol
1-Chloro-2,3-epoxypropane . .
(Epichlorohydrin).
Vinyl chloride
Chloroform . . .. . .
Ghloromethane (Methyl chloride) ....
Chloromethyl methyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene ....
2-Chlorophenol -
4-Chloro-o-toluidine hydrochloride ...
Chrysene
Creosote- ....... . . .....
Cresols (Cresylic acid) ., ,..
Crotonaldehyde' -
Cumene '
Cyclohexane -
Regulated hazardous corwtitutrtt
Common name
TrtchloroacetaJctettyda (CWorai)
Chlorambucir
Chlordane (alpha and gamma) ...
Chlorobenzene
p-Chloro-m-cresol ... *..
. 1-Ch!oro-2.3-epoxypropane
(Epichlorohydrin).
Vinyl chloride .
Chloroform ...................
Chloromethane (Methyl chloride) ....
Ohioromethyl methyl ether
2-Chloronaphthalene .......................
2-Chlorophenol
4-Chloro-o-toluidine hydrochloride ...
Chrysene . .........
Naphthalene .....................................
Pentachlorophenol ,,,._. .,
Phenanthrene '
Toluene . '
Xylenes (Total) ..
Lead >
o-Cresol
'Cresols (m- and p-isomers)
Crotonaldehyde ซ
Cumene ... ............
. ----- . , i ; .
--...-.-i-~.'' - '. - ' -
CAS No.
75-67-6
305-03-3
67-74-9 ,....*
108-90-7
510-15-6 .
159-50-7
106-89-8
75-01-4
67-66-3
74-87-3
107-30-2
91-58-7
95-57-8
3165-93-3 ...
218-01-9
91-20-3 .......
87-86-5
85-01-8
129-00-0 .
108-68-3 ....
1330-20-7
7439-92-1
195-48-7
NA
4170-30-3 .....
98-82-8 .
110-82-7
Wastewaters
ConcertraBon
(mg/0 or tech-
nology code
(WETOX or
CHOXO) to
CARBN;or
INCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0.0033
0.057
0.10
0.018
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
t):27
0:046
0.19
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
. CARBN; or "
INCIN.
0.055 ......
0.044 -.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0 059
0.031
0.18 ~
n 031
0.028:
0.028 ,.......,
.0.032 ;. ,
0.037 '.
0.11
6.77 ..
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
' INCIN.
(WETOX or
, CHOXD) fb '
CARBN; or
INCIN.-*.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or .
INCIN.
Sampling basis
NA ...~
NA
Composite ....-
.Composite
Composite
NA .;-
Composite
Composite ..
NA
Composite
Composite ....'.......-
NA . .
Composite ...
Grab ...
Grab ,.,.,.,..;., .-.-.
Grab
Grab . ; .
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite ......
Composite
NA ..............
NA .....
NA
, Nonwaatewaters
Coocentratlon or
technology code
INCIN .
INCIN ......
0.13
5.7
INCIN
14
INCIN ......"........;...
33 ...
5.6 , ,
33
INCIN
5.6
5.7
INCIN
8 2 ...
1.5
7.4
1.5
1.5
28
33
!0.51
5.6
3.2
FSU8S; or INCIN
FSUBS; or INCIN
FSUBS; or INCIN
Sarnping basis
and units
NA.
NA. -
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA,
total (mg/kg).
HA. . ,-;
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA. ---
" i
Total (rag/kg).
Total (mg/kg). -
NA. ,, , *
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (nig/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
TCLP (mg/l).
^Tdtal (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA ' -
NA.
NA.
;';" _
*!
-------
0057
U058
0059
U060
0062 '
0063
U064 i
0666' .
U067;; :;
U069:.'
U070
0071,
U072
0073ft ;:
U074
OQ75 ft '
0076
U077
U078,
U679:'
OQsij;: .;
0082
; U083 .
U084
uosl '-.; "..'
0086 ' :
U087
U088
Cydohexartone .............,.. ,
Cyclophosphamide .. _
Daunomycm
ODD
DDT ... ..
'Diatlate
Dibenzo(a,n) arrthracene
l^/fS^-DIbenzopyrene ..,..
1.2-bibromo-3-chloropropahe .........
1,2-Dibromoethane,
(Ethylenedibromide),
Dibfomomethane
Dfch-butyl phthatate .;... .'..
o-Dtehtorobenzene
InvDtehlorobenzerte ....
p-Dichtorobenzene : ....
1,4-Dichioro-2-butenecis- ;.....;.........
Dfehlorodlftuoromethane _.....:........
t.f-Ofchloroethane
1 ,2^Dicriloroethane
1 ,1-Otehloroethylene
1^2-Dtehlbroethylene .............;...
Mettiylene crHonde .:......................,..
f2',4^)ichlorophenol ,.;..........;........
2,6-Dichlorophenor .......;
1,2-Dichloropropane ...
1 ^rDichloropropene .:..,
1 ,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane ....................
" -ซ .""*. . -. .'-' - .
-3 '-,' -t iv ,-...._"-- 1 / .
N,N-biethyihydrazihe ...... ....;..
O,O-Diethyl . S-metnyldithiophos-
phatOi
Diethyl phthalate .....: ..................
Cyclohexanone- ..
Cyclophosphamide
Daunomycin ...
b.p'-DDD ,
p,p-DDD ... . ,. ..
o-p'-DDT
p,p'-DDT
O.p'-DDD ..., .
p,p'-DDD
0,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDE ,
Dialiate
bibenzo(a,h) anthracene _
1 ,2,7,8-bibenzopyrene i.......;.........^
1,2-Dibr6mo-3-chloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
'''. (Ethylenedibromide). r
Dibromomethane . .." ..
bi-n-butyl phthalate ...; ..........
o-Dichlorobenzene
m-bichlorobenzene
p-DJchlorobenzede ...
34^Piel1lofobei^i(^.^...v^;;.V:...'ซซ.
1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ,.,.,.......,......
frans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ..,..;
pichlorodifluoro- methane ซ ....
i,f-btehlor6etharปe .... ......
1 ,2-Dichloroethane ".-...-..-....................
1,1-bfehloroethyJene . ;. ..... .
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Methyiehe chloride ;.....................;....
f2,4-Dfehlorophenol ...,...i.^.........v.
12,6-bichlorophenof
1 ^-Dichloropropane ..... .....
cis-1 ,3-Dfchloropropene .............^
iransrl^rDichtoropropylene ...... .
1 ,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane ...................
'-*' " "":'>".-*'' '' -" /.>"
<'-- . .';.> : ";.- :- ' ' ;:
N,N-Diethylhydrazine .................
6,O-Diethyi S-methyldtthiophos-
:;;phate. -.-;,:::,;", -.,. ' -
biethyl phthalate '.i.....^..'.....;....
108-94-5
งQ_1g_Q
:20830-81-3
53-19-0
72-54-8
50-29-3
53-19-0
72-54*8,
3424-82-6
^72-55-9
2303-16-4
53-70-3
189-^5-9
10&-93>4T"ซI
74-95-3 2..,.,.r,..
541-73-1 ....
9i-94^i ''ฃzrj-
1;476r11-5 ... ..;....
NA ...^.i................
75-71^8:...,..........
107.-Ofr-2 :"!ZIZ
75-35-4 ..............
156-060-5-....-...,..
75^0942 ..:
120-83-2 i,;..;..
187-^5-<) ............
78-87-5
1006.1-Oi-S
1006T--02-6 ........
I^M-SS-S ....;.;.
16I5-ซ0-1 ..........
3288-58-2 .........
0.36
CARBN; or INCIN
(WETOX or
CHOXD) to
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0023
0.023
0.0039
0 0039
0.023
0.023 ,
0.031
0:031 ,
(WETOX or
/ CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0.055 ..>
{WETOXor
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
'6.11 ...,......."
0.028 ;.i.....,.;.....
o.n .;;;.:..,;..;.....
0 057 .;....- .
0088
0.036 \vป...........
0090
0.036 ..;......; !
0^336 ^.......:
O.S3 ,.;........:,..;...:.
6.059 ..v.........
021 .. ""'
0.025 ซ%...............
0:054 .............;:
0.089 ..........."........
0.044 .:............:..
0.044,....;..........
0.85 ":;LV.UJ.'.'..-...
0.036 ^i..;.....,...
0.036T..V.j..:i ;....
{WETOXor ".
0HOXb):fb
"GARBNior
INCIN.
CHOXD; CHREb;
CARBN;
BIODG;or
INCIN. .
CARBN; or INCIN
0.2 ......, ..; . . .
Grab ,
NA .
NA
Grab ., .,
Grab .>..
" Composite
Composite
Composite
;Composite
Composite ....,
Composite
NA
Composite ........;..
NA ..
Composite ;.,.
Composite
Composite; ..:...,.,..
Grab
Composite -
Grab ..
Composite .>
Composite
Composite ... . ..
Composite
Composite ......
Composite .. .
Composite
Composite ; . .
Composite ......
Composite
Composite .;.........
Composite
Composite .
Composite
Composite
NA ... . '
NA .,. . .
Grab
FSOBS; or INCIN
.FCUBS; or INCIN
INCIN
0.087 ...
^0.087 .:.:.,.....:..,..
^0.087; ..
0087
6.087 ...................
0,087 ...................
rO.087 ........;.....
'INCIN '
ฐ8 2 :
FSuis; or INCIN
15
15 ... , ...
-28-' -;;:'
-62-
62
;6.2
J.NCIN' .....;:..;.:......
INCIN
INGIN ..........;
12 :'.i... .. ... .'
72. ' ' '
72.........
33'-',.
33 .....,......:.........
33 ;.;..:;....;.....:..;.
14 ...,..:. ...,.:...
14V..... .;......
18
18
FSUBg; or JNCIN
FSUBS; CHOXD;
,CHRED;or
FSUBS; or INCIN
NA. , ':
NA.. , ,
NA, ."- '.;
Total (rng/kg).
Txital.(mg/kg),
Total (mg/kg).
Total {mg/kg).
: Total (mg/kg).
.Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
; Total (mg/kg).
;NA.v ;;.
Total (mg/kg).
NA. ,
Tota!.(mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total tmg/kg).
NA.
NA
NA.
Total (rng/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
total (mg/kg).
Total (mgVkg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total {mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Nf.
NA.
NA '
Total
-------
I I " , I I + \ If t "1 h ' "ill 'ff V" 1 ./IK '. j * I' *
48192 Federal kegister / Vol.'58. No."'^76 / 'Tue_sday,_'Sepj;ember ^Wj993,.V..PiK^oser . ฃ* ป- DC . ff c. , CC . OC
i_" 5 v.44 o x & w*5o : I ' {j I
1ฐQZ ฐOZ ฐZ,S ฐSZ' "z,V? QZ
= OnS5ort??SQfRa2:g><5
wCggzOggzOgyg&gggogSlog
o S. งL o S- o a
i
-------
,U1;09
-;;";' \-:
U.1TO
. U111
U112
U113 '.
'urn ". ;
.i'Ui.15 :
U116
'il117 '*
U118
U119 '."'
UT20 .:-"
UI121
U122
U123 ;"
... ,''-..
U124 -.-.
U125
U126 .
0127
U128
U129
'*'''
U130
1 ,2-DipnenyInydrazine ;......
Dipropylamine ..; ;.
Dki-propylnitrosoamine ,.. ;
Fthvl flrotatA
Ethyl acrylate ;......
'Ethylene bis-dithiocarbamic acid .....
'.. , ; ' .. ' *
jEthylene oxide .:....
Ethylene thiourea ..'
..- * ' '" '
Ethyl ether .....:...:........:........; -:
Ethyl metnacrylate ..........;
Ethyl methane sulfonate ...;........ : '
Fluoranthene ...:....:...........................
Trichloromonofluoro-methane
Formaldehyde
Formic acid ^..."..l..............;.....;.......
Furao ...ซ..........;
; ."'-' . " ' . " ' ' ' '
' ' ' '
Furfural;......... .:....i.......;...;..v......
Glycidadehyde ...
Hexachlorobenzene ...........,..:..;..:..
Hexachlorobutadiene t ..
Lindane ................i...^... . . '
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene '..
1 ,2-Diphenyihydrazine .. .
Dipropylamine ,
Ci-n-propylnitrosoamine ....
ttnyi acetate
'Ethyl acrylate
'Ethylene bis-drthiocarbamic acid
Ethylene oxide .....
Ethylene thiourea ..;................
Ethyl ether .....:...................... ...
Ethyl methacryiate .:...........
Ethyl, methane sulfonate
Flubranthene -
Trichloromortoflubro-methane
Formaldehyde .: ...;....,.
Formic acid J;...m;........w. . .'.
Furan ;-..-..-:..-.;...-..f..i
Furfural -,.-..-..; -..; ... ~
Glycidadehyde
,'.... , .'. ....: -._ -.- - .. ""
Hexachrorobenzene ........................
Hexachlorobuta-diehe .....;........
alpha-BHC ........i ...
beta-BHC ...;. i::........:..L .;...........
delta-BHC
Gamma-BHC (Lindane) ...;..,....... ,\ .
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
'122-66^-7
142-64-7
621-64-7
14.1.-78-6
140-88-5
111-^4-6
75-21-8
96-45-7
60-29-7
97^63-2
62-50-0
20&Ji4-0 '
75-69-4 .......;...... :
so-o6-o\......
64^18-6
110-OOr-9 ...........
gg_0l_1
765-34-4 ::.'....ป
.'''-'
118-74-1
87-68-^3
319-S4-6
3,19-85-7 ....
319-86^
58-39^9
77-477
cwnyn- ^wppn-
CARBN;
> BIODG; or
:INCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
'.CARBN; or
INCIN.
0.40
034 ,
SA/VETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
fNCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXD} fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0.12
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
Ot2
0 14 -
(WETOXor
GHOXDJfb-
CARBN; or '
.INCIN. ' '',-.
n h(?ft
0:020 ;.........
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb;
CARBN; or
INCIN;
(WETOX or :
CHOXD) fb ' ' !
CARBN; or
INCIN.
(WETOXor
CHOXDJ.fb
CARBN; or
INCIN. :
AA/PTny or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or .
1NCIN.
(WETOXor
CHOXD) fb '
, CARBN; or .
INCIN. '
0;055- . .
0055-
000014
0.000^4 ...............
0.023....... ....
00017 ;
ncK? '"
"MA *
JNI\ ......................
j
MA
Composrte *.
Composite
MA
MA
y
NA
NA
NA
Composite ....... ,,v
NA , '
NA
NA ...,........; ^
KIA "
',. _ v . . . '"'>y>
NA
Compositฉ
Composite :...........
iomposite ..i..
rouoo; unuAu;-
CHRED;br:
INCIN.
IMCIM
14 ,..
33 .
PQI IRC* nr IMPIM
T
INCIN
NA *
IMfMM
vjiftrt
1AH
INCIN "
o.d.
33
:FSUBS; or INCIN
P<5r)RS- fir IWCMM
FSUB^ S or irJCIN
FSUBS* or INCIN
37 ' ' - . '
28
0 066
0.066 .......:...........
0.066..
n neo
1 ft" "''"'' -
3.6,
NAfc
MA
: Total (mg/kg).
Total (mgAg). *
MA
i
NA
t
NA
MA
NA
-. i "i- - - .. "..
-U v . . . V ' ,- -"' ".
Total (mg/kg) ;
Total (mg^Q) ~~- '
NA ' "
i - r.;
Kl A ! " *
NA' <"' ' ' ">"
NAw. .;.
NA ', ' '
nfff- ' .. ;,-;,--,,. .. ',;.
Total (mg/kg). '
rital (mg/kg). .;
Total (rng/kg).
Total (mg/kg). t
f
-
3
t
^
J**
*ป
I
|
ซ!
5ฐ
ฅ
"SI
.0
2
ซ
CO
ป
-,
-ป
'ซ3
CO
W
*J3
3 .'
"3
at'
to
,ฃ..
2
S"
:-
1
%
-------
1
.
:,
Waste
code
U131
U132
U133
U134
:U135
U136
U137
U138
U140
U141
U14g
U143
U144
U145
U146
U147
U148
-U149
U150
LI151 "
U151
Waste dtacriptton anoYor tf eatnwnt
tubcategory
Hexachtoroethane ... . ..
Hexachtorophenene .. ....
Hydrazine ......
Hydrogen fluoride ........
Hydrogen sulfide .......
Cacodylic acid ,
lndeno(1 ^,3-c,d)pyrene ......
lodomethane .,.......
Isobutyl alcohol .- , . ..
Laslocarpine . . ..
Lead acetate
Lead phosphate ...
Lead subacetate .,.,.'..,.. ..........'
Maleic anhydride
Malelc anhydride ?
Malononitrile " ' .
Melphalan ,... .. ,
Low Mercury Subcategory less
than 260 mg/kg Mercury fesi-*
dues'frorn RMERC Mercury.
Low Mercury Subcategory less
than 260 mg/kg Mercury that
are not residues from RMERC
Mercury. , '
. Regulated bazswtou* comt,tuซm
Common narot
Hexachloroetharte ........, ป
HexacWorophonene ..ป......,.
Hvdrazine .... ....
Fluoride . .........
Hydrogen fluoride ...ป
Hydrogen sulfide
Arsenic
lndeno(1 ,2,3-c,d)pyrene .;.... ...
lodomethane ..... ....
Isobutyl alcohol
Isosafrole .......
Kepone ......
Lasiocarpine . .
Lead ,..ป,..., v.....i.
Lead . .
Lead ... .. .ป....
Maleic anhydride ,-
Maleic hydrazide . . .. ..
Malononitrile ฐ
Melphalan .ซ..,..ซ,ซ,ป.,ซ.ซ........,.ซ.
Mercury . - .
Mercury
CAS No.
67-72-1 ..-
70-30-4 ........
302-01-2 . .
16964-48-8
7664-39-3 ....
7783-06-4 ..........
7440-38-2 .....
193-39-5 ....
74-88-4
78^3-1 ....
120-58-1 .......
143-50-8 ......
303-34-4 ...:.... .
. - -
7439-92-t ..........
7439-92-1 .........
7439-92-1 ;...
108-31-6 ............
123-33-1 ...... .
109-77-3 :: ; i"
148-82-3 ., <.,.....
7439-97-6 ..u.....
7439^-97"6 - *
WaiteMKtf*
Conctrrtrafion
(rnj/l) or tech-
nology codd
0.055 .
(WETOXor
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
CHOXD; CHRED;
CARBN;
DIODQ; or
. INCIN.
35 ;...
NA ...ป
CHOXD; CHRED;
or INCIN.
0.79 ....
0.0055
0.19
5.6 ;
0.081 .->... .....
0.0011 .................
(WETOX or - ,
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN,
0.040- ....;....
0.040 .......
0.040
(WETOXor
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or '
INCIN, .-'-
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
{WETOXor
. CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
{WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
: CARBN; or
INCIN.
0.030 ซ...
0.030 . ....
Sampling bam
Composits ปซ..
NA
Grab
NA ,ii.
Grab
Composite ...........
Composite
Grab ..........
Grab ......... ซ..
Grab
NA ., ..; ...
.Grab ...................
Grab .........v......
Grab - -..
NA
NA ............;........
NA . ....
NA^ ซ..,".
Grab;.^,
Grab .-
NonwastswaHfs
CoficปrrtrซHon w
ttohnotogy oodo
28 . .-. .....
INCIN
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or
, INCIN.
NA
ADGASfb
NEUTR;or
NEUTR. ;
CHOXD; CHRED;
or INCIN.
5.6
8.2
65
17Q , ,
2.6 .........:.......
0.13',.. ..:....
INCIN .................
0$1 i.
041 .......:.,:... ...
0.51 ._......_,
FSUBS; or: INQN
INCIN
1NCFN .-. ,
INCIN ^....w,...,l.
0.20 ...
0.025 -.
Sampling bซ*ts
Total (mg/ta).
NA,
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA
TCLP (mg/l).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA.
TCLP (mg/J).
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP (mg/l).
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA,
TCLP (mg/l).
TCLP (mg/l).
w
5-
r
3f-
%
E?
&
-------
U1.51 .
. U151
U152
U153:
U154 '
U155;.
U156
, U157
U158 ,
U159 .
U160
U161 "
U162, ';.
U163/ ..
U164
ut65 ;.-.'
U166
U167
U168 .'".'.
U169 :';..-
U170
U17J :--
U172'
U173 ;
U174
Mercury: (High Mercury:' Sub-
categorygreater than or equa
to 260. mg/kg total Mercury).
.Mercury: Elemental Mercury, con-
; .laminated with radioactive mate-
rials;
Methacrylbnitrile
Meinane tnioi ;.
Methanol
Methapyrilene .
Methyl chlorocarbonate ;....
3-Methylcholanthrene .....................
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) ..
Methyl ethyl ketone .:.........
Methyl ethyl ketons peroxide ...........
Methyl isobutyl ketone ;.........:.....
Methyl methacrylate ......;......,.
N-Methyl N'-nitro N-Nitroso- guani-
dine. , .
Methylthiouracil .1...
Naphthalene
1 ,4-Naphthbqujnone ...:..'..,
1-Naphthylamine .,........:
2-Naphthylamine !........
Nitrobenzene .......,.....
4-Nitrophenol .........;
2-NitrooroDane - -
> . ' - . ..,'.,'' . .. .
n-Nitrbsodi-n-butylam!ne .......
N'NitroscK)i-n-ethanolamine .. .
in-Nitrosodisthylamine
Mercury ...........%;.
Mercury ...........;..
.Methacrylonitrile .......".....
Methane thiol .
Methanol i
Methapyrilene .;....
Methyl chlorocarbonate ,....i.;i
3-Metriylcholamthrene ......,..,
4,4'-Methylenebis-{2-chloroaniline) .
Methyl ethyl ketone ,.
Methyr ethyl ketone peroxide
Methyl isobutyl ketone .........I. ...
Methyl methacrylate .;..ป...
N-Methyl N'-nitro N-Nitroso- guani-
dine. ' - .
Methylthiouracil ...
Naphthalene... ......:........,....3
1 ,4-Naphthoqiiinone
1 -Naphthylamine ..-.ป
Nitrobenzene ,....
4-Nitrophenol ...;... .... ...............
2-Nitropfopane...i..,i..;...,..;..i.i..
n-Nitrosodi-n-butylarhine
^-Nitroso^^n-e'thanolamine ...
-Nitrosodiethyl-amine .....................
7439-97-6
7439-97H5
126-98-7
74-93-1
f
67-66-1
.91-80-5
79-22-1 .-,...
56-49-6
101-14-4 ..
78-93^3
1338-23-4
108-1 f>1
80-62-6
70-25-7 ป
56-04-2
91-20-3
130-15-4 .
134-32-7
91-59-8
98-95-3 ....
00-02-7
79-46-S
116-64-7
55-18-5
NA
NA
054
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
5.6 .
0.081
(WETOX or-
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0.0055
0.50 .....
0.28 ..
CHOXD; CHRED;
CARBN;
BIODG;or
INCIN.
0.14
0.14 I,.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXDjib
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0.059
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
(WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
052
0.068
0.12
{WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
.40 ,
(WETOX or
CHOXD)fb
CARBNfor
INCIN.
.40
NA
NA'.
Composite
NA ,
Grab
Grab
NA .-M.,, ,
Composite
Composite ...
Grab
NA
Grab
Grab ......
NA , ...,.
NA ,
Composite
NA
NA
Composite
KIA
.'> .**ซ. .>>*..ซ...ซ....
Composite
NA
Composite
RMERC .,....! .
AMLGM
84
INCIN ,.
FSUBS; or INCIN
1 5
INCIN ,...
35 ..,
36
FSUBS; CHOXD;
CHRED; or
INCIN.
33
iftn
INCIN ..
INCIN
3.1 ,
FSUBS; or INCIN
NCIN
4
29
NCIN ....,.,..
7
NCIN . ,
D
NA, Z
NA.
V-
Total (mg/kg).
NA.
NA. *
Total (mg/kg). '
NA.
, <* \
Total (mg/kg).
.Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA. '
Total (mg/kg).
Total tmg/kg).
NA.
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
NA.
i
NA.
NA.
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
NA.
Total (mg/kg). t
NA.
f
Total (mg/kg).
-------
Federal .Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993, /Proposed Rules,
(ill
1 I'll
i i' IP 1 iiiii|i (ii iliiiii l"l i ii i( Hi 11 '
-------
"F
Pt
0197
;'M200
f 02011 '"..:'
i " ".
10203
' ?i0204
'tW "''.':
? U2iJS :
?U211 :
0213 :'.:
~'>0214 - '; v
;|i2i5 . :\-
*.-JN&9'-- -'
0217
0218
i
0219
0220
<022i
.tW.222 :
prBenzpquinofm ._......,.._
Reswrcfooi 1^_U'^-1- : .,.
Saccharin and sate ^,....W-.,_.M.
Safrole...
.Selenium dioxide ..-................
Selenium suHide ... .
Streptoiatoein'...-^..... .;ป......
1A4)5>Tetrachloroben2ene ...........
1,1,1 ^Tetrachloroethane ................
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene .......................
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrahydrofuran . ;......
ThaUium(l)acetate ', ............
Tha|liurn(l)carbonate
ThalUum (1) chloride ...... v,.....:__...
Thallium (1) nitrate .., .,
Thiotirea ,
Toluene .....u......, ,_
toluenediamine .....
o^Toluidlne hydrochlqrkJe ...._...
Reserpine ..... !
Resorcinol i.J.^..,.ป,,,.^ .........
Saccharin and salts .
Safrole ......
Selenium ..,,.....;......,...... .......
Selenium ................;..,......,.!..
Streptozatocih ............^.,...;;...........;
1^,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
id.l^-Tetrachloroethane .......... ..
Tetrachloroethylene ป..,.,. .
Tetrahydrofuran s
Thallium (1) acetate
Thallium ,... ..,;. . .
rhalliom (1) carbonate ;
thallium -.,i:...-:i..:.;l;m.'ป...^.^..'.. /
Thallium (!) chloride
Thallium
"hallium (1) nitrate
Thallium
"hioacetamide
Tiiourea ..................,..,
Toluene . ..
Toluenediamine
o-Tolupne hydrocliloride. ,,..,..;..
106-51-4
"50-55-5 ....
81-07-2
, ,- ; , t , - , ' - - , -
94-59-7
7,782-49^2 .........
95-94-3 .,..
630-20-6 ...........
79-34-5
127-18*4
169-99-9"!."!"."".'
563-68-8 ...vi.
7440-28-0 .:........
7791-12-0
7440-28-0
7440-28-0 I
62-56-2
08-88-3
5376-45-8
636-21-5. ..
(WETOXor.
.CHOXD) to ,
CARBN; or
INCIN. .,
(WETOXor :
CHOXD) to '
CARBN; W
, INCIN.
(WETOXor
; CHOXD) to
CARBN; or
INCIN;
(WETOXor
CHOXD) to
' CARBN; or
INCIN,
0.081 ;.....
1.0 .......,....;.....
1.0 ...:...;........
(WETOX or
CHOXD) to
CARBN; or
INCIN.
0,055 ,....,'..
0.057 .,
0.057
0.056 ...................
0.057
(WETOXor
CHOXD) to
: CARBN; or
INCIN.,
NA
0.14 ..........;....:
NA
0.14 .....;....,,.....
NA ..;.............
0.14 ;......1,..L.....
NA . .;
0.14 ......;....J........
(WETOXor
CHOXD) to
CARBN; or ' -
INCIN; " " .
(WETOXor
CHOXD) to
CARBN; or
.INCIN, .'"
080
CARBN; or INCIN
(WETOXor
:CHOXD) to
CARBN;or
INCIN.:.
NA ...,
NA ........... .
"KI'A"".' ": : ;
IMA ......................
3 . "
NA
".' . : ; '."
Grab
Grab
Grab
MA
Composite :..........
Grab ,.;...;.............
Composite ,..
Composite ..........
Composite
NA
Composite i..'.
NA
Composite
NA ...... .
Composite
NA
Composite
NAINCINV .
NA .,
JA
NA ......................
FSUBS; or INCIN
INCIN
FSUBS; or INC|N
INCIN
22 ....,..:..,......
5.7
5.7 .......i
IWOlK!
19 ...;.. . .
42 .w.
42...... .....".....
5,6
5,6
FSUBS; or INCIN
:RTHRM;or
STABL. . ...
NA ,..,.
RTHRM;or
STABL
NA
RTHRM;or
STABL
NA
RTHRM;or
STABL
NA
NA.., '
NClN .. .. .
jo " ' ' -
FSUB3; or INCIN
NClN ..........,.:...
NA. :"/"''.
NA,
NA, ,
Total, (mg/kg).
tCLP(mg/l),;
TCLP (trig/I),.
NA. " "
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mgTkgX
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg).
Total (mg/kg). '
N
NA "-..'
W\.:. ;-.,-,-.; -.'-
" - ' . !
NA.." -'';''
NA.
NA.
NAT
NA. ;
NA. _''.;
NA;.-,. :'l' .::,
NA,-
-------
ild i mi
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday September 14> 1993 / Proposed Rules
"* V "it ''I
ปii! :
>l I'Sia,;
: I, I
h ..A
, SI ill,1!11 fV'jIII
'""i ;"" !,!i i* a
'
||'ll|l .' ! !' . I!; 1 III,!:!!"1,!!;! ,
,ii ill,,,,,, I, I,,, .1
1: iljul """'lilllii;,''1
I
|ii!:ซ-! 11 -rf>
111 - in ซ il p in
I
w
5
( z.
. ra
< o
Z ฃ
!
i
, z
:
i
_ :
;
:
i
<
O
I
ง rg
O 0,U
D g .".
in E .
|| 9 |
O: '3" '
z
sr ; s
i II
I i
_ w
ฐ ฐ
I
'
o o o o
jggli
i ง.
5 : ! : i
I j i I I :
1:1
! I I !! I
X
ฃ 5 .te
o y._
in A o
So i 3=S
oz"S:
rTO fegi
[ IO ซ> *
I3S1I-I
R tป. h. i^ r^ <
T
u>
ซ in
. *-j i o>
1
I
8.
2
S.
H
S !
.T2
ฃ
8.
.
I'SS
s's s
t- ft -
-------
U353'
U359
p-toluidine .*....................................
2-ethoxy- ethanol
" * - ' -:
. , V- :'.- '
. . - . t
p-toluidine .
2-ethoxy-ethanol .. . '
106-49-0
1 1 0-80-5-
INCIN- or CHOXD
fb,(BIODQor
CARBN); or '
'. BIODG*
CARBN.: ,
INCIN- or CHOXD
fb,(BIODQor
CARBN); or
BIODGfb :
CARBN.
NA
'NA '
INCIN' or Thermal
Destruction.
iKtpiKI. or P"?l IRQ
NA
MA ' -
'. ^ "
\ \- - - . ~
1F039 (and D001 and D002 wastes prohibited under ง268.37)
r
-------
I,*
4820O Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 /Proposed Rules
5268,41 [Reserved]
21. Section 268.41 in subpart D is
removed an8 reserved,
22, Section 268.42 is amended by
removing Table 2 land Table 3, and
revising paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (c)(2) and (d) to read as follows:
5258.42 Treatment standards expressed "
ป Specified'" technologies. .............. '_ ' .............. ' _ ' .........
(a) The following wastes in
paragraphs (a){l) and (a)(2) of this
section and in the Table ..... of Treatment ..........
Standards for' which ..... standarcls are" ' ..... ',' ," ....... \ ...... '"
expressed as a treatment method rather
than a concentration must be treated
using the technology or technologies
specified in paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2)
and, Table 1 of this section. [[[
(2) The lab pack does not contain the
following wastes: D009, F019, K003,
K004i iKOOS, K006, K062, K07J, K100,
j^|0|> ^lO^Pdii, P012, P076, P078,
U134, U151.
: ,,, -; ?"' , : ' ";, * ; r:,u t ", M ........ , .*; ........ _ > ซ ..... 1 ,' ,1, '!!,.",'. ....... i ; ...... ป. ', ...... I
(d) Hazardous debris containing
radioactive waste is subject to the
treatment standards specified in
ง268.45.
ง268.43 [Reserved]
23. Section 268.43 in Subpart D is
removed and reserved.
24. In subpart D, ง 268.47 is added to
read as follows:
ง268.47 Treatment standards for
hazardous sojl. [ ,
(a) Treatment standards for the
organic and inorganic constituents
listed in ง 268.48, Table UTS, Universal
Treatment Standards, are applicable to
RCRA hazardous soil before the soil is
land disposed.
(b) Hazardous soil may be land
disposed if the concentration of each
constituent found on Table UTS in the
soil is equal to or less than:
(1) A 90% reduction of the initial
untreated concentration, provided that
the resulting treated concentration is
less than or equal to ten times the
universal treatment standard; or
(2) The concentration is less than or
equal to ten times the universal
treatment standard; or
(3) A 90% reduction of the initial
untreated concentration unless such
would result in a treatment level*below
the universal treatment standard for that
constituent, in which case the universal
treatment standard would apply.
25. In subpart D, ง 268.48 is added to
read as follows:
ง268.48 Universal treatment standards.
(a) Table UTS identifies the hazardous
constituents associated with restricted
hazardous wastes regulated under this
"jprOt also establishes the
concentrations of those constituents that
may not be exceeded in the waste or
treatment residual, or in an extract of
such waste or residual, if so specified in
Table UTS.
(1) Compliance with these treatment
standards is measured by an analysis of
grab samples, unless otherwise noted in
the following Table UTS.
(2) The constituent-specific treatment
standards in Table UTS supersede the
treatment standards found at งง 268.41
and 268.43, when such constituents are
regulated in wastes listed as hazardous
under 40 CFR part 261, subpart D, of
this chapter.
(3) The requirements of paragraph
(a)(2) of this section do not apply to the
hazardous waste specified in งง 268.41
and 268.43 as F024. This waste is
subject to the treatment standards in
งง 268.41 and 268.43.
ง268.48 TABLE UTSUNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS
.'.' , ' ,", ", "'""' ' .'
1 'ซ
Regulated hazardous constituent
Aconaphthalone * >
Acenaptithene ..........
Acetone .... J.
Acefeoitiie ซI................. I.......I1.I. '..i ".. .'...........
1 ./ "Xciifedheoone ! '
2-Acetyftrn]B6(hK>rene 1 v
AcroMn . " "...... - ป'..". ....
AciytonMla .. . . '.. ,
'*' '' "' '' 4ซArninobtoheoVt '" " ' " ' ' ' ' ' '" '
AnJtine ".
Anthracene ..........
Anunlta ..............................
Aroclor 1016 ป ..........
ArocJ6r1221 . ...........I............!......... '.
!i," !':"ป Aroe|orf232 . . .......".....
Aroclor 1242 . . '. ซ....'...'...'.ป...
Aroclor 1248
'" '"''' ' Mffvi^f\f l9Srf
Aroctof IsSS .. *
! gjpfia-BHC .., i ซ.ป..
1 "cteftaBHC ' ' H " ' ' -
,; . . "ป , 'ป|Si^BjbO>j '
Beru(a)anthfacooe .ป
: , Boozofkjfluoranthene ป
BJa|2-cWoroethyJ)ettier ; .'.....
Wastewater con-
centration total com-
position (mg/l)
0.059
0.059
0.28
0.17
0.010
0.059
0.29
0.24
0.021
0.13
0.81
0.059
0.36
0.013
0.014
01013
0.017
0.013
0.014
0.014
0.00014
0.00014
0.023
0.0017
0.059
0.055
0.14
0.061
0.11
0.0055
-0.11
0.036
0.033
Nonwastewater
concentration total '
composition (mg/
kg)
3.4
3.4
160
NR
9.7
140
NR
84
0.0664 J
NR
14
3.4
NR " A
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
1.8
1.8
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
3.4
6.0
10
3.4
6.8
1.8
6.8
7.2
6.0
ป''","| ," ,'" ' i"'"' !' , ." ' " :
: i,.' ;. .!,. i ,.: , 'i,< ' n ' J,,; i; ! ji,,, ' ; ' , .I!,
ซ^ mi!::,, ' I,
ll ..... ' illPiJ. '"' ; I " i 'I .M|P,ซ|I Illlll i1 i|U,iii ..... lihipiniiiilillllliliFi!!! ,ll/i ,,l,Hilllillill||>l ' I'Jill"! liliillill , iii
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 176 /Tuesday, September 14... 1993 /Proposed Rules
48201
ง268.48 TABLE UTSUNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDSContinued
Regulated hazardous constituent
Wastewater con-
centration-total com-
position (mg/!)
Nonwastewater
.concentration total
composition (mg/
kg)
Bis(2-chloroisppropyl)ether..;....:
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ...;;
"''" Bromodichlprornethane. '.
- Bromomethane .. _.
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether...............
' n-Butyl alcohol
Butyl benzyl phthalaie
2-sec-ButyW,6- dinitropheno) .............
Carbon disulfide ., ;....
" Carbon tetrachloride ...~.........
? Chlordane
p-Chloroaniline ........;.
. ,..'. Chlorobenzene'.'.'. .,.
Chlorobenzilate
* 2-Chloro-1,3-butadier*8 ..............;....;..
Chlorodibromomethans :. ......::.....
Chloroethane ,:,..... ,
Chloroform '...... ;,
p-Chloro-rn-cresol .
2:Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chlpromethane- (Methyl chloride)
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chloropheno! ...;.:'.
3-Chloropropylene ..,....,:. '. ...
Chrysene ..
Cresol (m- and p-isomers) ...;....
o-Cresol ...
Cyclohexanone
o,p'-DDD ......;.
p,p'-DDD I .. ..""
d,p'-DDE
p,p'-DDE ; ..,.. ~"
__ ''. .p,p'-DDT
p,p'-DDT .; .........,.......,...............!."
Djbenzo(a,e)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracen8 ,........,...
tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyi) phosphate .....
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane ..... :....
. 1,2-Dibromoethane !
Dibromomethane ..;...
m-Dichlorobenzene "...
o-Dichlorobenzene"., ;.
p-Dichlorobenzene ;.;.............,.;..........
. Dichlorodifluoromethane ,..
f 1,1-Dichloroethane : ;...
" 1,2-D|chlproethane .'
I,"1-Dichlor6ethylene
; trans-1,2-Di'chlorpethylene
' 2,4-Dichlprophenol
.ซ 2,6-Dichloropheno! ,
2,4-Dichlprpphenpxyacetic acid (2,4-b)
1,2-Dichlqropropane .....;.. .;.'..
cis-1,3-Dichjoropropyiene ....
traris-1,3-Dichloropropylene ...
Dieldrin
, .Diethyl phthalate
'p-Dimethylaminpazo-benzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethyl phthalate
p"i-n-butyl phthalate '... :.
: 1,4-Dinitrobenzene
4,6-Dinitrocresol
. 2,4-Dinitrpphenpl : ;. "'"
2i4-Dinitrptoluene
. 2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate :.........
Di-n-propylnitrosamins ...;,...
- ' Diphenylamine Ml _...
" 1,2-Diphenyl bydrazine
0.055
0.28
0.35
0.1-1
0.055
5.6
0.017
-0.066
0.014
0.057
0.0033
0.46
0.057
0.10
0.057
0.057,
0.27
0.046
0.018
0.062
0.19
0.055
0.044
0.036
0.059
0.77 -
0.11
0.36
0.023
0.023
0.031
0.031
0.0039
0.0039
0.061
0.055
0.11
0.11
0.028
0.11
0.036
0.088
0.090
0.23
0.059
0.21
0.025
0.054
0.044
0.044
0.72
0.85
0.036
0.036
0.017
0.20
0.13
0.036
0.047
6.057,
0.32
0.28
0.12
6.32 :
0!55
0.017
0.40
0.92
0.087 ,
7.2
28
15 >
15 .
15
2.6
28 :
2.5
4.81
6.0
0.26
16
6.0
NR
NR .
15
6.6
6.0
14
NR
30
5.6
5.7
30
3.4
3.2
5.6
0.75
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
NR
8.2
NR
15
15
. 15
6.0 ,
6.0
6.0
7J2
6'.0
6.0
6.0
30
,14
14,
10
18
18
.18
0.13
28 .
NR
. 14
,28
28
2.3
160 .
160
i140
28
28
14
13
NR
-------
...... |g|g| ...... ........... ' ............. ""fgeral" ..... Jegjster ..... T'VoI. 58. No. 176 / Tuesday, September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules
ง 268.48 TABLE UTS UNIVERSAL TREATMENT
Regulated hazardous constituent
; ! ', ' I ;; ; 1,,,,' 1 ^
ftLiiNWiinn I.. .....J........... .............'..............ซ
Endosutfant "-
l^ijj^jjfa'te ' ::::::::z:"::;:::iziii...:.;
Endrin. i........:.:..:...:....:..:.:....:....
Pfhul srjttntj* -
Fihvi AihAr . *.ป 1........... ป ...;...........:.....
PlhuLnru* rwWta ซ . ........
HexacWoropropyiene .ซ.ป ซซ... .ปซ. ป ป.ปปปป :......................
tefihtrtvi nJcnhol ฐ. - ป-ป
Isosafroto .,...ซปซ.......ป..... ~ - ป- ป - - """
Kepono ..,.........,.,.ป.. ปป
^ttwxydhlor .......... ป - ป ...............::......
3^McthykWoanthrene ....; ...ป ป. - -
MnlhvH Athuf IfPfnnft ' .' ' ' ..................... ^.... ..1... ........... .....I.I..^......~....ซ.:....
HloihtM fe/O-urtvl knfnnfl .- - ป*
U*th^ rvirnlhinn ........:.......
^.Nnnhthvlnmtnft .ซ ..ป..ป.... ...1
fvNiLroaniima -. * * 'ป- "
,,i ; i {jy^Y^^^n^rfvtarTS^"**"" ""
N-Nilrbsopyrrolkline ~ ป ..."-r..
Parathlon - ป - -
Pentachlofoditxjnzofufans
pentacMorooitrobenzene ~ :
"jgjSjS^^
'i:::: P^^n--;:ป-"r-r:-:-::r:r"="-"::;"r:;-r
Wastewater con-
centration total com-
position (mg/l)
0.92
0.12
0.017
0.023
0.029
0.029
0.0028
0.025
0.34
0.057
0.12
0.14
0.12
0.017
0.068
. 0.059
0.0012
0.016
0.055
0.055
0.000063
0.000063
0.057
0.055
0.035
0.0055
0.19
5.6
0.021
0.081
0.001V
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
0.0
NR
0.068
0.32
NR
0.12
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.013
0.013
OJ014
0.055
0.000035
0.000063
NR
0.055
0.089
0.081
0.059
0.039
0.021
Nonwastewater
concentration total
composition {mgl
kg)
13
170
6.2
0.066
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
33
10
160
160
NR
15
3.4
3.4
0.066
0.066
10
5.6
0.001
0.001
2.4
30
30
3.4
65
170
0.066-
2.6
0.13
84
0.75
1.5
0.18
15
30
30
36
33
160
NR
4.6
5.6
NR
28
14
14
28
13
29
28
2.3
17
2.3
2.3
35
35
4.6
10
0.001
0.001
6
4.8
7.4
16
5.6
4.6
1, '' i' - x' ', 1 i' l*:,'':. n' '*!," ':''' ."!:, ni ran!11:;" .<',; >: : iiaiii:'! >:>i ait ' . ipiiv: '
' i ." , I, ' '' . ' ปpi'i; i!!i"i "ซ. ii!,,.; : ;." .,r. .in' : p in.? ini ,iii:,;.'..i' m:i 'ซi|f . ', iLJiiiiiii;.,,1,111 ysnvinnihiiMiiiiiiieifflHiPi ilii^'iiiiBiiitiiiiiiniiiiiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijii'iiii11:,,! li'iiyni''?:!'!!....:^!.:'.!!!;..!'!,.!'! liiiiiininiiii n, iirtiMiiihiiiii"'1!! iiBiiiiiCiwuiiiinr ai,,1;,! in^iLiiiii'i''"^'!^!!!!^'!".::*!!!^!!^.!!!!! iiiiiiiiNiipi.iin'iLi.,1: .:;i
-------
*ซv ,<
/. VoL 5fl, No. lye?/ Tuesday, September 14, 1993 /'Proposed Rules -
l.S
ง268.48 TABLE UTS UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS Continued
* **
? - Regulated hazardous Constituent
' * . 1
Phthalic acid _
Pfrthalic anhydride , L J '"
Pronamide , r """l
Propanenrtnle , 4 f
Pyndine ' """ """" "
Silwex (2,4,5-TP) . ..- ' "" """"""" f -'" "-1
2,4,5,-T. . _,' Z1Z!"ZI"ZL'~ "
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachtorobenzene ...;. \ '
Tetrachlorpdibenzofurans
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
1.1,1,2-Tetracnloroethane .
1,1.2,27Tetrachioroethane ' "
Tetrachloroethylene , ,,
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol . ,, ,
Toluene - ""^' "'
Toxaphene ~ '
Tribromomethane (Bromoforra) ,
1,2;4-Trich!orobenzene ;..
1,i.1-Trichlor6ethane . .,
1 ,1 ,2-TricWoroethane ,.
Trichloroethylene ""
TncWoromohofluoromethane
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol ,.. .
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid ...... --...
1 ,2,3-trichloropropane , ' """ ""
1.1,2-Trichloro-1^,2-trifluoroetharie ........:. -~- "" " "
Vinyl chloride t...............r . --.... ,.
Xylenes (total) .............; > . * """" " ""
Totai PfeBs ...; .......;... ; .. ;
Wastewater con-
centraticn total com-
position \mgnf
0,055
U-Uoo '
U.UiM
0.24
0.067
1 0.0|14
0.081
(Jt7Z
0.72
U.Uob
U.UUUUtKi
U.UUUUao
U.UO/-
U.UO/-
0.030
U.UoU
0.0095
U.OO
0-Q55.
U.U54
0-054
0.054
0-020
0.18
, U.UoO
0.85 .
' i. 0.27
' * e\ <ปo -; ' ' - ^
, , 0,32
' i.-.- n -i'~- -.- .
Nonwastewater
concentration total
composition (mg/
kg)
28
28
1.5
360
8.2
t6
22
7.9
7.9
14
0.001
0.001
6.0
60
6.0
7.4
10
2.6
15
19:
6.0
6.0
6.0
30
7.4
7.4
7.9 i
30
30
6,0
- . ,-30 ;-..-.. ,-.'.
''.'(" :'~'\... : ; : ^Regulated hazardous. cons'tituent ... .-.-'-,. : : ./
Antimony i . . I
Arsenic " " - ' ' "
Barium " "" " ' -" ,-
Beryllium ................. . """ "'" '" :"" ~ ,
Cadmium... .:... . '"""' """" " .-. ; -.
, Chromium (total) ' . "" -
Cyanide (total) ... , "'"" v-- --:-- -
Cyanide (amenable) !-.-......
Lead '
Mercury .................. " " ' -
Nickel --..... ...;..........................:.......
Selenium . ;...: ; ;.. ' """ " 1 1
Silver ....;.. ; .; ' " * - "" '
Thallium ' "-
Vanadium , """' ' """ ' "
Zinc -: ' " " """" ' " " " "
1 As analyzed using SW-846 Method 9010 or 9012; sampje size 10 gram; distillation time one hour an
Wastewater corn
centration total
composition (mg/l)
/ "--' i. ,1.9 -,'
-1.4 .
':. ' . -1.2'..
0,82; .
0.20
0.37
; -1-9'' '.'
.... NR ;
0^8 ':
0.15
0.55
A DO '
0.29
1.4 '
0.042
1.0 ;
d fifteen minutes. ,
Nonwastewater
concentration
TCLP(mg/i)
2A
5.0
-=. M -.
0.014
0.19
0^3
1590
130
0.37
0.009
;-. 5.0
0.16
0.30
0.078
0.23
5.3
PART 271REQUIREMENTS FOR, ..'
AUTHORIZATION OF ST^TE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
2iB. The authority citation for part 271,
Continues to rea^ as follows:
Authority: 42 IJ.S.C. 6905,6912(S). and
'6926.; -- ', ";. .: ..--. ...:-.-. ^."^' - .'?;.,::
Subpart ARequirements for Final
.Authorization.;'-'' - :
27. Section 271.l(j) is amended by
adding the following entries to Table 1
in chronological order by date of
. publication in the Federal Register, and
,by adding the following entries to Table
2 in chronological order by effective
date in the Federal Register,
ง 271.1 Purpose and scope.
" ;
-------
Illli iljnjplnl ':! l'"llil
iiili .iijlliiiliiii^^ iiiilllijiiu^ ilidwipiinlii'riil iK%^ liiijfijili
JllillliHIII^^ IlliiilliiVFllMllil:1 I.III1II"! iliif||liillll||lPipllW lnllllinililVI uilllllivllllltnlilllllllli!!
- ii i : I " ,1 : ซ si 4 .i-;; j-'-f '; : I
i: ",:":i^
48204 Federal Regisler / Vol. 58, No.'176 / Tuesday. September 14, 1993 / Proposed Rules '
TABLE1.REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Title of regulation
' FEDERAL REGISTER
reference
Effective date
I ',"
tjtwert date of pubfica- Land disposal restrictions for newly listed and Identified; wastes in' [Insert FR page nunv {Insert date of signa-
' Son hi the Federal ง268.38 and hazardous soil in ง268.47. and universal treatment bers]. ; ture of final rule].
Register (FR)]. standards hi ง268.48. ' ; !
" Jii, ,! 1! I"
.
-*1* *frti4 ....... >i .......... ^ ...... M ........... "S ...... '* '1*1
. . , , , ,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,, , ,,, , . p , ,, n , ,,i
TABLE 2. SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVtsioNs OF THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE; AMENDMENTS OF 1 984
n ( |ffectiye data ' , ",i" ,'' , \ ,งฎ!t'l!tie2!i,fli,!E2y^ionl,,,',,, " i
FEDERAL REGISTER '
.; reference ;. .
lll'i ISMf!" I;"":;*!!!!!!:, S'':!5l'ซl:K^ ,!f"!!!;!':a!!|!!'l,!!!! * "I!" ?' f,1'!! S! ,'! I!" Il
'*
* Turi of final rule].
ProhMjon on land 'disposal" of .
standards for hazardous soil tn ง268.47 and universal standards in 3004(m).
ง268,48. ' ' ' ""' '"' '! '
11 ^:i-,tr-."?--: *" ' '- ?'' "- ^-'" =' '.''i.Kซ=*: ;i:i ;;s i :;
[Insert date of i
tion] 58 FR [insert
page numbers].
"-' " ' " "
' ii:" ? '-ItfR boa Sb-iiVwrFiFe?o^ia^OTrSiT^aiil * " "I ' ' "': -" ! '"' : : '"', " '""' ".';: "-'"'. '.'. '""'*"'"' " : t!! "!"""i"t', ": ' ""; '.; """"'
-.'f ",:: : '^H&bsJMซฃซ!V:' "' ;. ""::!|1 ': *' " : lll:'!-:: ;: !;" '"" ;":! ; - :l:"i:":::1 ::: ~!I;aa ":ss~~ :!?s * ta>xs ! :I|I'~" w:!"! : 1:l* ' : :'"*"*:-!lll;:! ll! * " ' s::|l! :" !'i:i9l:ja * " : " S|E ' ^ ' '
, ii L ;
ill mams- wm
ill ' 'Ii u j, W1 , ' , ' 'f ' ,' , " "i1 ^ 'i' '' N" iฐ j " ' ii "" ' *" i ':'' n ' ,i i 'I. :' .ii " .*"'"' 'Jii *ป' "'1'' ";;''"" .1""'' i""1" [' 'i.ii"!'":! '' in"i !"i''"''' "" " "' I"'""" '|| ijj iP|! '"s,!1"" I jji""" "T, |l| L1 ""n,,!i!!" ,111:"''" 7"'!! "', J!|l
1 ' '''' ..ป j i i, ^ ^ ... ,, '..i., ^ ..''^ij .,,;,,,. i ,1 , ' ' .'"' '", ;'i| ; ; 'i ''' ;).,'i"ji. ii ,'j. ' ' i ,'",F'II'",III ",, ',i ji ," ;,,.li;.i "',,,,,'i',,! ," ;i; 'l '..ni ,t Lnuii.!!,.;'^. !.."|!''.' li'.i,,!',,,:,!.";.!:, ,u i! i! ,,V,i;;
-------
'l *
i i
-------
r i ni
T [t
(I '
X ' f " *fl'1f
...... ' ::' i nil" i Ir f i1"; "i1 'iir,'i iii ..... i" ir , ; ซ'ni1 :' 'i ...... iiiii, ,:!i:r ';
. I j t r 1-
r ,i i j f i i | ii
- ,' v
t f ; .v , ,,| ,. t!
i11 ' >. if i jh . J i " *'" ''
1 , v- r- y, "ji,l(, 1 J ' i , ;ซ i
ซ,* * i 1 ii1 f * T - - a" u ^ r , ' ..
!1 ' i *' i' , , I* -"ซ' >ป- i. ' i , * -' ,, f i' i ' ,
f i j , j iji'.r l'i' f ir "f I1'! V i iJ.'.uy -T, f?i. 1,1ft
I . * 11 . A i it- t >* H * i ,r ** ' ^fi * '\
Kl
ffl r ซ i
J ' |t
! , } I 1
, < ^
III I ( II I 111 II) III III 1 I I II III " i)
l. i, ' i IV! ป 'Si'-ii ' i:",*" : I" 'Hi1' 'I'1: 'i '"ii "I '", iiilii iiiilliii1 "'
" "' , 1' T ,, ป* p f
i!1:;1-","" lli|!: 'illiii, jlll'iE llii "It'liiiF jli'lLil i-liili1" "'""lii'iiLjL tS^'i'l iilllilji "
v f
i i''f ill J , ","Jf I , II
.. ^ .. i ..... .... .. .." II. 1 J
in ......... ii1'!1! mi ..... i :,'": ''ijiini: ..... '::i TJIHI"'
' 'f j * jปซ [i - , ^ ' j {
t *) p * * ,i -
ซ I ปi * ,ป - , ซซ |l
I * i i i t MI * J v. * ป * i
------- |