EPA -
Monday
September 19, 1994
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 268
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Testing and Monitoring Activities, Land
Disposal Restrictions Correction; Final
Rule
40 CFR Parts 148, et al.
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II—
Universal Treatment Standards, and
Treatment Standards for Organic Toxicity
Characteristic Wastes and Newly Listed
Wastes; Final Rule
-------
-------
47980 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[FRL-5070-2]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Testing and Monitoring
Activities, Land Disposal Restrictions
Correction
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: This action corrects the final
regulations which were published
Tuesday, August 31,1993 ("Hazardous
Waste Management System; Testing and
Monitoring Activities; Final Rule", 58
FR 46040). This action corrects the
unintended removal of text from 40 CFR
268.7(a), which sets out the generator
waste analysis and recordkeeping
requirements of the land disposal
restrictions under Subtitle C of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective
as of August 31,1993.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information about this correction
contact Kim Kirkland at (202) 260-4761,
Office of Solid Waste (Mailcode 5304),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460. For information about 40 CFR
268.7(a) requirements, contact the RCRA
Hotline on (800) 424-9346 (toll-free) or,
in the Washington, DC metropolitan
area, (703) 412-9810.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final regulations that are the
subject of this correction (August 31,
1993, 58 FR 46040) amended the
hazardous waste regulations for testing
and monitoring activities by replacing
the Second Edition, Updates I and II, of
the EPA approved test methods manual
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,"
EPA Publication SW-846, by
incorporating by reference the Third
Edition of SW-846 and its Update I into
§260.11(a) of the RCRA regulations. In
addition, the final rule also made a
technical amendment to § 268.7(a)
(concerning waste analysis and
recordkeeping requirements) whereby
the reference to the appendix IX of Part
268 was revised to reference SW-846
Methods 1311 and 1310. The Agency
intended to revise only the introductory
text of § 268.7(a) and to retain without
change all of the subparagraphs
following the introductory text.
However, due to an inadvertent
administrative error in incorporating the
August 31,1993 rule into the 1994
edition of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), the subparagraphs
following the introductory text were
unintentionally removed. This action
clarifies that subparagraphs 40 CFR
268.7(a)(l)-268.7(a}(10), as set forth in
this action, remain in effect, and are
regarded by EPA to have been in effect
continuously in the form published in
the Code of Federal Regulations revised
as of July 1,1993.
It should be noted that 40 CFR
268.7(a) as published in this action, as
well as other regulations implementing
the land disposal restriction (LDR)
program, have been amended in a final
rule that is published elsewhere in
today's Federal Register. The regulatory
text set forth in this action does not
include the amendments to § 268.7(a)
made by that LDR final rule. The
purpose of this action is to make clear
that the August 31,1993 rule was
intended only to modify the
introductory text of § 268.7(a), and was
not intended to delete paragraphs (a)(l)-
(a)(10). Therefore, the complete version
of § 268.7(a) as it should have appeared
since the August 31,1994 Federal
Register is set forth in this action.
Readers are urged to refer to the LDR
final rule, published elsewhere in
today's Federal Register, for the full and
current text of § 268.7(a).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 30,1994.
Peter Robertson,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in
the preamble, 40 CFR part 268 is
corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
and 6924.
2. Section 268.7(a) is revised to read
as follows:
§ 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeeping
(a) Except as specified in § 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
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure, Method 1311 in "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods," EPA
Publication SW-846, as incorporated by
reference in § 260.11 of this chapter, or
use knowledge of the waste, to
determine if the waste is restricted from
land disposal under this part. Except as
specified in § 268.32 of this part, 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 the Extraction
Procedure Toxicity Test, Method 1310
in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,"
EPA Publication SW-846, as
incorporated by reference in § 260.11 of
this chapter, or use knowledge of the
waste, to determine if the waste is
restricted from land disposal under this
Part. If the generator determines that his
waste displays the characteristic of
ignitability (D001) (and is not in the
High TOG Ignitable Liquids Subcategory
or is not treated by INCIN, FSUBS, or
RORGS of § 268.42, Table 1), or the
characteristic of corrosivity (D002), and
is prohibited under § 268.37 of this Part,
the generator must determine what
underlying hazardous constituents (as
defined in § 268.2), are reasonably
expected to be present in the D001 or
D002 waste.
(1) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part and the waste does not meet the
applicable treatment standards set forth
in Subpart D of this part or exceeds the
applicable prohibition levels set forth in
§ 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d), with
each shipment of waste the generator
must notify the treatment or storage
facility in writing of the appropriate
treatment standards set forth in Subpart
D of this part and any applicable
prohibition levels set forth in § 268.32
or RCRA section 3004(d). The notice
must include the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-F005, F039,
wastes prohibited pursuant to § 268.32
or RCRA section 3004(d), and for
underlying hazardous constituents (as
defined in § 268.2), in D001 and D002
wastes if those wastes are prohibited
under § 268.37. Treatment standards for
all other restricted wastes must either be
included, or be referenced by including
on the notification the applicable
wastewater (as defined in § 268.2(f)) or
nonwastewater (as defined in § 268.2(d))
category, the applicable subdivisions
made within a waste code based on
waste-specific criteria (such as D003
reactive cyanides), and the CFR
section(s) and paragraph(s) where the
applicable treatment standard appears.
Where the applicable treatment
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 47981
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in § 268.42, the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of §268.42 (e.g., INCIN, WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification;
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste;
(iv) For hazardous debris, the
contaminants subject to treatment as
provided by § 268.45 (b) and the
following statement: "This hazardous
debris is subject to the alternative
treatment standards of 40 CFR 268.45";
and
(v) Waste analysis data, where
available.
(2) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
Part, and determines that the waste can
be land disposed without further
treatment, with each shipment of waste
he must submit, to the treatment,
storage, or land disposal facility, a
notice and a certification stating that the
waste meets the applicable treatment
standards set forth in subpart D of this
part and the applicable prohibition
levels set forth in § 268.32 or RCRA
section 3004(d). Generators of
hazardous debris that is excluded from
the definition of hazardous waste under
§261.3(e)(2) of this chapter (i.e., debris
that the Director has determined does
not contain hazardous waste), however,
are not subject to these notification and
certification requirements.
(i) The notice must include the
following information:
(A) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(B) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-F005, F039,
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
§ 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d).
Treatment standards for all other
restricted wastes must either be
included, or be referenced by including
on the notification the applicable
wastewater (as defined in § 268.2(f)) or
nonwastewater (as defined in § 268.2(d))
category, the applicable subdivisions
made within a waste code based on
waste-specific criteria (such as D003
reactive cyanides), and the CFR
section(s) and paragraph(s) where the
applicable treatment standard appears.
Where the applicable treatment
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in §268.42, the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of § 268.42 (e.g., INCIN, WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification.
(C) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste;
(D) Waste analysis data, where
available.
(ii) The certification must be signed
by an authorized representative and
must state the following:
I certify under penalty of law that I
personally have examined and am familiar
with the waste through analysis and testing
or through knowledge of the waste to support
this certification that the waste complies
with the treatment standards specified in 40
CFR Part 268, Subpart D and all applicable
prohibitions set forth in 40 CFR 268.32 or
RCRA section 3004(d). I believe that the
information I submitted is true, accurate and
complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including the possibility of a
fine and imprisonment.
(3) If a generator's waste is subject to
an exemption from a prohibition on the
type of land disposal method utilized
for the waste (such as, but not limited
to, a case-by-case extension under
§ 268.5, an exemption under § 268.6, or
a nationwide capacity variance under
subpart C of this part), with each
shipment of waste he must submit a
notice to the facility receiving his waste
stating that the waste is not prohibited
from land disposal. The notice must
include the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standards for wastes F001-F005, F039,
and wastes prohibited pursuant to
§ 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d).
Treatment standards for all other
restricted wastes must either be
included, or be referenced by including
on the notification the applicable
wastewater (as defined in § 268.2(f)) or
nonwastewater (as defined in § 268.2(d))
category, the applicable subdivisions
made within a waste code based on
waste-specific criteria (such as D003
reactive cyanides), and the CFR
section(s) and paragraph(s) where the
applicable treatment standard appears.
Where the applicable treatment
standards are expressed as specified
technologies in § 268.42, the applicable
five-letter treatment code found in Table
1 of §268.42 (e.g., INCIN, WETOX) also
must be listed on the notification;
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste;
(iv) Waste analysis data, where
available;
(v) For hazardous debris, the
contaminants subject to treatment as
provided by § 268.45(b) and the
following statement: "This hazardous
debris is subject to the alternative
treatment standards of 40 CFR 268.45";
and
(vi) The date the waste is subject to
the prohibitions.
(4) If a generator is managing
prohibited waste in tanks, containers, or
containment buildings regulated under
40 CFR 262.34, and is treating such
waste in such tanks, containers, or
containment buildings to meet
applicable treatment standards under
subpart D of this part, the generator
must develop and follow a written
waste analysis plan which describes the
procedures the generator will, carry out
to comply with the treatment standards.
(Generators treating hazardous debris
under the alternative treatment
standards of Table 1, § 268.45, however,
are not subject to these waste analysis
requirements.) The plan must be kept on
site in the generator's records, and the
following requirements must be met:
(i) The waste analysis plan must be
based on a detailed chemical and
physical analysis of a representative
sample of the prohibited waste(s) being
treated, and contain all information
necessary to treat the waste(s) in
accordance with the requirements of
this Part, including the selected testing
frequency.
(ii) Such plan must be filed with the
EPA Regional Administrator (or his
designated representative) or State
authorized to implement Part 268
requirements a minimum of 30 days
prior to the treatment activity, with
delivery verified.
(iii) Wastes shipped off-site pursuant
to this paragraph must comply with the
notification requirements of
§268.7(a)(2).
(5) If a generator determines whether
the waste is restricted based solely on
his knowledge of the waste, all
supporting data used to make this
determination must be retained on-site
in the generator's files. If a generator
determines whether the waste is
restricted based on testing this waste or
an extract developed using the test
method described in Appendix I of this
part, all waste analysis data must be
retained on-site in the generator's files.
(6) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste that is
excluded from the definition of
hazardous or solid waste or exempt
from Subtitle C regulation, under 40
CFR 261.2 through 261.6 subsequent to
the point of generation, he must place
a one-time notice stating such
generation, subsequent exclusion from
the definition of hazardous or solid
waste or exemption from RCRA, Subtitle
C regulation, and the disposition of the
waste, in the facility's file.
(7) Generators must retain on-site a
copy of all notices, certifications,
demonstrations, waste analysis data,
and other documentation produced
pursuant to this section for at least five
years from the date that the waste that
is the subject of such documentation
was last sent to on-site or off-site
treatment, storage, or disposal. The five
year record retention period is
automatically extended during the
course of any unresolved enforcement
-------
47982 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
action regarding the regulated activity or
as requested by the Administrator. The
requirements of this paragraph apply to
solid wastes even when the hazardous
characteristic is removed prior to
disposal, or when the waste is excluded
from the definition of hazardous or solid
waste under 40 CFR 261.2-261.6, or
exempted from Subtitle C regulation,
subsequent to the point of generation.
(8) It a generator is managing a lab
pack that contains wastes identified in
Appendix IV of this part and wishes to
use the alternative treatment standard
under § 268.42, with each shipment of
waste the generator must submit a
notice to the treatment facility in
accordance with paragraph (a)(l) of this
section. The generator must also comply
with the requirements in paragraphs
(a)(5) and (a)(6) of this section, and must
submit the following certification,
which must be signed by an authorized
representative:
I certify under penalty of law that I
personally have examined and am familiar
with the waste and that the lab pack contains
only the wastes specified in appendix IV to
part 268 or solid wastes not subject to
regulation under 40 CFR part 261.1 am aware
that there are significant penalties for
submitting a false certification, including the
possibility of fine or imprisonment.
(9) If a generator is managing a lab
pack that contains organic wastes
specified in Appendix V of this Part and
wishes to use the alternate treatment
standards under § 268.42, with each
shipment of waste the generator must
submit a notice to the treatment facility
in accordance with paragraph (a)(l) of
this section. The generator also must
comply with the requirements in
paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) of this
section, and must submit the following
certification which must be signed by an
authorized representative: I certify
under penalty of law that I personally
have examined and am familiar with the
waste through analysis and testing or
through knowledge of the waste and
that the lab pack contains only organic
waste specified in Appendix V to Part
268 or solid wastes not subject to
regulation under 40 CFR Part 261.1 am
aware that there are significant penalties
for submitting a false certification,
including the possibility of fine or
imprisonment.
(10) Small quantity generators with
tolling agreements pursuant to 40 CFR
262.20(e) must comply with the
applicable notification and certification
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section for the initial shipment of the
waste subject to the agreement. Such
generators must retain on-site a copy of
the notification and certification,
together with the tolling agreement, for
at least three years after termination or
expiration of the agreement. The three-
year record retention period is
automatically extended during the
course of any unresolved enforcement
action regarding the regulated activity or
as requested by the Administrator.
*****
[FR Doc. 94-22492 Filed 9-16-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
40 CFR Parts 148, 260,261,264,265,
266,268 and 271
[FRL-5028-9]
RIN 2050-AD89
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II—
Universal Treatment Standards, and
Treatment Standards for Organic
Toxicity Characteristic Wastes and
Newly Listed Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: As part of the Agency's Land
Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program,
EPA is today promulgating treatment
standards for the newly identified
organic toxicity characteristic (TC)
wastes (except those managed in Clean
Water Act (CWA) systems, CWA-
equivalent systems, or Class I Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) injection
wells), and for all newly listed coke by-
product and chlorotoluene production
wastes. The required treatment
standards for these wastes must be met
before they are land disposed. EPA is
also requiring ignitable characteristic
wastes with a high total organic carbon
(TOC) content and toxic characteristic
pesticide wastes, that are being disposed
in Class I nonhazardous waste injection
wells, to either be injected into a well
that is subject to a no-migration
determination, or be treated by the
designated LDR treatment method.
Promulgation of these treatment
standards for the newly identified and
listed wastes and promulgation of the
dilution prohibitions for high TOC
ignitables and pesticides fulfills
requirements of a proposed consent
decree between EPA and the
Environmental Defense Fund, and a
settlement agreement between EPA, the
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council,
and a number of environmental groups
including the Natural Resources Defense
Council.
EPA is also making a major
improvement in the Land Disposal
Restrictions program in order to
simplify and provide consistency in the
requirements. EPA is establishing a
single set of requirements, referred to as
universal treatment standards, that
apply to most hazardous wastes. EPA is
also simplifying the Land Disposal
Restrictions program by reducing
paperwork for the regulated community,
and improving guidance to make '
compliance easier. EPA is also
publishing clarifying guidance regarding
treatability variances, which largely
restates previous Agency statements. ;
Finally, EPA is modifying the hazardous
waste recycling regulations which will
allow streamlined regulatory decisions •
to be made regarding the regulation of
certain types of recycling activities.
DATES: Effective date: The final rule is
effective on December 19,1994, Section
266.100 and Appendix VIII are effective
September 19,1994.
Applicability dates: For high TOC
D001 (40 CFR 148.17) and halogenated
pesticides wastes (40 CFR 148.17)
disposed in Class I nonhazardous
injection deep wells, the compliance
date is September 19,1995. For
radioactive waste mixed with the newly
listed or identified wastes, or soil and
debris contaminated with such mixed
wastes (40 CFR 268.38), the compliance
date is September 19,1996. Although ,
the effective date of today's rule is
December 19,1994, facilities will be in
compliance if they meet the universal
treatment standards (UTS) before the 90-
day period ends.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemaking is identified as Docket
Number F-94-CS2F-FFFFF, and is
located in the EPA RCRA Docket, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Room 2616, 401 M Street, SW., .
Washington, DC 20460. The RCRA
Docket is open from 9 am to 4 pm
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. The mailing address is EPA RCRA
Docket (5305), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information, contact the RCRA
Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll-free) or
(703) 412-9810 locally. For technical
information about mercury and'
radioactive mixed waste, contact Shaun
McGarvey on (703) 308-8603; for
technical information about lab packs
and metal Universal Treatment
Standards, contact Anita Cummings on
(703) 308-8303; for technical
information about organic Universal
Treatment Standards, contact Lisa Jones
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 47983
on (703) 308-8451; for technical
information about Toxicity
Characteristic wastes, contact Mary
Cunningham on (703) 308-8453; for
technical information about petroleum
refining wastes, contact Jose Labiosa on
(703) 308-8464; for other information,
contact Richard Kinch on (703) 308-
8414; of the Waste Treatment Branch,
Office of Solid Waste (5302W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,
phone (703) 308-8434. For technical
information on capacity analyses,
contact Bengie Carroll of the Capacity
Programs Branch, Office of Solid Waste
(5302W), phone (703) 308-8440. For
technical information on Hazardous
Waste Recycling, contact Mitch Kidwell
of the Regulation Development Branch,
Office of Solid Waste (5304), phone
(202) 260-8551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Summary of the Statutory Requirements
oflhe 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments, and Requirements of the
1993 Settlement Agreement with the
Environmental Defense Fund
B. Pollution Prevention Benefits
C. Relationship of Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT) Treatment
Standards To Initiatives To Strengthen
Federal Controls Governing Hazardous
Waste Combustion Devices
D. Relationship of LDR Treatment
Standards to Risk-based Treatment
Standards
E. Treatment Standards for Hazardous Soil
II. Summary of Rule
A. Treatment Standards for Newly
Identified Organic Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) Wastes
B. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOG
Ignitable and of TC Pesticide Wastes
Injected Into Class I Deep Wells
C. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed
Wastes
D. Universal Treatment Standards
E. Modifications to Hazardous Waste
Recycling Regulations
HI. Improvements to the Existing Land
Disposal Restrictions Program
A. Background
B. Universal Treatment Standards
1. Identification of Wastes to Which
Universal Treatment Standards Apply
2. Differences in Universal Treatment
Standards and Previous Treatment
Standards
3. Universal Treatment Standards for
Organic Hazardous Constituents
a. Analyte Combinations
b. Organics—Nonwastewaters
a Organics—Wastewaters
4. Universal Treatment Standards for Metal
Hazardous Constituents
a. Nonwastewaters
b. Wastewaters
5. Universal Treatment Standards for
Cyanide Wastes
a. Cyanide Nonwastewaters
b. Cyanide Wastewaters
C. Consolidation of Equivalent
Technology-Specific Combustion
Standards
D. Incorporation of Newly Listed Wastes
Into Lab Packs and Changes to
Appendices
E. Changes in the LDR Program In
Response to the LDR Roundtable
1. Consolidated Treatment Table
2. Simplified LDR Notification
Requirements
IV. Treatment Standards for Toxicity
Characteristic Waste
A. Introduction—Content and Scope
1. Waste Management Systems Affected by
Today's Rule
2. Categories of TC Wastes Affected by
Today's Rule
3. Soil Contaminated by Underground
Storage Tanks
4. Metal TC Wastes Are Not Affected by
Today's Rule
B. Background
1. Legal and Policy Basis for Today's TC
Standards
2. Ongoing Management Practices for TC
Wastes
C. Treatment Standards for New TC
Organic Constituents (D018-D043)
1. Nonwastewaters
2. Wastewaters
3. Radioactive Mixed Waste
D. Treatment Standards for Pesticide
Wastes Exhibiting the Toxicity
Characteristic
1. Newly Identified Pesticide
Nonwastewaters
2. Pesticide Wastewaters
E. Exemptions for De Minimis Losses of
Commercial Chemical Product or
Chemical Intermediates That Exhibit the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC), and for TC
Laboratory Wastes Discharged to CWA
Wastewater Treatment Systems
V. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed
Wastes
A. Treatment Standards for Coke By-
product Production Wastes
B. Treatment Standards for Chlorotoluenes
VI. Debris Contaminated With Newly Listed
or Identified Wastes
A. Debris Treated to Meet the Phase II
Treatment Standards
B. Debris Treated to Meet the Alternative
Debris Treatment Standards
VII. Response to Comments Regarding
Exclusion of Hazardous Debris That Has
Been Treated by Immobilization
Technologies
A. Background
B. Roundtable Discussion
C. EPA Investigations
D. Specific Questions for Which Comments
Were Solicited
E. Comments Received and Conclusions
VIII. Deep Well Injection Issues
A. Prohibition 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
IX. Modifications to Hazardous Waste
Recycling Regulations
A. Introduction
B. Modification of the Existing "Closed-
loop" Recycling Exclusion and Related
Case-specific Variance
1. "Closed-loop" Recycling Exclusion and
Related Variance
2. Storage Prior to Recycling
X. 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
XI. Implementation of the Final Rule
XII. Guidance to Applicants for Treatability
Variances for As-Generated Wastes
XIII. Clarifications and Corrections to
Previous Rules
A. Corrections to the Interim Final Rule
Establishing Land Disposal Restrictions
for Certain Ignitable and Corrosive
Wastes
B. Corrections to the Phase I Rule
Establishing Land Disposal Restrictions
for Newly Listed Wastes and Hazardous
Debris
C. Amendment of Boiler and Industrial
Furnace Rules for Certain Mercury-
containing Wastes
1. The Proposal
2. Comments and the Final Rule
XIV. 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. Used Oil
3. Required Capacity for Other Newly
Listed Organic Wastes
a. Surface Disposed Coke By-product
Wastes
b. Surface Disposed Chlorinated Toluene
Wastes
4. Newly Identified TC Wastes That Were
Not Previously Hazardous by the Old EP
Leaching Procedure
D. Required and Available Capacity for
Newly Listed and Identified Wastes
Mixed with Radioactive Components
1. Waste Generation
a. Non-soil and Non-debris Mixed
Radioactive Wastes
b. Mixed Radioactive Soil
c. Mixed Radioactive Debris
2. Available Capacity and Capacity
Implications
a. Non-soil and Non-debris Mixed
Radioactive Wastes
b. Mixed Radioactive Soil
c. Mixed Radioactive Debris
E. Required and Available Capacity for
High TOG Ignitable, TC Pesticide, and
Newly Listed Wastes Injected Into Class
I Deep Wells
F. Required and Available Capacity for
Hazardous Soil and Debris Contaminated
with Newly Listed and Identified Wastes
-------
47984 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
1. Waste Generation
a. Hazardous Soil
b. Hazardous Debris
2. Current Management Practices
3. Available Capacity and Capacity
Implications
a. Hazardous Soil
b. Hazardous Debris
XV. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorization
XVI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to
Executive Order 12866
1. Methodology Section
a. Methodology for Estimating the Affected
Universe
b. Cost Methodology
c. Waste Minimization Methodology
d. Economic Impact Methodology
e. Benefits Methodology
2. Results Section
a. Volume Results
b. Cost Results
c. Waste Minimization
d. Economic Impact Results
e. Benefit Estimate Results
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Background
A. Summary of the Statutory
Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments, and
Requirements of the 1993 Settlement
Agreement With the Environmental
Defense Fund
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
enacted on November 8,1984, largely
prohibit the land disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes. Once a hazardous
waste is prohibited from land disposal,
the statute provides only two options for
legal land disposal: 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.
A no-migration unit is one from which
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents for as long as the waste
remains hazardous. RCRA sections 3004
(d), (e), (g)(5).
The treatment standards may be
expressed as either constituent
concentration levels or as specific
methods of treatment. These standards
must substantially diminish the toxicity
of the waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are
minimized. RCRA section 3004(m)(l).
For purposes of the 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 3004(k).
The land disposal restrictions are
effective 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,
recovery, or disposal capacity which
protects human health and the
environment will be available. RCRA
section 3004(h)(2). The Administrator
may also grant a case-by-case extension
of the effective date for up to one year,
renewable once for up to one additional
year, when an applicant successfully
makes certain demonstrations. RCRA
section 3004(h)(3). See 55 FR 22526
(June 1,1990) for a more detailed
discussion on national capacity
variances and case-by-case extensions.
In addition, Congress prohibited the
storage of any waste which is prohibited
from land disposal unless such storage
is to allow for 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
has taken the position that the agency
bears the burden of proving that such
storage was not 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, however, the burden
of proof shifts to the generator or owner/
operator of a treatment, storage or
disposal facility to demonstrate that
such storage was solely 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 were either listed or identified as
hazardous at the time of the 1984
amendments, RCRA sections 3004 (d),
(e), and (g), a task EPA completed
within the statutory timeframes. EPA
was 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
3004(g)(4).
The Agency did not meet this latter
statutory deadline for all of the wastes
identified or listed after the 1984
amendments. As a result, a suit was
filed by the Environmental Defense
Fund (EDF). EPA and EDF signed a
consent decree (lodged with but not
entered by the District Court) that
establishes a schedule for adopting
prohibitions and treatment standards for
newly identified and listed wastes. (EDF
v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-0598, D.D.C.) This
proposed consent decree was recently
modified as a result of the court
decision on the Third Third final rule
(Chemical Waste Management v. EPA,
976 F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert, denied
113 S. Ct. 1961 (1993) (CWMv. EPA)).
Today's rule fulfills several provisions
of the proposed consent decree. The
rule establishes treatment standards for
newly listed coke by-product and
chlorotoluene production wastes, and •
for the D018-D043 TC wastes (TC
wastes, identified as hazardous because
of the presence of organic hazardous
constituents) when these wastes are
managed in systems other than those, ' •
wastewater treatment systems whose
discharge is regulated under the Clean
Water Act (CWA), by zero-dischargers
that do not engage in CWA-equivalent
treatment prior to land disposal, and by
injection into other than underground
injection control (UIC) Class I deep
injection wells regulated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SOWA). Soils
contaminated with these newly
identified and listed wastes are also
covered by this rule.
Finally, this rule prohibits injection
into deep wells of high Total Organic
Carbon ignitable wastes (D001) and
Toxic Characteristic organic pesticides
(D012-D017) unless they are treated to
meet applicable treatment standards, or
the deep well has received a no-
migration variance. This last prohibition
is in partial fulfillment of the settlement
agreement following the D.C. Circuit's
decision in CWMv. EPA.
EPA is also modifying a number of the
existing land disposal restrictions rules.
Although not required by the
settlements discussed above, these
changes reflect EPA's updated technical
knowledge, simplify implementation of
the program, and provide greater
programmatic consistency. In today's
notice, EPA is establishing a set of
treatment standards (called universal
treatment standards) that apply to most
hazardous wastes, changing
'requirements for land disposal of lab
packs containing prohibited hazardous
wastes, and simplifying paperwork
requirements.
B. Pollution Prevention Benefits
EPA's progress over the years in
improving environmental quality
through its media-specific pollution
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 47985
control programs has been substantial.
Over the past two decades, standards for
pollution control concentrated to a large
extent on "end-of-pipe" treatment or
land disposal of hazardous and
nonhazardous wastes. Although none of
the treatment standards in today's rule
require waste minimization or recovery,
these are viable options for facilities to
choose to use to comply with universal
treatment standards. For example,
facilities may choose to reduce the
generation of wastes and/or treat certain
metal-containing wastes by using high
temperature metal recovery (HTMR),
which has been shown to be effective
for treating many metal bearing wastes.
C. Relationship of Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT)
Treatment Standards to Initiatives To
Strengthen Federal Controls Governing
Hazardous Waste Combustion Devices
On May 18,1993, EPA Administrator
Browner announced additional steps
that would be pursued to protect public
health and the environment by further
encouraging reduction in the amount of
hazardous wastes generated in this
country and strengthening federal
controls governing hazardous waste
incinerators and other combustion
devices. With the announcement, the
Draft Hazardous Waste Minimization
and Combustion Strategy (also referred
to as the Draft Strategy) was released,
upon which the Agency has sought
broad national dialogue. Among other
things, the Draft Strategy called for a
national review of the relative roles of
hazardous waste combustion and source
reduction in hazardous waste
management.
Since release of the Draft Strategy, the
Agency has pursued a wide variety of
activities. For example, EPA released in
May 1994 a draft technical report
entitled "Combustion Emissions
Technical Resource Document". This
report provides EPA's preliminary
technical analysis of best operating
practices and achievable emission levels
with regards to emissions of dioxin and
particulate matter from existing
hazardous waste incinerators, and
boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs)
burning hazardous wastes, based on
data already submitted to EPA. The
report was also released to provide for
early pre-proposal dialogue on the types
of additional controls and emission
limits that should be adopted for
hazardous waste combustion units. In
another action, the Agency announced
its proposed permitting and public
participation rule. This rule would
amend EPA's RCRA regulations to
provide earlier and more effective
opportunities for public participation in
the RCRA permitting process. The rule
also proposes tighter standards for the
interim period immediately after a
facility trial burn is completed but
before a final permit determination is
made.
Today's rule provides the Agency
with another opportunity to address the
objectives of the Draft Strategy. In
particular, this rule specifies a series of
new treatment standards that must be
met before hazardous wastes are land
disposed. As in previous LDR rules, the
standards for hazardous organic
constituents are, in many cases, based
on the performance of combustion
technology. In the proposed rule, the
Agency solicited comments and data on
whether other treatment technologies,
especially recycling technologies, can
achieve these or comparable treatment
levels. EPA also solicited comment on
whether the levels should be modified
so as to allow and encourage the use of
non-combustion treatment technologies.
It remains EPA's primary objective in
hazardous waste management to reduce
the amount of hazardous waste that is
generated so as to minimize the need to
treat and dispose of hazardous waste. A
wide range of waste minimization
activities are underway, including
development of the National Plan for
Hazardous Waste Minimization released
in draft on May 23,1994 as part of the
Draft Strategy. However, for those
hazardous wastes that are still produced
and are disposed, the waste must be
treated (see RCRA section 3004(m)).
While the Agency has concerns with
combustion devices that are not
properly designed and operated,
particularly if they do not fully control
toxic metals and organics (including
products of incomplete combustion
(PICs)), the Agency also believes that
combustion technologies, if properly
designed and operated, do minimize
threats to human health and the
environment for many waste streams.
Several commenters agree with the
Agency on this point. In fact, these
commenters (including environmental
groups) argue that relaxing the treatment
standards to reduce the amount of
treatment otherwise achieved via
combustion could actually increase
threats to human health and the
environment, and thus violate EPA's
statutory requirements under 3004(m).
In addition, it has also been argued that
loosening the treatment standards will
not necessarily result in less combustion
because the regulated community may
still choose to rely on combustion to
meet the standards. Commenters also
suggested that loosening the treatment
standards will actually act as a
disincentive to seek pollution
prevention alternatives. This latter point
seems to have merit in that based on
some preliminary analysis of the land
disposal restrictions program by the
Agency, the existing treatment
standards have raised the cost of
hazardous waste management
substantially and have been a factor in
reducing the amount of hazardous waste
generated.
To address those combustion facilities
that are not operated properly, the
Agency will continue its aggressive
inspection and enforcement program to
bring the facilities back into compliance
with all requirements and to impose
penalties. In addition, the Agency is
actively engaged with all interested
parties in discussions on upgrading
combustion regulations. EPA is
considering, as part of this upcoming
rulemaking, revising the controls on
dioxin and furan emissions, particulate
matter, and toxic metals. In the course
of the rulemaking, the public will have
the opportunity to comment on the
Agency's proposals. As noted earlier,
EPA is already seeking public comment
on its preparatory work for this
rulemaking to upgrade combustion
regulations through release of the
Combustion Emissions Technical
Resource Document, this past May.
Several commenters indicated that the
LDR treatment standards should not be
based on combustion performance
because this will encourage combustion
over other treatment alternatives.
Although the Agency is willing to look
at alternative technologies, such
technologies must still achieve levels of
performance that satisfy the dictates of
RCRA section 3004(m). Also, we must
have some assurance that any
alternative treatment method is done
safely. No information or data was
provided by these commenters on the
issues of the effectiveness or safety of
the alternative treatment technologies or
limits, or that such alternatives would
be equally or more protective of human
health and the environment. (As EPA
has stated many times, the Agency
specifies concentration levels as the
treatment standards rather than
mandated methods of treatment because
this provides maximum flexibility in the
selection of treatment technology that
may be used.)
Several commenters also asserted that
only combustion technologies can
achieve the levels specified as treatment
standards for organics. However, no
treatability data were provided to
support their general assertions. On the
other hand, limited data were provided
on specific alternative treatment
technologies that can also achieve the
treatment standards in today's rule.
-------
47986 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
Therefore, the Agency is not convinced
that the treatment standards for organics
in today's rule require modification to
be achievable by technologies other than
combustion, and such other
technologies may be used to meet these
standards.
D. Relationship of WE Treatment
Standards to Risk-based Treatment
Standards
The principal objection to the
proposed UTS was that the values do
not reflect risk, that is, the standards are
based on performance of a treatment
technology rather than on assessment of
risks to human health and the
environment posed by the waste. The
debate over technology- versus risk-
based treatment standards has
continued throughout the development
of the land disposal restrictions. EPA's
ultimate policy preference is to establish
risk-based levels that truly minimize
threats to both human health and the
environment. 55 FR at 6641 (Feb. 26,
1990). Such standards would cap the
extent of hazardous waste treatment.
RCRA section 3004(m)(l). The
difficulties involved in this task,
however, are formidable and very
controversial. The technical issues
include assessing exposure pathways
other than migration to groundwater,
taking environmental risk into account,
and developing adequate toxicological
information for the hazardous
constituents controlled by the
hazardous waste program.
The Agency is currently working on a
rulemaking that will define hazardous
constituent concentration levels below
which a waste is no longer designated
under RCRA subtitle C as "hazardous."
Discussions concerning these levels are
taking place in the Federal Advisory
Committee on the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR). The HWIR
Committee is discussing issues and
providing recommendations for two
rulemakings: as-generated waste and
contaminated media.
The HWIR Committee is made up of
industry, environmentalists, treaters and
disposers, and state implementing
officials. The HWIR Committee has
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 bring under
regulation clearly hazardous waste not
now controlled by the hazardous waste
regulations (an "entry" rule). In
addition, EPA is working with the
Committee to consider whether risk-
based exit criteria or other risk-based
values based on the same exposure
modeling could also serve as minimize
threat levels to potentially cap treatment
standards for the land disposal
restrictions.
In Hazardous Waste Treatment
Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d 355 (D.C. Cir.
1989), cert, denied 111 S. Ct 139 (1990),
the court held that the statute can be
read to allow either technology-based or
risk-based standards, and further held
that technology-based standards are
permissible so long as they are not
established "beyond the point at which
there is no 'threat' to human health or
the environment." Id. at 362. The court
further held that the particular
technology-based standards at issue
were not established below this
"minimize threat" level,
notwithstanding that (in some cases) the
standards were below Maximum
Contaminant Levels used for drinking
water under the Safe Drinking Water
Act, and were below the RCRA
characteristic level. Id. at 361-62. In the
court's view, the RCRA section 3004(m)
minimize threat standard was more
stringent than that used to establish
either drinking water standards or
characteristic levels. EPA finds, for
purposes of this rule, that none of the
treatment standards are established
below levels at which threats to human
health and the environment are
minimized. This finding stems from the
Agency's inability at the present time, as
explained above, to establish
concentration levels for hazardous
constituents which represent levels at
which threats to human health and the
environment are minimized. Unless the
Agency determines risk-based
concentration levels that achieve the
"minimized threat" requirement for a
particular wastestream, the Agency
believes that BDAT treatment (as
reflected by the UTS levels) fulfills the
statutory charge.
E. Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Soil
As stated in the September 14,1993
proposal (58 FR 48124), EPA recognizes
that the treatment standards
promulgated for as-generated hazardous
waste may not always be achievable or
appropriate for soil contaminated with
that waste. EPA therefore proposed less
stringent alternative treatment standards
that would specifically apply to
hazardous soils. In addition, EPA
proposed to codify the "contained-in"
policy for contaminated media (see 58
FR 48127). Subsequent to the proposal,
the Agency received a number of
comments from the varied
constituencies (industry, environmental,
waste treatment and state) involved in
the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR) effort for addressing
contaminated media, urging the Agency
to await the results of that effort before
developing soil-specific treatment
standards. Thus, EPA has decided not to
promulgate alternative treatment
standards for hazardous soil and the
codification of the contained-in policy
as part of this rulemaking, but rather
will address it as part of the HWIR effort
for contaminated media. EPA
announced this decision on November
12,1993 (see 58 FR 59976) and again on
March 8,1994 (see 59 FR 10778).
The Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule for Contaminated Media, which is
being developed by EPA in concert with
the States and with affected
stakeholders, is intended to create a
comprehensive regulatory framework
within RCRA Subtitle C that will apply
to the management of contaminated
media that are managed as part of
remediation activities. Through the ;
public dialogue process, a conceptual
framework has been developed for
HWIR for media. As currently
envisioned, the HWIR media rule will ,
establish mandatory treatment
requirements for soils (and possibly
other media) that are highly
contaminated, while less contaminated
soils would be subject to management
requirements of the overseeing
regulatory agency. The HWIR media
rule is expected to encourage national
consistency in the management of
higher risk media, while providing
management flexibility for a significant
volume of lower risk contaminated
media, thereby facilitating more timely
and less costly cleanups.
Although the HWIR rule for
contaminated media is being developed
on a different schedule than the LDR
rules, EPA believes (and is supported by
many commenters) that it is appropriate
to address the issue of setting treatment
standards for soils within the broader
framework of the HWIR rule, since such
treatment requirements are expected to
be an integral part of that rule. In
addition, EPA believes that the
contained-in policy is one of the key
issues that must be,addressed in the
development of a comprehensive
regulatory framework for management
of contaminated media.
In the meantime, hazardous soils are
generally subject to the LDR treatment
standards that apply to the hazardous
wastes with which the soils are
contaminated, including those
addressed in today's rule.
The Agency has stated a presumption,
however, that the treatment standards
for as-generated wastes are generally
inappropriate or unachievable for soils
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 47987
contaminated with, hazardous wastes,
within the meaning of 40 CFR 268.44(a)
(see 55 FR 8759-60, March 8,1990). It
has been the Agency's experience that
contaminated soils are significantly
different in their treatability
characteristics from the wastes that have
been evaluated in establishing the
BDAT standards, and thus, will
generally qualify for a treatability
variance under 40 CFR 268.44. For
guidance on treatability variances for
soils, see the EPA Fact Sheet entitled
"Regional Guide: Issuing Site-Specific
Treatability Variances for Contaminated
Soils and Debris from Land Disposal
Restrictions (OSWER Publication
9839.3-08FS). For RCRA actions, the
Regional Administrator was delegated
the authority to deny or grant these
variances in a non-rulemaking
procedure under 40 CFR 268.44(h) on
April 22,1991. These variances may be
granted by State agencies in States
authorized for § 268.44. Variance
authority for CERCLA actions is
discussed in LDR Guides 6A (revised
Sept. 1990) and 6B (OSWER 9347.3-
06FS and 9347.3-06BFS).
As previously noted, EPA chose not to
develop separate treatment standards for
soils in this rulemaking, and currently
plans to address treatment standards for
contaminated soils in the context of the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR) for contaminated media, which
is currently under development. If,
however, the HWIR Contaminated
Media rule does not sufficiently address
treatment standards for contaminated
soils in a timely manner, the Agency
may promulgate such standards in a
separate rulemaking. Information on the
HWIR Contaminated Media rule may be
obtained by contacting Carolyn Loomis,
at (703) 308-8626.
Until LDR standards specific to soils
are promulgated, EPA believes that
treatability variances will generally be
appropriate when hazardous soils are
managed as part of site remediation
activities. The Agency recognizes,
however, that in some cases obtaining a
treatability variance as provided under
§ 268.44 could cause delays in
implementing remedial actions. The
Agency is currently considering
whether changes to the existing variance
or authorization procedures should be
made as a means of expediting cleanup
actions that are conducted under RCRA
or other Federal or State authorities, or
other cleanups initiated by responsible
parties. Such changes, if necessary, will
be addressed in a future, rulemaking.
II. Summary of Rule
A. Treatment Standards for Newly
Identified Organic Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) Wastes
On March 29,1990, EPA promulgated
a rule that identified organic
constituents (in addition to existing EP
metals and pesticide 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 HSWA in
1984, they are "newly identified
wastes" for purposes of the LDR
program. Included are wastes identified
with the codes D018 through D043
based on th? toxicity characteristic
leaching procedure (TCLP), i.e., TC
wastes. EPA is establishing treatment
standards for each of these constituents
if they are managed in systems other
than those regulated under the Clean
Water Act (CWA), those engaging in
CWA-equivalent treatment prior to land
disposal, and those injected into Class I
deep injection wells regulated under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). (For
an explanation of these qualifications,
see the May 24,1993 Interim Final Rule
(58 FR 29860).) In addition, because
wastes exhibiting the toxicity
characteristic (TC) can contain treatable
levels of other hazardous constituents,
EPA is establishing treatment standards
for the underlying hazardous
constituents, as defined in 268.2(i).
These rules are consistent with the
court's opinion in Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2, 17-8
(D.C. Cir. 1992), cert, denied 113 U.S.
1961 (1993), which held that all
hazardous constituents in characteristic
wastes must meet the levels of
performance satisfying the requirements
in RCRA 3004(m) before land disposal,
and that treatment standards cannot be
achieved by dilution (provided, of
course, that treatment standards are not
established below the level at which
threats to human health and the
environment are minimized).
B. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOC
Ignitable and of TC Pesticide Wastes
Injected Into Class I Deep Wells
In its ruling on the Third Third LDR
Rule, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
remanded the portion of the Agency's
rule allowing treatment standards for
characteristic wastes to be achieved by
dilution. The Agency is continuing to
develop a regulatory response to
implement the court's ruling. As part of
that response, EPA is today requiring
that hazardous constituents in two types
of characteristic wastes, high total
organic carbon (TOC) ignitable liquids
(D001), and halogenated pesticide
wastes that exhibit the toxicity
characteristic (D012-D017), be fully
treated before those wastes are disposed
unless the wastes are disposed in an
injection well that has a no-migration
variance.
The Agency believes that treatment of
these particular wastestreams is
warranted. (See Section VIII—Deep Well
Injection Issues for further discussion.)
The D001 wastes are ignitable with
potentially high concentrations of
hazardous constituents, and the
pesticide wastes contain particularly
toxic constituents. Further, the organics
in D001 high TOC liquids can be
recovered, destroyed, or used as a fuel
and occur in only small volumes so that
segregation and treatment should not
prove difficult.
. C. 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 rule describes the
treatment technologies (recycling is a
type of treatment) identified as BDAT
for several of these newly listed wastes,
and establishes treatment standards
based on these BDATs. Newly listed
wastes included in today's rule are
K141-K145, K147-K148, and K149-
K151 (coke by-product production
wastes and chlorotoluene wastes) (see
40 CFR 261.32 for a description of these
wastes).
D. Universal Treatment Standards
Today's rule promulgates universal
treatment standards (UTS) for organic,
metal, and cyanide constituents—one
set for wastewaters and a different set
for nonwastewaters—that replace
existing treatment standards for
hazardous wastes. ("Replace" is
something of a misnomer, as explained
more fully below, since many of the
standards actually remain at current
levels, and the rule does not require
treatment of hazardous constituents not
already regulated under current
standards.) Currently, facilities
managing hazardous wastes must meet
LDR treatment standards established for
many different listed and characteristic
hazardous waste codes before the waste
may be land disposed. In some cases, a
constituent regulated under the
treatment standard for one waste was
also regulated in another waste at
different concentration levels. Today's
rulemaking eliminates these differences
in concentration limits for the same
constituent to provide a better
assessment of treatability, reduce
-------
47988 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
confusion, and ease compliance and
enforcement. Promulgation of UTS does
not change the constituents of concern
regulated in listed wastes—that is, if
only cadmium, lead and chromium have
been regulated in a listed waste, only
cadmium, lead and chromium are
subject to regulation now that UTS are
promulgated. However, the
concentration levels for cadmium, lead
and chromium now are numerically
identical with UTS for those
constituents.
E. Modifications to Hazardous Waste
Recycling Regulations
The Agency is modifying the
regulatory framework to the definition
of solid waste to 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
40 CFR 261.2(e)(l)(iii) "closed-loop"
recycling exclusion from the definition
of solid waste such that the residues of
a secondary process are excluded from
being a solid waste if they are reinserted
into the process without prior
reclamation (and also similarly broaden
the related 40 CFR 260.30(b) variance
for materials that are reclaimed prior to
reinsertion). These provisions will put
secondary recovery operations that
recycle residues which they generated
on the same regulatory footing as
primary recovery operations. The
modifications are based, in part, on two
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) (AMCITft 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. Background
"Our goal is to make the entire federal
government both less expensive and
more efficient... we intend to
redesign, to reinvent, to reinyigorate the
entire national government."
President Bill Clinton Remarks
Announcing the National
Performance Review, March 3,1993
"We are searching for ways to
change—to work better and smarter so
that the Agency can deliver high quality
results at a reduced cost. Our aim is to
treat citizens as customers, improve the
service and delivery of our programs,
and eliminate waste and inefficiency."
From "Creating A U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency that Works Better
And Costs Less" (EPA's National
Performance Review Phase I Report)
In the past several years, the EPA has
embarked on major efforts to improve
the quality of its work in protecting
human health and the environment.
Coincident with this emphasis on
improvement in the way its work is
done, the Agency is striving to help
reinvent government, in part by
streamlining its organization and its
work in order to be more efficient and
save public resources. In that spirit, a
major part of today's rule is designed to
improve the quality and efficiency in
the Land Disposal Restrictions Program.
The measures promulgated today to
improve the Program received
widespread support from commenters
when they were proposed.
The universal treatment standards,
described in detail in the next section,
greatly simplify both compliance and
enforcement with the LDRs, without
sacrificing protection of the
environment or human' health. In
particular, the rule replaces the myriad
constituent concentration levels in the
LDR treatment standards for most
hazardous wastes with a uniform set of
constituent levels. Thus, the treatment
standard concentration for a constituent
in waste A will be the same
concentration as for that constituent in
waste B. As a result, hazardous waste
generators and treaters should be able to
save money and effort in treating
hazardous wastes. These facilities will
be able to operate more efficiently by
consolidating treatment activities. One
facility, for example, estimated an
annual savings of $750,000 from not
having to campaign treat their wastes
with varying limits. The consistency
provided by universal treatment
standards will make it easier to comply
with the LDRs. Likewise, the universal
treatment standards will make the job of
enforcement easier for state
governments. With universal treatment
standards in place, it will also be easier
and quicker for EPA to set standards for
hazardous wastes identified in the
future (assuming those standards are
feasible and appropriate for newly
identified and listed wastes). The end
result for the regulated community,
states, and the EPA will be to save
resources for other pressing tasks.
While establishment of universal
treatment standards is the primary
improvement, other improvements are
also included in today's rule. In
particular, the Agency is:
• Consolidating three separate tables
containing treatment standards into a
single consolidated table;
• Reducing the information required
on notification forms;
• Simplifying the regulations for
treatment of lab packs;
• Providing easy-to-read flowcharts
and a simple guide to paperwork
requirements in order to make the rule's
requirements clearer and easier to
implement.
Although today's rule takes
significant steps in improving the Land
Disposal Restrictions program, the
Agency recognizes that further, in fact
continuing, improvement is necessary.
Some of the universal treatment
standards (such as cyanide) will need to
be reassessed upon completion of
Agency efforts to improve the analytic
test method. HWIR will need to be
integrated into the Land Disposal
Restrictions. The Agency is also on a
firm track of pursuing other avenues for
continuous quality improvement in the
program. Ideas and suggestions for
improvements have, and will, come
.from: (1) Advance Notices of Proposed
Rulemaking published by EPA in order
to acquire as much information as
possible from the public about treatment
options; (2) communications between
EPA and its customers representing
environmental groups, generators, and
treaters; and, (3) the LDR Program
evaluation that is currently being
conducted, which was initiated by a
public roundtable discussion with a
large number of customers.
Consequently, the Agency will continue
to take advantage of opportunities to
streamline and improve the LDR
program.
B. Universal Treatment Standards
The EPA is promulgating a single
universal treatment standard (UTS) for
each constituent in nonwastewater form
and a single UTS for each constituent in
wastewater form, regardless of the
hazardous waste containing the
constituent.
1. Identification of Wastes to Which
Universal Treatment Standards Apply
The universal treatment standards
apply to all listed and characteristic
-------
Federal Register
Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
wastes for which treatment standards
have been promulgated, with two
exceptions. The first exception is the TC
metal wastes (D004-D011). These metal
wastes will be addressed in the future
Phase IV LDR rule. (It should be noted
that the mineral processing wastes
which were formerly excluded from
RCRA Subtitle C regulation under the
Bevill Amendment are considered to be
newly identified and will also be
addressed in Phase IV.) The second
exception is those for which the
treatment standard is a specified
method of treatment. Most of these
wastes must continue to be treated using
those required technologies. For a small
number of wastes with previously
specified methods of treatment, the
universal standards are an alternative,
i.e. either use of the specified method or
the universal standard will satisfy the
LDR requirement. For those few
situations where a mixture of wastes
may be subject to different standards for
the same constituent, the more stringent
standard continues to apply. See
§268.41(b).
Although the proposed rule excluded
F024 from the UTS, EPA is applying
UTS to F024 in today's rule. The
existing standards, which were unique
among standards set for F- or K-listed
wastes, incorporated numerical
treatment standards and also mandated
a specific technology—incineration. The
original F024 numerical standards for
metals were also exceptionally low,
reflecting the fact that F024 contains
only low levels of metals.
However, comments from Dow
Freeport indicated that the low F024
metal limit needlessly prevented them
from co-treating wastes, a process that
could save the facility $750,000/year,
and that application of UTS solved this
problem without diminishing the extent
of treatment. EPA agrees, and is
applying UTS to F024 in this rule while
continuing to require incineration.
UTS apply to underlying hazardous
constituents in characteristic wastes that
are subject to LDRs. Apparent confusion
in several comments leads the Agency
to clarify that UTS will apply to the
F039 waste code, the code for multi-
source leachate. EPA used the F039
levels in the May 1993 Interim Final
Rule as treatment standards for
underlying hazardous constituents in
certain decharacterized D001 and D002
wastes (58 FR 29885). Consequently,
UTS levels and F039 standards are
identical, with the exception of those
few constituents regulated in F039 but
not in UTS. This means that the Interim
Final Rule requirement that underlying
hazardous constituents in certain D001
and D002 wastes meet F039 levels is
now one and the same thing with the
requirement that underlying hazardous
constituents meet UTS. (The term
"underlying hazardous constituents" is
defined at 268.2(i)).
2. Differences in Universal Treatment
Standards and Previous Treatment
Standards
In most cases (59%), UTS are the
same as the previous treatment
standards. Thirty three percent of the
standards went up or down within a
factor often of the original standard,
while 8% underwent larger changes
(3% of the total number of UTS
becoming significantly more stringent).
The following table lists the differences
between the UTS and previous
standards.
TABLE 3.—COMPARISON OF UNIVER-
SAL TREATMENT STANDARDS TO
PREVIOUSLY PROMULGATED TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS
Parameter
Total Number
of Constitu-
ent/Waste
Code Com-
binations ..
Number of
Combina-
tions Un-
changed by
the Univer-
sal Treat-
ment Stand-
ards
Number of
Combina-
tions for
which the
Universal
Treatment
Standards
are Slightly
Less Strin-
gent1
Number of
Combina-
tions for "
which the
Universal
Treatment
Standards
are Slightly
More Strin-
gent1
Number of
Combina-
tions for
which the
Universal
Treatment
Standards
are Signifi-
cantly Less
Stringent2 ..
Wastewate
forms
938
677
138
76
17
Nonwastewater
forms
924
A •! R
4 ID
209
199
80
TABLE 3.—COMPARISON OF UNIVER-
SAL TREATMENT STANDARDS TO
PREVIOUSLY PROMULGATED TREAT-
MENT STANDARDS—Continued
Parameter
Number of
Combina-
tions for
which the
Universal
Treatment
Standards
are Signifi-
cantly More
Stringent2 ..
Wastewater
forms
30
Nonwastewater
forms
20
'The change is less than a factor of ten
greater or less than the previously promul-
gated standard.
2 The change is a factor of ten or more
greater or less than the previously promul-
gated standard.
This numerical comparison somewhat
exaggerates the degree of change. The
changes in numerical values for many of
the organic constituents reflect
adjustments in the limits of analytic
detection. Actual treatment will
consequently likely continue to destroy
or remove organics to nondetectable
levels. It also is important to note that
even in those cases where numerical
limits have changed, the technology
basis has not. Treatment technology
used to comply with the previous
standards should also be able to comply
with UTS. Again, because most
treatment technologies cannot be so
precisely calibrated as to achieve, for
instance, 3.5 ppm rather than 2.7 ppm,
the likely result is that the same amount
of treatment will occur. The main
impact of UTS will be in simplifying
compliance.
EPA also notes that very few of the
commenters who complained about
treatment standards being unachievable
provided data to support their claims.
Because most of the wastes subject to
UTS are already subject to LDR
treatment requirements, there should be
data documenting treatment
performance of these wastes that
commenters could have submitted. EPA
•believes, therefore, that the absence of
substantiating data cannot be
attributable to commenters' inability to
generate treatment data. (The situation
differs from the state of affairs at the
beginning of the land disposal
restrictions program when there was
little existing treatment data to draw
upon, because many hazardous wastes
were being disposed untreated, and
there was little time to generate such
data.)
For discussion of comparison between
the UTS and previous standards for
-------
47990 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
nonwastewater metal constituents, see
section m.B.S.a. of this preamble.
3. Universal Treatment Standards for
Organic Hazardous Constituents
EPA is today promulgating UTS for
nonwastewater and wastewater forms of
organic hazardous constituents, as
found in the two tables in this section.
a. Analyte Combinations
Motivated by concern for analytical
feasibility, EPA proposed that several
groups or pairs of analytically similar
organic compounds be regulated as the
sum of their concentrations rather than
as individual analytes. Commenters
supported these proposals as a
simplification of analytical procedures,
particularly the proposed total PCB
standards for arochlors. Thus, today's
rule regulates each of these groups or
pairs collectively by setting wastewater
and nonwastewater numbers
representing their sums rather than
individual concentrations. Specific
analytes to be regulated with one
wastewater and nonwastewater number
are: PCBs (arochlors), xylenes,
benzo(b)fluoranthene/
benzo(k)fluoranthene and
diphenylamine/diphenylnitrosamine.
PCBs: Today's approach for PCBs is
consistent with the regulations of other
EPA offices, such as those promulgated
pursuant to the Toxic Substance Control
Act (TSCA). This approach will also
eliminate analytical difficulties in
quantifying each of the individual
arochlors.
The "Total PCB" standards include
seven arochlors that represent hundreds
of isomers of polychlorinated biphenyls.
Earlier LDR regulations addressed
individual arochlors and required
recognition of a gas chromatograph
pattern which is often difficult to
differentiate. Furthermore, regulation of
individual arochlors may be difficult for
wastes subject to degradation or
treatment. EPA recommends SW-846
methods 8080 or 8081 (which use a gas
chromatograph/electron capture
detector) for measurement of total PCBs.
Xylenes: Similarly, today's rule
regulates the sum of several xylene
isomer analytes in both wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. The three xylenes
included on the BDAT list of hazardous
constituents are ortho-, meta-, and para-
xylene. Meta- and para-isomers co-elute
in gas chromatograph analysis. Two
methods exist in SW-846 for the
measurement of total xylenes: 8020 and
8240. Method 8020 detects xylenes
using a photoionization detector and
8240 uses a mass spectrometer. Total
xylenes concentration is determined
from the addition of the ortho-xylene
concentration and the meta-/para-xylene
concentration.
Benzo(b)fluoranthene/
Benzo(k)fluoranthene and
Diphenylamine/ Diphenylnitrosamine:
EPA is also regulating two pairs of
analytically problematic constituents,
benzo(b)fluoranthene/
benzo(k)fluoranthene and
diphenylamine/diphenylnitrosamine
with a single wastewater and
nonwastewater number for each pair.
b. Organics—Nonwastewaters
i. The Universal Treatment Standards
Promulgated in Today's Rule
EPA is promulgating UTS for organics
in nonwastewaters as proposed with the
exception of the standards for m- and p-
cresols. These are the only organic
constituents for which commenters
provided data supporting changes to the
proposed UTS. Although organic
nonwastewater UTS differ in some cases
from the previously promulgated
standards, the same technology basis,
combustion, can meet the limits. In the
previous standards as well as the UTS,
the organic standards are based on a
detection level in a combustion residue
(adjusted upward by a variability factor
accounting for analytic and process
variability). Differences between UTS
and previous standards reflect a more
consistent assessment of achievable
detection levels for various constituents
in combustion residues, and continue to
be achievable using BDAT, combustion.
Because the essential technical issue at
the heart of these adjustments is the
value of the detection limit, most of
these changes reflect analytical artifacts
rather than absolute differences in the
quantities of toxics available for release
following land disposal.
ii. Modifications to Universal Treatment
Standards Made in Response to
Comments
A petroleum refiner involved in
building a biological treatment system
submitted data on organic
nonwastewaters, and indicated their
concern about the lower treatment
standards for certain organic
constituents that were proposed as UTS.
The Agency evaluated the commenter's
data and found, in some cases, the
commenter was requesting that UTS
levels be set at levels higher than the
maximum levels in their untreated
wastes. Furthermore, the commenter's
data did not represent proper
monitoring. The Agency was able to
determine from their data, however, that
one limit, the proposed m- and p-cresol
limit, should be raised from 3.2 mg/kg
to 5.6 mg/kg. This adjustment is based
on other factors described below,
The proposed UTS for m- and p-cresol
was 3.2 mg/kg, which differed from the
proposed UTS for o-cresol, which was
5.6 mg/kg. Today's rule promulgates 5.6
mg/kg for both o-cresol and m- and p-
cresol. The proposed limits for cresols
were based on a detection limit of 2 mg/
kg for o-cresol and 1 mg/kg for m- and
p-cresol from an incinerator ash study
used to develop nonwastewater
standards in the Third Third
rulemaking. The differences in detection
limits occurred because EPA used
different treatment tests to set the limits
for o- versus m- and p-cresol.
Examination of the same test runs
revealed that where o-cresol had a
detection level of 2 mg/kg, the detection
level for m- and p-cresol was also 2 mg/
kg. In addition, where the detection
level for m- and p-cresol was 1 mg/kg,
the detection level for o-cresol was also
1 mg/kg. Upon further review of other , :
data, the Agency observed that within a
test, o-cresol and m- and p-cresols had
the same detection levels. The numbers
for o-cresol and m- plus p-cresol
promulgated in today's rule were
calculated with the same detection
limit, as justified by the data review,
and the same recovery factor. The
resulting identical treatment standards
reflect the fact that incineration treats
both of these isomer groups to the same
level, within the existing analytical
constraints.
Hi. Use of Alternative Treatment
Technologies to Combustion
In establishing numerical treatment
standards, the Agency allows the use of
any technology (other than
impermissible dilution) to comply with
the limits. Some previous standards,
namely those for petroleum refining
wastes, were based on combustion as
well as thermal desorption and solvent
extraction. Under UTS, organic
nonwastewater standards are based on
and achievable by combustion. As for
other technologies, EPA assessed
whether the changes in limits disrupted
commitments made to use these other
technologies. With regard to thermal
desorption, EPA examined comments
on the proposed levels by three 'vendors
of thermal desorption units (Seaview
Thermal Systems (STS), Separation and
Recovery Systems, Inc. (SRS), and Ecova
(formerly Waste Tech Services)), BDAT
Background Development Documents'
for treatment standards applicable to
petroleum wastes, the Marathon
delisting petition, and other available
literature.
These data demonstrate the i
achievability of UTS by thermal
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
47991
desorption for petroleum refining
wastes. This was an expected result,
given the comments on the Phase ILDR
rule which addressed F037 and F038
petroleum refining wastes. In these
comments, a thermal desorption
company called for limits lower than
today's UTS limits (these data reflected
lower detection levels, not necessarily
better treatment than today's UTS). Also
important in the use of thermal
desorption are the operating conditions:
raising the temperature, and/or the
detention time increases the amount of
hazardous organic constituents
desorbed.
As for solvent extraction, the data
used for development of the K048-K052
treatment standards achieved UTS
levels for about half of the
demonstration runs. Operating
conditions, such as solvent selection,
solvent to waste ratios, detention time,
and number of treatment passes
significantly affect treatment results,
and the agency believes these
parameters can be adjusted to comply
with the UTS. There may, however, be
other factors which result in this
technology not being selected, and
based on information available to the
Agency, no petroleum refining facilities
are utilizing solvent extraction.
EPA requested comments on the
achievability of the proposed UTS for
petroleum refining wastes when treated
via noncombustion technologies. (See
58 FR 48106-48107.) EPA also
requested comments on whether the
industry has invested in non-
combustion technologies, including
those designated as BDAT in previous
rules that cannot meet the UTS. In
particular, EPA requested information
on the type of treatment, performance
data, and an explanation of why existing
treatment could not be adjusted and
operated more efficiently to comply
with the UTS. EPA also pointed out it
was willing to revise the proposed UTS,
if data indicated that appropriate
noncombustion technologies could
achieve slightly higher levels than those
proposed for UTS.
Only one commenter, Valero, Inc.,
submitted comments with regard to a
contractual agreement for the
construction of a full scale bioslurry
reactor and data from a bench scale
treatability study. None of the other
petroleum refining commenters
indicated they had invested in
noncombustion technologies. Valero,
Inc., and two remediation companies,
Retec Technologies and OHM
Corporation, submitted data on
biotreatment of organic constituents.
They reported treatment efficiencies
from 40 to 60 percent for some PNAs
and questioned whether the proposed
treatment standards can be routinely
achieved by biotreatment technologies.
EPA does not generally consider such
treatment efficiencies adequate for
organic constituents. As indicated
previously, facilities can use any
technology other than impermissible
dilution to comply with the treatment
standards. If design and operating
conditions can be adjusted to meet the
limits, this could be full compliance. If
not, the technology may still be
appropriate for remediation wastes, for
which standards are currently being
revised in the development of HWIR.
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS
Regulated constituent—common name
CAS1 No.
Nonwastewater
standard; con-
centration in mg/
kg2 unless noted
as "mg/l TCLP"
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene ZZZZ." '.
Acetone ™
Acetonitrile ZZZ"
Acetophenone ZZZZZZZ
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrolein '."".".".
Acrylamide ZZZZZ
Acrytonitrlle
AWrin ZZZZZZZ
4-Aminobipnenyl
Aniline ZZZZZZZ.'
Anthracene ZZ."
Aramite
alpha-BHC
bata-BHC
dete-BHC ZZZZ".'
gamma-BHC "
Benzene !"!!!"Z
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzal chloride ZZ"
Benzo{b)ftuoranthene (difficult to distinguish'from Denzo(kTfluoranthene)"'
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (difficult to distinguish from benzo(b)fluoranthene '
Bonzo(g,h,i}pefylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bromodtertloromethane ZZ
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane) ZZ
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
n-Butyl alcohol
Butyl benzyl phthalate ZZZZZ
2-sec-Buty!-4,6-dinitrophenol (Dinoseb) ..
Carbon disulfide ZZ
Carbon tetrachloride ZZZZZZZZ
Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers) '.".
p-Chloroani!ine
Chlorobenzene
208-96-8
83-32-9
67-64-1
75-05-8
96-86-2
53-96-3
107-02-8
79-06-1
107-13-1
309-00-2
92-67-1
62-53-3
120-12-7
140-57-8
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
71-43-2
56-55-3
98-87-3
205-99-2
207-08-9
191-24-2
50-32-8
75-27-4
74-83-9
101-55-3
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
75-15-0
56-23-5
57-74-9
106-47-8
108-90-7
3.4
3.4
160
1.8
9.7
140
NA
23
84
0.066
NA
14
3.4
NA
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
10
3.4
6.0
6.8
6.8
1.8
3.4
15
15
15
2.6
28
2.5
(3)
6.0
0.26
16
6.0
-------
47992 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS—Continued
Regulated constituent—common name
CAS1 No.
Nonwastewater
standard; con-
centration in mg/
kg2 unless noted
as "mg/l TCLP"
. .. . 510-15-6
Chtorobenzilate 126-99-8
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene 124-48-1
Chlorodibromomethane 75-00-3
Chloroethane • • 111_91_1
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111 _44_4
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether 67-66-3
Chloroform 108-60-1
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 59-50-7
p-Chloro-m-cresol 110_75_8
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 74-87-3
Chloromethane (Methyl chloride) 91-8-7
2-Chloronaphthalene 95_57_g
2-Chlorophenol 107-05-1
3-Chloropropylene 218-01-9
Chrysene 95-48-7
o-Cresol "• ins—39—4
m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol) 106^44-5
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol) 108^94-1
Cyclohexanone 96-12-8
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane •. 106-93-4
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane) • •• 74lg5-3
Dibromomethane 94_75_7
2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) 53_1 g^
72_54-8
3424-82-6
o,P'-DDE 72-55-9
p-p'-ppj :':::::::::::: 739-02-6
0,p-DDT 50-29-3
p,p'-DDT 53-70-3
Dibenz(a,h) anthracene 192-65-4
Dibenz (a,e) pyrene 541-73-1
m-Dichlorobenzene 95-50-1
o-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7
p-Dichlorobenzene 75_71_8
Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-34-3
1,1-Dichloroethane 107-06-2
1,2-Dichloroethane 75-35-4
1,1-Dichloroethylene ••• • 156-60-5
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene " 120-83-2
2,4-Dichlorophenol 87-65-0
2,6-Dichlorophenol 78-87-5
1,2-Dichloropropane 10061 -01 -5
cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene 10061-02-6
trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene lu QQ^J^
Dieldrin 84-66-2
Diethyl phthalate 105-67-9
2-4-Dimethyl phenol 131-11-3
Dimethyl phthalate 84-74-2
Di-n-butyl phthalate 100-25-4
1,4-Dinitrobenzene 534-52-1
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 51-28-5
2,4-Dinitrophenol 121-14-2
2,4-Dinitrotoluene • 606-20-2
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 117-84-0
Di-n-octyl phthalate 60-11-7
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 621-64—7
Di-n-propylnitrosamine 133-91-1
1,4-Dioxane •;••"•
Diphenylamine (difficult to distinguish from diphenylnitrosamine)
Diphenylnitrosamine (difficult to distinguish from diphenylamine) 12JM36-7
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 298-04-4
Disulfoton 939-98-8
End°suifani ;;;;;•-;;; 33213-6-5
Endosulfan II 1-31-07-8
Endosulfan sulfate 72-20-8
Endrin 7421—93—4
Endrin aldehyde : 141-78-6
Ethyl acetate
NA
0.28
15
6.0
7.2
6.0
6.0
7.2
14
NA
30
5.6
5.7
30
3.4
5.6
5.6
5.6
(4)
15
15
15
10
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
8.2
NA
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.2
6.0
6.0
6.0
30
14
14
18
18
18
0.13
28
14
28
28
2.3
160
160
140
28
28
NA
14
170
13
13
NA
6.2
0.066
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
33
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59. NolSQ / Monday. September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 47993
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS—Continued
Regulated constituent—common name
CAS1 No.
Nonwastewater
standard; con-
centration in mg/
kg2 unless noted
as "mg/l TCLP"
Ethyl cyanide (Propanenitrile)
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether
Ws (2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide .........................................
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heptachtor
Heptachlorepoxide
Hexachlorobenzene .................................
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene .....................
HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)
HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans)
Hexachloroethane ..... ..................................
Hexachloropropylene .................................. !
lndeno<1 ,2,3-c.d)pyrene
lodomethane ......................................
Isobutyl alcohol .........................................
Isnrtrin
!lSroie"::::::z::::::::::::::zz::
Kepone
Mettacry
Methanol
Melhapyrilene ...................................
MeuioScychior ............................... zzzzzz
3-Methyteholanthrene ........................
4,4-Methylene bis(2-chloroaniline) ................
Methylene chloride ..................... .. ..........
Methyl ethyl ketone ....................................... ZZZ
Methyl Isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate [[[
Methyl methansulfonate .........................
Methyl parathion .......................................... ZZZ
Naphthalene .........................
2-Naphthylamine ............................ Z!Z!ZZZZ
o-Nitroaniline ...........................
p-Nitroaniline .................................
Nitrobenzene ........................ ZZZ
5-Nitrc-o-toluidine ..........................
o-Nitrophenol ............................
p-Nitrophenol ...................................
N-Nitrosodiethylamine .......................... !
N-Nitrosodimethylamine ....................................
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine .........................
N-Nitrosomethylethylarnine ..............................
N-Nitrosomorpholine ............................................... !
N-Nitrosop!peridine .........................
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine ................................ ZZZZ
Parathton ..............................................
Total PCBs (sum of all PCB isomers, or all Arochiors)
Pentachlorobenzene ..............................................
PeCDOs (AH Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins) ...............
PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenzofurans) ........
Pentachloroethane ............................... ......
PentachloronHrobenzene ............................
Pentachlorophenol ...........................
Phenacetin ............................
Phenanthrene .............................
Phenol ............................
Phorate
phihajte«iw"zz.z!!z:z:!z
PWhalfc anhydride ..................................
R7_7o V
126-98-7
°7 ~°°~
~
oco »
o, o!~f
"8 6~5
85-01-8
108-95-2
o
85-44-9
360
10
160
28
160
NA
15
3.4
3.4
0.066
0.066
10
5.6
2.4
0.001
0.001
30
30
3.4
65
170
0.066
2.6
0.13
84
(5)
1.5
0.18
15
30
30
36
33
160
NA
4.6
5.6
NA
14
28
14
28
13
29
28
2.3
17
2.3
2.3
35
35
4.6
10
10
0.001
0.001
6.0
-------
47994 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR ORGANIC HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS—Continued
Regulated constituent — common name
Safrole
Silvex(2,4,5-TP) - •
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of.o-, m-, p-xylene concentrations)
CAS1 No.
94-59-7
QQ_7O 1
93-76-5
95-94-3
NA
NA
630-20-6
79-34-6
127-18-4
58-90-2
108-88-3
8001-35-2
75-25-2
120-82-1
71-55-6
79-00-5
79-01-6
75-69-4
95-95-4
88-06-2
96-18-^
76-13-1
126-72-7
75-01-4
1330-20-7
Nonwastewater
standard; con-
centration in mg/
kg2 unless noted
as "mg/l TCLP"
22
7.9
7.9
14
0.001
0.001
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.4
10
2.6
15
19
6.0
6.0
6.0
30
7.4
7.4
30
30
0.10
6.0
30
1 CAS means Chemical Abstract Services. When the waste code and/or regulated constituents
with it's salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only.
2 All concentration standards for nonwastewaters are based on analysis of grab samples.
34.8 mg/l TCLP.
"0.75 mg/l TCLP.
5 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
Note: NA means not applicable.
c. Organics—Wastewaters
i.The Universal Treatment Standards
Promulgated in Today's Rule
The set of wastewater UTS proposed
in September 1993 was virtually
identical to the F039 wastewater
standards promulgated in the Third
Third Rule. Applying UTS to F- and K-
listed wastes changes organic
constituent wastewater standards in a
handful of codes (F024, K001, K011/13/
14, K015, K040, K038, K036, K037,
K060, K099, K103/104, and U051).
Commenters raised specific concerns
with three of the organic wastewater
treatment standards, and EPA is revising
the proposed standards for two of the
three constituents: the wastewater
standard proposed for carbon disulfide
will change from 0.014 mg/l to 3.8 mg/
1, and the proposed wastewater
universal treatment standard for 1,4-
dioxane has been withdrawn. Changes
to the treatment standards for these two
constituents is explained in the
following section. The third constituent
was acetonitrile. Monsanto, Dupont,
Cytec and other acrylonitrile producers,
together with the Chemical
Manufacturing Association's
Acrylonitrile Group, objected to EPA
extending the UTS to acrylonitrile
production wastes K011, K013 and
K014. Their comments stated that the
acetonitrile wastewater UTS was
unachievably low in acrylonitrile
wastes. The Agency is promulgating an
acetonitrile UTS of 5.6 based on steam
stripping performance data. This level
also appears achievable by WAO (wet
air oxidation) followed by PACT® (a
combination of powdered activated
carbon treatment and activated sludge).
ii. Treatment Standard Modification
Made in Response to Comments
Carbon Disulfide. In response to data
submitted by the Chemical
Manufacturer's Association's Carbon
Disulfide Task Force, EPA is
promulgating a treatment standard of
3.8 mg/l based on data submitted by
several facilities which generate high
concentrations of carbon disulfide in
wastewaters. The proposed wastewater
treatment standard (0.014 mg/l) was
based on one data point for biological
treatment. After receiving substantially
more treatment data representative of
more significant influent
concentrations, EPA is promulgating a
carbon disulfide wastewater number of
3.8 mg/l, based on the performance of
activated sludge at one of the facilities
generating carbon disulfide.
1,4-Dioxane. Eastman Chemical
reported that serious analytical
problems, namely wide variation in
detection limits, precluded reliable and
accurate quantification of 1,4-dioxane.
After reviewing detection limit data,
EPA decided to withdraw the
wastewater treatment standard for 1,4-
dioxane pending technical resolution in
a later rule. This decision changes the
treatment standard for U108 (1,4-
dioxane) wastewaters. Formerly the
wastewater treatment standard was 0.12
mg/l; today's rule promulgates a method
of treatment as a standard for U108
wastewaters, namely wet air oxidation
or chemical oxidation followed by
carbon adsorption or incineration.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 47995
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS
Regulated constituent—Common name
CAS1 No.
Wastewater standard
Concentration in mg/l2
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene !!.!!!!!!!!!
Acetone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Acetonitrile !.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Acetophenone ...ZZZZZZ
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrolein !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Acrylamlde !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Acrylonitrite
AWrin ZZZZZZZZZ
4-Amlnobiphenyl ! ZZZ!!!!!!!!!
Aniline !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anthracene !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aramite
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
cfelta-BHC I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
gamma-BHC Z™
Benzene !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bonz(a)anthracene !!!!!!!!!!!
Benzal chloride !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""
Benzo(b)fluoranthene (difficult to distinguish from benzo(k)fluorantnene)",
Benzo(k)fluoranthene (difficult to distinguish from benzo(b)fluoranthene)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene ZZZ
Bromodtehloromethane ZZZZ'"
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane) ZZZ.'ZZZ
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether ZZZ!
n-Buty) alcohol
Butyl benzyl phthalate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (Dlnoseb) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride !!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers) Z"!!ZZ!
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzene »ZZ.""!Z!!"Z!."
Chlorobenzilate ZZ"
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene !!ZZ!!!!!!!Z!!!!!!!!!
Chlorodibromomethane ZZZZ"
Chloroethane
Ws(2-Ch!oroethoxy)methane ZZZ
bis(2-Ch!oroethyl)ether
Chloroform
Ws(2-Chioro!sopropyl)ether Z."!Z!!!!Z"™"!.'.'
p-Chloro-m-cresol
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether Z"!ZZ"
Chloromethane (Methyl chloride) Z"!Z."!"!'"
2-ChtoronaphthaIene j.Z
2-ChtorophenoI ZZZ'"
3-Chloropropylene ZZ™
Chrysene ™ZZZ
o-Cresol \\
m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol) ZZZZZZ"
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol)
Cyclohexanone Z.'."
1,2-Dibromc-3-chIoropropane ZZZZ!!!
Ethytene dibromide (1,2-Dibromoethane) !!!!!!!!!'"
Dibromomettiane \"
2,4-D (2,4-Dfchk3rophenoxyacetic acid) !!..!
o.p'-DDD ZZ"
p.p'-DDD
o,p'-DOE
p,p'-DDE
O.P'-DDT ZZZZ!!!
p.p-DDT ZZZ.""
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene !.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dibenz(a,e)pyrene !..!!!!!!!!!!!!"
m-Dfchlorobenzene !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
o-Dfehlorobenzene !Z!!!
p-Dlch!orobenzene !..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
208-96-8
83-32-9
67-64-
75-05-8
96-86-2
53-96-3
107-02-8
79-06-1
107-13-1
309-00-:
92-67-1
62-53-3
120-12-7
140-57-8
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
71-43-2
56-55-3
98-87-3
205-99-2
207-08-9
191-24-:
50-32-8
75-27-4
74-83-9
101-55-3
71-36-3
85-68-7
88-85-7
75-15
56-23-5
57-74-9
106-47-8
108-90-7
510-15-6
126-99-8
124^18-1
75-00-3
111-91-1
111-44-4
67-66-3
108-60-1
59-50-7
110-75-8
74-87-3
91-8-7
95-57-6
107-05-1
218-01-9
95-^8-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
108-94-1
96-12-8
106-93-4
74-95-3
94-75-7
53-19-0
72-54-8
3424-82-6
72-55-9
789-02-6
50-29-3
53-70-3
192-65-4
541-73-1
95-50-1
106-46-7
0.059
0.059
0.28
5.6
0.010
0.059
0.29
19
0.24
0.021
0.13
0.81
0.059
0.36
0.00014
0.00014
0.023
0.0017
0.14
0.059
0.055
0.11
0.11
0.0055
0.061
0.35
0.11
0.055
5.6
0.017
0.066
03.8
0.057
0.0033
0.46
0.057
0.10
0.057
0.057
0.27
0.036
0.033
0.046
0.055
0.018
0.062
0.19
0.055
0.044
0.036
0.059
0.11
0.77
0.77
0.36
0.11
0.028
0.11
0.72
0.023
0.023
0.031
0.031
0.0039
0.0039
0.055
0.061
0.036
0.088
0.090
-------
47996 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS—Continued
Regulated constituent—Common name
CAS1 No.
Wastewater standard
Concentration in mg/lz
Dichlorodifluoromethane 75-34-3
1,1-Dichloroethane 107-06-2
1,2-Dichloroethane 75-35-4
1,1 -Dichloroethylene 156-60-5
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 120-83-2
2,4-Dichlorophenol 87-65-0
2,6-Dichlorophenol 78-87-5
1,2-Dichloropropane 10061-01-5
cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene 10061-02-6
trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene 60-57-1
Dieldrin 84-66-2
Diethyl phthalate 105-67-9
2-4-Dimethyl phenol 131_H_3
Dimethyl phthalate 84-74-2
Di-n-butyl phthalate 100-25-4
1,4-Dinitrobenzene 534-52-1
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol 51-28-5
2,4-Dinitrophenol 121-14-2
2,4-Dinitrotoluene 606-20-2
2,6-Dinitrotoluene 117-84-0
Di-n-octyl phthalate 60-11-7
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene 621-64-7
Di-n-propylnitrosarnine _• .——
Diphenylamine (difficult to distinguish from diphenylnitrosamme)
Diphenylnitrosamine (difficult to distinguish from diphenylamine) , 122-66-7
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 298-04-4
Disulfoton 939_g8~8
Endosulfan I 33213-6-5
Endosulfan II 1-31-07-8
Endosulfan sulfate • 72-20-8
Endrin -•-•-•• • ZZ!Z!". 7421-93-4
Endrm aldehyde 141-78-6
Ethyl acetate 107-12-0
Ethyl cyanide (Propanenitrile) 100-41-4
Ethyl benzene 60-29-7
Ethyl ether H7_8i_7
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate 97-63-2
Ethyl methacrylate 75-21-8
Ethylene oxide 52-85-7
Famphur 206-44-0
Fluoranthene " 86-73-7
Fluorene 76-44-8
Heptachlor 1024-57-3
Heptachlor epoxide 118-74-1
Hexachlorobenzene 87-68-3
Hexachlorobutadiene 77-47-4
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene NA
HxCDDs(All Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins) NA
HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans) 67-72-1
Hexachloroethane 1888-71-7
Hexachloropropylene 193-39-5
Indeno (1,2,3-c,d) pyrene 74-88-4
• lodomethane 78-83-1
Isobutyl alcohol 465-73-6
Isodrin 120-58-1
Isosafrole 143-50-8
Kepone "";;;"" 126-98-7
Methacrylonitnle 67-56
Mothanol 91-80-5
Methapyrilene 72-43-5
Methoxychlor 56-49-5
3-Methylcholanthrene 101 _., 4^
4,4-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) 75-09-2
Methylene chloride 78-93-3
Methyl ethyl ketone 108_10_1
Methyl isobutyl ketone 80-62-6
Methyl methacrylate 66-27-3
Methyl methansulfonate 298-00-0
Methyl parathion 91-20-3
Naphthalene
0.23
0.059
0.21
0.025
0.054
0.044
0.044
0.85
0.036
0.036
0.017
0.20
0.036
0.047
0.057
0.32
0.28
0.12
0.32
0.55
0.017
0.13
0.40
0.92
0.92
0.087
0.017
0.023
0.029
0.029
0.0028
0.025
0.34
0.24
0.057
0.12
0.28
0.14
0.12
0.017
0.068
0.059
0.0012
0.016
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.000063
0.000063
0.055
0.035
0.0055
0.19
5.6
0.021
0.081
0.0011
0.24
15.6
0.081
0.25
0.0055
0.50
0.089
0.28
0.14
0.14
0.018
0.014
0.059
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 47997
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR ORGANICS—Continued
Regulated constituent—Common name
2-Naphthylamine
o-Nitroaniline
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
o-Nitrophenol
p-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nftrosodimethylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine
N-NHrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nilrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Parathion
Total PCBs (sum of all PCB isomers, or all Arochiorsj
Pentachlorobenzene
PeCDOs (AH Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)
PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibenzofurans)
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Penlachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
Phthalfe acid
Phthalto anhydride
Pronamlde
Pyrene
Safrote
Silvex (2.4,5-TP)
2,4,5-T (2,4,5-TricnIorophenoxyacetic acid)
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
TCDDs (All Tetrachlorodibenzc-p-dioxins)
TCDFs (All Tetrachlorodibenzofurans)
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Toluene
Toxaphene
Bromoform (Tribromomethane)
1,2,4-Trichtorobenzene
1,1,1-Trfchtoroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethytene
Trtohlorornonofluoromethane
2,4,5-Trichtorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trinuoroethane
tris-(2.3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate
Vinyl chforfde
Xytenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene concentrations)
CAS1 No
91—59—8
08— 74— 4
100-O1— o
98—95—3
99—55-8
1 00-02—7
Oii—IO—9
100—75-4
5D—O8—2
1 ^IR—^A—l
MA
76—01—7
of— 86— 5
85-01—8
1 08—95—2
100—21—0
85-44—9
23950-58—5
129-00-0
110-86-1
94—59—7
QO -Tec
\t.l— 18— 4
108—88—3
/ 9—01—6
7ft_1o 1
/O-Ol— 4
1330-20-7
Wastewater standard1
Concentration in rng/l2
0.52
0.27
0.028
0.068
0.32
0.028
0.12
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.013
0.013,
0.014
0.10
0.055
0.000063
0.000035
0.055
0.055
0.089
0.081
0.059
0.039
0.021
0.055
0.055
0.093
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
O.OQ95
0.63
0.055
0.054
0.054
0.054
0.020
0.18 .
0.035
0.85
0.057
0.11
0.27
0.32
<•>». •!. ...II— -iI . .u /?.« L a- Y""B" UIB waste coae ana/or reguiatea constituents are described ;
wittirts salts and/or esters, the CAS number is given for the parent compound only ue&wiuea
in mg/l are ""^ on ana|Vsis of composite samples.
i of a chemical
5. Universal Treatment Standards for
Metal Hazardous Constituents
EPA is promulgating UTS for both the
nonwastewater and wastewater forms of
each of the 14 BDAT list metal
constituents. The-standards are found in
the table "Universal Treatment
Standards for Metal Constituents" at the
end of this preamble section. These UTS
will replace the existing metal
constituent treatment standards for all
listed wastes, and will constitute
applicable levels for underlying
hazardous metal constituents in
ignitable, corrosive and TC organic '
wastes. They do not apply to wastes
exhibiting the toxicity characteristic due
to metal constituents, i.e., waste codes
-------
47998 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
D004-D012, nor do they replace the
treatment standards promulgated in the
Third Third rule for EP metals.
Wastecodes D004-D012 will be
addressed in an upcoming rulemaking.
a. Nonwastewaters
The nonwastewater UTS for 12 of the
14 metal constituents are based on the
performance of high temperature metal
recovery (HTMR) or stabilization. The
remaining two metals are arsenic for
which the standard is based on
vitrification, and mercury, which
standard requires recovery by roasting
or retorting for certain highly
concentrated mercury wastes. As
always, when the Agency develops
concentration-based treatment
standards, the use of other technologies
to achieve those standards is allowed.
The following table presents a
comparison of the previously
promulgated standards with the UTS.
COMPARISON OF UTS NONWASTEWATER TCLP CONCENTRATIONS VERSUS PREVIOUS STANDARDS FOR METALS
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury ....
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Final UTS NWW
standards (TCLP)
2 1
5.0
7.6
0.014
0.19
0.86
037
0.20 for retort resi-
dues 0.025 for other
residues.
50
0.16
0.30
0.078 '.
0.23
5.3 :
Old
level
2.1
0.23
5.6
5.0
0.055
52
7.6
0.014
0.19
0.14
0.066
5.2
1.7
0.33
0.094
0.073
0.51
0.37
0.24
0.18
0.021
0.20
0.025
0.009
5.0
0.32
0.2
0.088
5.7
0.16
0.30
0.072
0.078
0.23
5.3
Previous standards being replaced
Waste codes
K061
K021, F039
K031, K084, K101, K102, P010, P011, P036, P038, U136
F039
K061
F039, P013
K061
K061
K061
K069
F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, F039, K100
F006 F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, F019, F039, K006 (hydrated), K061, K100
K015, K048, K049, K050, K051, K052
K061
K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008, K062, K086, U032
IXnOQ
F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, F039, K001, K087, K100, U051, U144, U145,
U146, P110
K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008, K061, K062, K086
K069
K046
K028
K106, U151, P065, P092 (for RMERC residues)
K071, K106, U151, P065, P092 (low mercury wastes), F039
K061
K061 , ^-,. .• x
F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, F039, K115, K061 (stabilization)
K015, K048, K049, K050, K051, K052
K028, K083
F039, P103, P114, U204, U205
K061
K061
F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, P099, P104
K061
K061
K061
Note- Constituents are actually regulated only if the treatment standard -r ..,
expected to be present (underlying hazardous constituents in characteristic wastes).
Commenters objected to the proposed
levels and provided treatment data for
only two metal limits, chromium and
mercury. The Agency revised the
proposed treatment standards for
chromium and mercury as described
later in this section. For the other UTS
metal constituents the Agency
promulgated standards as proposed.
For four of these metals beryllium,
thallium, vanadium and zinc, the
previous standards limited the metal at
one level, which was proposed and
promulgated for UTS.
For four other metals, antimony,
cadmium, nickel and silver, the Agency
proposed and promulgated the UTS
level at the highest of the previous
standards. This occurred based on the
best data for the most difficult to treat
wastes. Commenters did not submit new
data supporting lower limits for these
constituents. While the limits for some
waste codes are raised, EPA considered
the following factors:
(1) A broader assessment of the
treatment data;
(2) Some of the low/previous metal
standards simply reflected low levels in
the untreated wastes;
(3) Regulation of other metals for a
waste code, namely those that are
present in significantly high
concentrations, will control design and
operations of the treatment technology.
For the remaining four metals,
arsenic, barium, lead and selenium, the
Agency did not propose or promulgate
the UTS at the highest previous
standard. Commenters did not submit
data on these metals. The justification
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 47999
for rejecting lower levels are the same as
those presented for antimony, cadmium,
nickel and silver in the proceeding
discussion. For these metals, EPA did
not choose the highest previous
standard; rather, the standard for the
most difficult to treat waste was selected
and it achieved a lower standard than
the highest previous standard.
In addition to the above
consideration, the Agency considered
matrix effects. In setting the
nonwastewater metal limits, EPA has
examined the most difficult to treat
wastes; therefore, if a matrix
relationship exists, other wastes should
more easily meet the limits. If there
exists a waste that can not meet the
limits, the Agency has a treatability
variance process to address those
instances. It appears that HTMR is
matrix independent, consistently
achieving the same level of treatment
performance as measured in the
residuals, regardless of the influent
matrix composition. With regard to
matrix effects on stabilization,
adjustments to the type and quantity of
stabilizing agents can greatly
compensate for matrix effects.
The UTS standard for chromium
(Total) was proposed to be 0.33 mg/1 in
the TCLP extract based upon the K061-
HTMR treatment standard data. One
commenter (Occidental Chemical),
objected to the proposed limits and
supplied stabilization data for
chromium. They indicated through 85
data points that they could achieve a
level of 0.58 mg/kg. The Agency
evaluated treatability data from various
sources, including Occidental Chemical
and previously promulgated waste
codes. These evaluations compared
analyses of performance data between
untreated and treated concentrations of
metal waste. From this treatability data
tha Agency selected the most difficult to
treat waste. It was determined that the
waste criteria selected was submitted by
Cyanokem for F006 during the
promulgation of the Third Third rule
(June 1,1990). This waste was a
composition of stripping liquids, plating
operations, pelletizing operations, and
clean out wastes from plating tanks. The
data sets involving the most difficult to
treat waste were used to calculate the
limit of 0.86 mg/1 TCLP. The other data
sets, including those from the
comments, generally achieved the 0.86
mg/1 TCLP. The treatment results that
did not meet the levels may be due to
treatment being designed to only meet
the characteristic levels. It is the
Agency's belief that with the use of a
more effective stabilization process, a
lower level could be achieved, as
demonstrated by the fact that a more
difficult to treat waste attained the level
of 0.86 mg/1 TCLP. Therefore, the
Agency is promulgating the treatment
standard of 0.86 mg/1 TCLP.
EPA proposed UTS for low mercury
subcategory nonwastewaters (containing
less than 260 mg/kg total mercury) at
0.009 mg/1 TCLP. Many commenters
expressed concern over this standard.
EPA has reconsidered the proposed UTS
for mercury and is promulgating
standards as follows: 0.200 mg/1 TCLP
for low subcategory retort residues, and
0.025 mg/1 TCLP for other low
subcategory nonwastewaters. (The
existing treatment standard for high
subcategory mercury nonwastewaters
(concentration greater than 260 mg/kg)
is already RMERC, i.e., recovery of
mercury by retorting or roasting. This
treatment standard is unaffected by
today's rule.) Comments and EPA's
responses are summarized below.
Several commenters expressed the
belief that the current treatment
standards for K106, D009, and K071
wastes should remain in effect. These
commenters submitted data from the
analysis of retorted mercury waste to
support the claim that the proposed
UTS for mercury is not achievable by
retorting, the recognized BDAT for K106
and D009 wastes. These data consisted
of total and TCLP analyses of 109
residue samples from retorted K106 and
D009 wastes. Although 23 of these
samples contained greater than 260 mg/
kg total mercury and would therefore
require further retorting, of the
remaining 86 samples, 18 contained
greater than 0.009 mg/1 mercury by
TCLP, the proposed UTS for mercury
nonwastewaters. All 86 samples
contained less than 0.15 mg/1 mercury
by TCLP. These data support the
commenters' position that the proposed
UTS for mercury is not achievable by
properly operated BDAT.treatment
technology (e.g., RMERC).
Further examination of available data
has'convinced the Agency that the
proposed nonwastewater standard was
too low. The basis for the proposed UTS
for metal nonwastewaters, which was
data from the treatment of K061 by high
temperature metal recovery (HTMR), is
not appropriate for mercury wastes.
K061 waste does not typically contain
large quantities of mercury and HTMR
facilities do not accept wastes
containing high concentrations of
mercury. EPA has therefore decided not
to promulgate the proposed
nonwastewater standards, and instead
to apply the existing treatment
standards for K071, K106, P065, P092,
and U151 as the UTS for mercury
nonwastewaters. This is appropriate,
since mercury is the most significant
constituent in these wastes, and BDAT
for these wastes is particularly directed
to treating mercury. The Agency
continues to believe that the revised
limits for mercury and 12 other metal
constituents in K061 provide adequate
assurance that BDAT will occur for
K061. Thus, the universal treatment
standards for low subcategory mercury
wastes will be 0.20 mg/1 mercury by
TCLP for retort residue nonwastewaters,
and 0.025 mg/1 mercury by TCLP for
other low subcategory nonwastewaters.
The following table is a compilation
of the final metal universal standards for
nonwastewaters.
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR METAL1 HAZARDOUS CONSTITU-
ENTS
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Mercury — retort residues ....
Mercury — not retort resi-
dues
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Maximum for
any single grab
sample TCLP
(mg/l)
2 1
^ n
7 6
0 014
0 19
086
0 17
0.20
n (v>£.
5 0
0 16
030
n O7R
0 23
5.3
1 Treatment standards for cyanide wastes
are discussed in the next preamble section.
b. Waste-waters
The metal UTS for wastewaters are
based on chemical precipitation as
BDAT. Depending on the initial
concentration of metal constituents in
the wastewater, operating conditions
such as retention time, flocculating
agents, reagent concentrations such as
iron to affect solubility of other metals,
and mixing may need to be adjusted to
comply with the standards.
The following table presents the UTS
metal wastewater limits, and the
previous limits. Changes to the
proposed metal standards occurred in
two areas: use of Office of Water Metal
Finishing limits, and an adjustment of
the proposed vanadium limit. These
changes are explained following the
table.
-------
48000 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
COMPARISON OF UTS WASTEWATER CONCENTRATIONS VERSUS PREVIOUS STANDARDS FOR METALS
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Mercury
Nickel
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Final
UTS
1.9
1.4
1.2
0.82
0.69
2.77
0.69
0.15
3.98
0.82
0.43
1.4
4.3
2.61
Old
level
0.60
1.9
0.79
1.4
1.2
0.82
6.4
0.20
0.24
1.6
0.32
0.2
0.37
0.9
0.35
0.040
3.4
0.17
0.28
0.51
0.037
0.030
0.082
0.15
0.55
0.44
0.32
0.47
0.82
1.0
0.29
0.14
1.4
0.042
28
1.0
Previous standards
Waste codes
K061
K021
F039
K031, K084, K101, K102, P010, P011, P012, P036, P038, U136
F039
K061
F039, P013
K061
F039, K061
K028
F039
K101.K102
F006, K061, K069, K100
F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, F019, K015, K061, K062, K086, K100, U032
F037, F038, K048, K049, K050, K051, K052
F039
K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008
F024, K022, K028
F006 F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, K062, U144, U145, U146, P110
K002, K003, K004, K005, K006, K007, K008
K101.K102
F039
K061 K069, K100
K001 F037, F038, K028, K046, K048, K049, K050, K051, K052, K086, K087, U051
K07l', K106, P065, P092, U151
K101.K102
F039
F039
F006, F007, F008, F009, F011, F012, K015, K061, K062, P074
P073
F024, K022, K028, K083, K115
F039
P103, P114, U204, U205
F039, P099, P104
P113, P114, P115, U214, U215, U216, U217
F039
F039
P119, P120
F039
In the proposal, EPA solicited
comments on changing the limits for
cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel,
silver, and zinc to those used in the
Office of Water's Metal Finishing
Effluent Guidelines. These standards
represented a more comprehensive
database, addressed many more
facilities, and represented the most
difficult to treat waste. Although none
of the commenters submitted data, they
(commenters) supported the use of the
Metal Finishing standards as the UTS
wastewater treatment numbers. We are
adopting the metal wastewater limits
used for the Effluent Guidelines for the
Metal Finishers Point Source category
for cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel,
silver and zinc for the reasons outlined
above.
The Agency received comments, but
no data, that the proposed vanadium
limit of 0.042 was unachievably low. At
the proposed level, vanadium would be
the most stringent regulated metal. With
little data supporting the proposed
level, the Agency tried to follow up with
commenters and other sources to obtain
data. Wastewater with significant
vanadium is rare, and EPA's efforts
yielded limited data supporting a level
of 4.3 mg/1. This level is within the
range of other metal limits, and is
achievable, based on the data
availability. While the Agency would
have preferred having more data for
vanadium, the UTS is set at 4.3 mg/1. If
the few facilities that have significant
vanadium wastewaters can not meet this
limit, EPA's treatability variance process
is available. Also, the Agency would be
willing to reassess this limit in a future
rule, if data are submitted which
supports a change in this standard.
For all other metal wastewater UTS—
antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
mercury, selenium and thallium—EPA
is promulgating limits as proposed. The
data used for UTS reflect, for each of
these metals, the best data available.
With the possibility of more
wastewaters being treated to comply
with LDR standards—particularly
characteristic wastewaters that
heretofore have been decharacterized
and whose underlying hazardous
constituents may not have been treated,
EPA has made a determined effort in
this rulemaking to base treatment
standards on the best data available,
which data reflects a wide variety of
wastewaters. Although the UTS are in
some cases higher than existing limits,
EPA believes that these existing lower
limits, in many cases, reflected low
levels of metals in untreated wastes. In
addition, wastewater standards, to date,
have not had direct effect on many
wastes, because most hazardous
wastewaters are either treated in tanks
and discharged, managed in § 3005(j)(ii)
impoundments, injected into Class I
hazardous deep wells which have
received no-migration variances, or
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48001
dccharacterized, and so are not subject
to these lower standards.
The following table is a compilation
of final metal universal treatment
standards for wastewaters.
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR METAL1 HAZARDOUS CONSTITU-
ENTS
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Maximum for
any single
grab sample
(mg/l)
1 Q
1 4
1 ">
0 82
0 69
277
0 69
0 15
3 98
0 K>
0 43
1 4
4 3
2.61
''Treatment standards for cyanide wastes
are discussed in the next preamble section.
6. Universal Treatment Standards for
Cyanide Wastes
For the nonwastewater forms of
cyanide wastes, EPA is promulgating
the UTS as proposed: 590 mg/kg (total
cyanide) and 30 mg/kg (amenable
cyanide). For wastewaters, EPA is
promulgating the UTS: 1.2 mg/l (total
cyanide) and 0.86 mg/l (amenable
cyanide). These wastewater standards
differ from those that were proposed
(see section b of the cyanide UTS
discussion below). The cyanide
wastewater and nonwastewater UTS are
based on the treatment of wastewaters
via alkaline chlorination.
EPA is also codifying in 40 CFR
268.40 that compliance with the
cyanide nonwastewater UTS requires
the use of EPA SW-846, Test Methods
9010 and 9012, along with a specified
sample size of 10 grams, and a
distillation time of 75 minutes. Most
commenters, in particular those from
the hazardous waste treatment industry,
welcomed and supported this part of
EPA's proposal. These kind of
provisions eliminate variabilities that
can result from the analyses of different
sample sizes and distillation times. A
detailed discussion of these treatment
standards follows.
a. Cyanide Nonwastewaters
EPA proposed three options for
cyanide in nonwastewater forms (a
standard based on total and amenable
cyanide concentrations, a standard
based on TCLP concentrations, and a
standard that specifies treatment
methods) at 58 FR 48104. EPA is
promulgating the first option.
EPA is discussing in this preamble
only the major comments on the first
option. Please see the Response ,to
Comments Document in the docket for
this rule for EPA's responses to all the
comments received on the proposed
three options.
EPA requested comments on its
rationale for setting a common cyanide
UTS for all nonwastewater forms of
cyanide. Two primary issues were
emphasized in the proposal: (1) the
establishment of a cyanide UTS that is
less stringent for wastes that contain
little to no cyanide; and, (2)
standardized sample size and
distillation time for compliance
monitoring.
EPA believes that by basing a
universal treatment on the cyanide
matrix that is most difficult to treat, the
universal treatment standard will
indeed be uniformly achievable. EPA
has determined that electroplating
wastes with high concentrations of iron
represent the most difficult to treat of all
the cyanide wastes. The available
performance data for treating
electroplating wastes support the
establishment of a UTS of 590 mg/kg
(total cyanide) and 30 mg/kg (amenable
cyanide).
EPA noted that although other
cyanide wastes were required to meet
lower treatment standards, the
establishment of this higher UTS was
not likely to discourage effective
treatment of these other wastes.
Examples of the other wastes of concern
include multi-source leachate,
pigments, petroleum, coking, ink
solvents and organo-nitrogen wastes.
These wastes generally have very little
cyanide in the untreated waste, 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 (alkaline chlorination).
Because these wastes are routinely
treated by incineration or a cyanide
destruction technology, EPA believes
further subcategorization of the cyanide
UTS standard is not warranted at this
time. (Put another way, the Agency does
not believe as a practical matter that
more cyanide will be land disposed as
a result of UTS, and therefore that the
interest in simplified standards warrants
against further subcategorization of
cyanide wastes.)
The majority of the commenters
supported EPA's proposed rationale for
developing a cyanide UTS and believe
EPA's proposed approach is appropriate
for setting UTS. Two commenters,
however, urged EPA to withdraw the
proposed UTS and to promulgate
instead a lower cyanide UTS, as
described below.
The first commenter believes that EPA
should set two categories of cyanide
UTS: (1) organic, which would include
all those cyanide wastes with regulated
prganics; and, (2) inorganic, which
include all cyanide wastes with
regulated metals. For organics, they
suggested a UTS of 30 mg/kg (total
cyanide) and 1.8 mg/kg (amenable
cyanide). For inorganics, the commenter
suggested a UTS of 400 mg/kg (total
cyanide) based on rejecting three data
points used to calculate the 590 mg/kg
limits.
The other commenter believes that it
is inappropriate for EPA to raise the
standards for all nonwastewater forms
of cyanide wastes. They said that
existing treatment technologies :can treat
cyanide wastes to levels below the
proposed UTS, and they asked EPA to
promulgate lower cyanide levels such as
those promulgated for nonwastewater
forms of F011 and F012.
EPA is not persuaded by these
comments. First, a separate lower
treatment standard for cyanide in
organic wastes is currently unnecessary
because combustion of these wastes to
comply with organic treatment
standards effectively destroys cyanides.
Second, EPA believes that the three data
points queried in CyanoKem's comment
are in fact representative. None of these
three data points fail a statistical Outlier
test. Furthermore, the description of the
design and operating conditions make it
appear that treatment was conducted
properly. Third, the limit for Foil and
F012 (which had a treatment standard
for cyanide below the UTS) has not been
previously subject to the 1 hour and 15
minute distillation time and 10 gram
sample requirements, which can greatly
influence results and are required
conditions for the UTS.
CyanoKem's comment, in fact,
amounts to a request that EPA reopen
the technology basis for the cyanide
standard, an issue not opened for public
comment. The treatment standards for
cyanide are based on performance of
alkaline chlorination technology. 54 FR
at 26610-611 (June 23,1989).
CyanoKem has upgraded that .
technology with certain proprietary
modifications. 56 FR at 12355 (March
25,1991). EPA has already indicated
that this adapted technology is not, and
need not serve as the basis for the
treatment standard. Id.
In any case, EPA does not believe that
this is an appropriate time to undertake
-------
48002 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
major changes to the cyanide standards.
This is because the cyanide analytic
method, although improved by the
changes in this rule which are the best
available at the present time, continues
to have shortcomings. EPA is working to
develop a different analytic method. It
may be that after the new method is
developed, further investigation of
cyanide standards will be warranted.
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS
FOR CYANIDE 1
[Nonwastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Amenable)
Maximum for
any single
composite
sample (mg/
kg)
590
30
1 Cyanide nonwastewaters are analyzed
using SW-846 Method 9010 or 9012, sample
size 10 grams, distillation time, one hour and
15 minutes.
b. Cyanide Wastewaters
EPA is promulgating 1.2 mg/1 (total
cyanide) and 0.86 mg/1 (amenable
cyanide) as UTS for wastewater forms of
cyanide wastes. In the proposed rule,
EPA pointed out that a total cyanide
concentration of 1.9 mg/1, regardless of
process waste type, is widely used in
wastewater discharge regulations—
namely those for the Metal Finishing
Industry and the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF)
Industry; however, the concentration of
1.9 mg/1 was a typographical error. The
Agency intended to propose a
concentration 1.2 mg/1 of total cyanide.
(The 1.2 mg/1 level is supported by
EPA's OCPSF regulations and the
background information in the record to
the proposed rule supporting the
proposed total cyanide UTS applicable
to cyanide wastewaters.) The majority of
commenters from the pharmaceutical
and waste treatment industry
commented on the proposed UTS
cyanide for wastewaters assuming a
standard of 1.2 mg/1 total cyanide level
was proposed.
Commenters pointed out that the
proposed level of 1.2 mg/1 (total
cyanide) is not always applied to
OCPSF discharges. EPA has authorized
permit writers or control authorities to
exempt a source from OCPSF's total
cyanide (discharge) limit, and to
establish a Best Professional Judgement
("BPJ") amenable cyanide limit. The BPJ
limit must be based on a determination
that the cyanide limits are not
achievable due to elevated levels of non-
amenable cyanide that result from the
unavoidable complexing of cyanide at
the process source (40 CFR 414.11(g),
414.91, and 414.101). As with the CWA
regulations, EPA provides facilities with
a RCRA treatability variance process in
the 40 CFR 268.44 regulations that
would allow a facility to achieve an
alternate treatment standard (see
discussion of treatability variance at
section XII of this preamble). EPA
believes that this provision provides a
mechanism for establishing an
alternative cyanide limit for OCPSF
facilities in appropriate cases.
These commenters also reported that
CWA regulations for the Pharmaceutical
Industry specify cyanide limitations as
high as 33.5 mg/1 total cyanide. EPA
looked into these concerns; in r
particular, whether the proposed
standard of 1.2 mg/1 can be achieved
universally. Treatment performance
data, however, were not submitted by
the commenters. Contrary to the
commenters' arguments, the literature
and the performance data on cyanide
treatment clearly show that cyanide
wastewaters are treatable to 1.2 mg/1
total cyanide. While the CWA cyanide
limit is 33.5 mg/1 for the pharmaceutical
industry, that limit was established in
1983 and is currently being investigated
for possible revision. Data were
obtained from these ongoing efforts,
confirming that pharmaceutical wastes
can achieve the 1.2 mg/1 cyanide level.
Other commenters emphasized that
because EPA's proposed universal
wastewater standard of 1.2 mg/1 total
CN could not be routinely met by
cyanide destruction technologies
available at their site, EPA should only
set a treatment level of 0.86 mg/1
(amenable cyanide). Another
commenter added that in the Third
Third rule (see 55 FR 22550-22553,
June 1,1990), EPA already set a level of
0.86 mg/1 for amenable cyanide in
characteristic wastewaters which is
routinely met by their modified
wastewater treatment system. The
proposed UTS treatment standard of
0.86 mg/1 (amenable cyanide) is based
on the treatment of complex-iron
wastewaters from the electroplating
industry by alkaline chlorination (a
cyanide destruction technology, and
BDAT). The commenter urged EPA to
set this level as the sole cyanide UTS.
In the first place, the Agency views
the issue of requiring treatment for both
total and amenable CN to be settled in
past rules, and did not intend to reopen
it. See 54 FRat 26609 (June 23,1989).
If further response is deemed necessary,
EPA remains unpersuaded by these
arguments. Clean Water Act effluent
limitations could technically be met by
adding ferro-sulfate or other sulfate
reagents to wastewaters." These chemical
reagents do not destroy cyanides in the
effluent wastewater but instead, they
leave behind iron-cyanide complexes or
thiocyanates. By requiring compliance
for both amenable and total cyanide,
facilities must pursue treatment
practices that can effectively destroy
cyanides. EPA is thus promulgating 1.2
mg/1 (total cyanide) and 0.86 mg/1
(amenable cyanide) as UTS for
wastewater forms of cyanide wastes.
EPA had previously reserved the
treatment standard for total cyanide in
wastewater forms of D003 reactive
cyanide wastes. In today's rule, EPA is
applying the UTS of 1.2 mg/1 to this
waste. EPA sees no reason that the limit
is not generally achievable, and
commenters supplied no reasons.
UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARD
FOR CYANIDE
[Wastewaters]
Regulated constituent
Cvanide (Amenable)
Maximum for
any single
composite
sample (mg/1)
1.2
0.86
C. Consolidation of Equivalent
Technology-Specific Combustion
Standards
Another improvement to the existing
Land Disposal Restrictions program that
is being made in today's rule is the
simplification of two equivalent
technology-specific combustion
standards in: Table 1—Technology
Codes and Description of Technology-
Based Standards in 40 CFR 268.42. The
Agency is consolidating the descriptions
of INCIN (incineration) and FSUBS (fuel
substitution), by combining them into
one term, CMBST (combustion). The
definition of CMBST, as stated in
§ 268.42 Table 1, is: "combustion in
incinerators, boilers, or industrial
furnaces operated in accordance with
the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
part 264 subpart O, and part 266,
subpart H." (Because the Part 265
interim status standards for incinerators
are largely nonsubstantive, EPA does
not view facilities operating pursuant to
these standards to be performing BDAT
treatment. This is not true of boilers and
industrial furnaces, where the interim
status standards are nearly as stringent
as those for permitted units.)
This definition includes a specific
reference to boilers and industrial
furnaces in order to clarify that
combustion in these units is (and
always has been) allowed as a means of
complying with FSUBS. The Agency is
also clarifying that any future
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48003
regulations, such as potential emission
limits on metals or halogenated organic
content, established in part 264 subpart
O, and part 266 subpart H, shall also
apply automatically to the standard of
CMBST [or INCIN) in part 268. The
consolidation of INCIN with FSUBS to
read CMBST does not represent any
change to the promulgated standards
and additional notice and comment
was, therefore, not required.
All of the K-, U-, and P-listed wastes
that have technology-specific standards
contain chemicals that are very difficult
to quantify in treatment residues. The
chemicals representing the waste codes
for which the Agency has promulgated
CMBST as a standard are, for the most
part, thermally labile and are expected
to be destroyed relatively easily in any
type of combustion unit. EPA originally
set up the two separate standards of
INCIN and FSUBS (Final Rule for Third
Third Wastes, June 1,1990), because the
Agency did not have in place the
operating requirements for boilers and
industrial furnaces (i.e., the
requirements for FSUBS). See 52 FR at
17021 (May 6,1987). Because these
requirements have been promulgated
(56 FR 7134 (February 21,1991), both
sets of standards should assure equally
efficient combustion of hazardous
waste. For the same reason, there is no
need to distinguish between the types of
units that are allowed to handle each
specific waste code, (EPA is, however,
actively reviewing current regulations
for combustion units to assure the rules'
protectiveness, and may propose more
stringent standards for such units. See
EPA's Draft Combustion Strategy of May
18,1993).
As a result of today's action the
standards for the following waste codes
are modified to read "CMBST":
(1) Two treatment subcategories of D001
wastes
(2) Six source-specific wastes listed in
§261.32: K027, K039, K113, K114,
K115, K116
(3) Seventeen wastes listed in
§261.33(e): P001, POOS, POOS, P009,
P040, P041, P043, P044, P062, P068,
P081, P085, P088, P102, P105, P109,
P112
(4) Forty-one wastes listed in § 261.3.3(f):
U008, U016, U023, U053, U055,
U056, U057, U058, U064, U085,
U086, U087, U089, U090, U094,
U096, U098, U099, U103, U109,
U113, U122, U123, U124, U125,
U126, U133, U147, U154, U160,
U166, U182, U186, U197, U201,
U213, U221, U248, U328, U353, U359
Other technology-specific standards
and/or numerical standards that have
been promulgated for the above listed
codes remain unchanged. In particular,
the promulgated standards of CHRED
and CHOXD (i.e., chemical reduction
and chemical oxidation) remain
unchanged as alternatives to CMBST for
fourteen of the above U and P waste
codes. These standards were established
because the chemicals represented by
these wastes hydrolyze relatively
rapidly (i.e., react with water) and both
of the technologies represented by these
standards are typically performed under
aqueous conditions. These waste codes
include: P009, P068, P081, P105, P112,
U023, U086, U096, U098, U099, U103,
U109, U133, U160.
Today's rule does not affect the
existing standards for waste codes
where INCIN was specified, but FSUBS
was not. For those waste codes, the
standard remains identified as INCIN,
rather than CMBST.
The Agency is further investigating
potential modifications to the
presentation in 40 CFR 268.40 of all of
the technology-specific standards in
order to simplify and clarify the
promulgated treatment standards, and
may propose additional changes in the
future.
D. Incorporation of Newly Listed Wastes
Into Lab Packs and Changes to
Appendices
On June 1,1990 (55 FR 22629), EPA
promulgated alternative treatment
standards under 40 CFR 268.42(c) for
waste codes listed in 40 CFR 268
Appendix IV and V that are placed in
lab packs. These alternative standards
are legally constructed, in part, as
"specified methods of treatment"
because of physical difficulties in
measuring compliance with numerical
standards for these multi-coded waste
forms (i.e., compliance is complicated
by the fact that many lab packs are
comprised of hundreds of small
containers, each with different organic
or organo-metallic chemicals in them,
making it difficult to accurately sample
treatment residues for those organics).
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 these
alternative standards.
EPA's original intent in establishing
two separate appendices was to
distinguish between those lab packs
containing organo-metallics (Appendix
IV) and those containing only organics
(Appendix V). As such, lab packs
containing organo-metallics (Appendix
IV) were expected to need stabilization
after performing the specified method of
treatment, INCIN (i.e., incineration),
while Appendix V lab packs only
needed to be incinerated. However,
under 40 CFR 268.42(c)(4), all treatment
residues of either type of lab pack also
had to comply with the standards for
the extraction procedure (EP) for metals,
i.e., D004, D005, D006, D007, D008,
D010, and D011. (D009 is not included
in this list because most mercury-
bearing wastes were excluded from the
use of the alternative standards in both
of these Appendices.) As such, if metals
were concentrated in the residues from
the incineration of an Appendix V lab
pack and the resultant residues then
exhibited one of the characteristics for
EP metals, these residues would also
have had to be stabilized to comply with
the appropriate treatment standard for
metals. In such a case, there was no
practical difference between Appendix
IV and Appendix V lab packs in terms
of the treatment that was needed.
The majority of the comments
received from the regulated community
supported the Agency's proposed
approach, hi this final rule EPA is,
therefore, replacing Appendix IV and
Appendix V with a new Appendix IV.
In order to simplify the new Appendix
IV it only contains those wastes
excluded from lab packs. The following
wastes are excluded from lab packs (and
appear in new Appendix IV) for the
purpose of using the alternative lab pack
treatment standard in 40 CFR 268.42(c):
D009, F019, K003, K004, K005, K006,
K062, K071, K100, K106, P010, P011,
P012, P076, P078, U134, U151.
In today's rule, EPA is also stating
that the alternative treatment standard
for lab packs applies to the following
additional waste codes that were
previously not included in Appendix IV
or V: wastes for which treatment
standards were promulgated in the LDR
Phase I rule August 1,1992 (57 FR
37194), and wastes (including TC
organic wastes) for which treatment
standards are promulgated in this final
rule. Today's rule does not list these as
excluded waste codes in the new
Appendix IV.
As a matter of clarification, the
alternative treatment standard for lab
packs is INCIN. This required
combustion technology combined with
the requirements of 40 CFR 268.42(c)(4)
(ash residues are treated to meet the
characteristic metals treatment
standards), will ensure that all
underlying hazardous constituents
present in characteristic wastes (other
than those excluded in the new
Appendix IV), will be treated. The use
of this alternative lab pack standard
negates the requirement to monitor for,
or comply with, the UTS for underlying
hazardous organic constituents.
-------
48004 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
For reasons outlined in the June 1,
1990 final rule, mercury wastes were
excluded from this alternative standard
for lab packs. Mercury is considered a
"volatile metal" which may lead to
excessive air emissions in some
combustion devices when present in
large quantities. Mercury is also very
difficult to stabilize if present in ash
residues in large quantities.
Commenters did not provide any
justifiable technical reason for EPA to
modify its position with respect to
mercury wastes, and thus these wastes
shall remain excluded from this
alternative lab pack treatment standard.
E. Changes in the LDR Program in
Response to the LDR Roundtable
EPA convened a roundtable meeting
on January 12-14,1993 to discuss the
LDR program. The purpose of the
roundtable was for EPA to hear
suggestions on improvements to the
LDR program from persons who .
implement it. Participants included
representatives of hazardous waste
generators, treaters, and disposers;
public interest groups; state
environmental agencies; EPA regional
offices; and other federal agencies. EPA
is today promulgating several
recommendations made by roundtable
participants. The Agency is
consolidating the three existing
treatment standard tables into one table,
and is simplifying notification
requirements and reducing paperwork,
as discussed below. In addition, as
discussed in an earlier section of this
preamble, the Agency is also
promulgating universal treatment
standards. Furthermore, the Agency is
committed to continue to identify ways
the LDR program can be simplified.
Additional opportunities for such
streamlining will be explored in future
LDR rulemakings.
1. 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 separate tables at 40 CFR
268.41-268.43 was too complex and
burdensome. In its September 14,1993
notice, EPA proposed a single
consolidated table of treatment
standards. Comments on the table were
favorable.
Today, EPA is replacing the three
existing treatment standard tables with
the consolidated table, called
"Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Waste" and placing it at § 268.40 along
with much of the text found currently
in §§ 268.41-268.43. Section 268.42
continues to describe the technology
codes, to regulate California list PCBs
and HOCs, to set out exemptions from
the required methods, and to provide
procedures for equivalency
determinations. The numerical
treatment standards in the consolidated
table are identical to the UTS
promulgated in today's rule with the
exception of characteristic metal wastes.
Reformatting §§ 268.40-268.43 also
corrects a confusing aspect of the way
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
has appeared for some time. The "No
Land Disposal" treatment standards that
have appeared at § 268.43 will be
deleted from the regulations and should
no longer appear in the CFR. These
treatment standards have not been in
effect since 1990, when the LDR Third
Third rule set treatment standards for
these wastes that were expressed as
either methods of treatment or
numerical standards that now appear in
the consolidated treatment standard
table § 268.40. It was only a drafting
oversight that made these "No Land
Disposal" standards continue to appear
in the regulations, and today's rule
corrects this mistake.
2. Simplified LDR Notification
Requirements
Comments on LDR notification
requirements at the roundtable ranged
from suggestions that EPA should
eliminate notifications altogether to
suggestions that EPA modify or delete
data items on the notification. In
response, EPA proposed to eliminate the
requirement at 40 CFR 268.7(a)(l)(ii)
and at 268.9(d)(l) that the notification
include treatment standards or
references to those standards. It was
argued that such a simplification makes
particular sense in conjunction with
EPA's proposal to consolidate the
treatment standard tables. Commenters
on this issue all supported this
proposed simplification. EPA is thus
dropping-the treatment standard or
reference to the treatment standard from
the LDR notification in this final rule.
Today's action does not eliminate the
existing requirement to identify the
constituents in F001-F005 spent solvent
wastes, F039 wastes, or the underlying
hazardous constituents in D001, D002,
and in TC organic wastes, unless the
generator/treater is going to monitor for
all hazardous constituents in the waste.
However, the regulatory language is
made clearer, and there is no longer any
requirement that the corresponding
constituent level be included with the
constituents identified on the LDR
notification for these wastes.
IV. Treatment Standards for Toxicity
Characteristic Waste
A. Introduction—Content and Scope
EPA is promulgating treatment
standards for the newly identified
toxicity characteristic (TC) organic
wastes (D018-D043) as proposed. These
are identical to the UTS in today's rule.
The UTS apply to the underlying
hazardous constituents in the TC waste
as well as the individual constituent
responsible for the TC designation.
Underlying hazardous constituents are
any constituents in § 268.48 which are
reasonably expected to be present at
levels above the UTS at the point of
generation of the TC waste. (See
definition at § 268.2(i).) Although the
intent of today's regulations is to require
treating all underlying hazardous
constituents present plus the TC
constituent, today's rule calls for
generators to monitor only the TC
constituent and those underlying
hazardous constituents "reasonably
expected to be present" in their waste
at its point of generation. Today's rule
is promulgating the compliance
monitoring provisions that were
proposed. Section X of this preamble
(Compliance Monitoring and
Notification) discusses them in detail.
Several commenters suggested that
EPA promulgate alternative standards of
incineration (INCIN), fuel substitution
(FSUBS) and recovery of organics
(RORGS) for these wastes. These
commenters pointed to the Interim Final
Rule of May 24,1993 (58 FR 29867)
where EPA extended the use of these
methods of treatment to all D001 wastes
disposed outside CWA or CWA-
equivalent impoundments or Safe
Drinking Water Act regulated Class I
underground injection wells. EPA is not
adopting this approach in today's rule
for TC organic wastes. First, EPA does
not believe that methods of treatment
intended to address organic constituents
will always adequately address any
underlying metal constituents present in
these wastes. In addition, the Agency
has not yet been able to completely
evaluate the appropriateness of
requiring specified treatment
technologies for TC wastes and other
wastes.
1. Waste Management Systems Affected
by Today's Rule
In terms of waste management
systems, today's rule applies to those TC
wastes which are managed in systems
other than: (1) wastewater treatment
systems which include surface
impoundments whose ultimate
discharge is subject to the Clean Water
Act (CWA); (2) zero dischargers who,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48005
before permanent land disposal of the
wastewater, treat the wastewaters in a
CWA-equivalent wastewater treatment
system; or, (3) Class I underground
injection wells subject to the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
program. 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
untreated influent to wastewater
treatment systems), or treatment that the
facility can show performs as well or
better than these enumerated
technologies. See § 268.37(a), 58 FR at
29885 (May 24,1993). Organic TC
wastes managed in these types of
systems will be regulated in the next
LDRrule.
Additionally, "decharacterizing" the
TC wastes regulated under this rule by
rendering them noncharacteristic does
not remove them from the scope of these
regulations. Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 976 F. 2d at 14-
15. Consequently today's final rule 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, today's
treatment standards would not apply.
This is an example of the type of zero
discharger referred to above.)
2. Categories of TC Wastes Affected by
Today's Rule
The following TC wastes are subject
to UTS: (1) all wastes identified as D018
through D043 (described in the
proposed rule as "new organic
constituents); (2) D012 through D017
organic pesticide wastes whose TCLP
extract composition meets the
concentration criteria of 40 CFR 261.24,
Table A but whose EP extract
composition does not; (3) D012 through
D017 pesticide wastes whose TCLP
extract composition meets the
concentration criteria of 40 CFR 261.24
Table A, as does the EP extract
composition, and (4) soil and debris
contaminated with the proceeding three
sets of wastes. The first two categories
are newly identified wastes, i.e. wastes
not yet identified as hazardous at the
time of the 1984 amendments and
therefore not covered by the original
statutory schedule. (The March 29,1990
rule extended the list of chemicals
defined as TC and changed the
extraction step to a more sensitive
procedure which may potentially
identify more pesticide wastes than did
the EP.) For soil contaminated with the
TC wastes, the variance process is
available (see discussion in the
Background section of this rule under
the heading "E. Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Soil").
As noted in the proposed rule,
regulating land disposal of newly
identified TC wastes by addressing
underlying hazardous constituents is
the same approach as EPA adopted in
the recent interim final rule for ignitable
pOOl) and corrosive (D002)
characteristic wastes, 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. 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. A summary of the court's
decision, an overview of the interim
final rule published on May 24,1993,
and a discussion of how the Agency
proposed to apply this approach to the
TC wastes can be found in the text of
the proposed rule at 58 FR 48092.
Today's rule regulates underlying
hazardous constituents in the D018-
D043 as well as in newly identified
D012-D017 and in the rest of the
universe of D012-D017 wastes. (The
definition of "underlying hazardous
constituents" is contained at 268.2(1) in
this rule.) For those D012-D017
nonwastewaters originally regulated in
the Third Third rule, today's rule
changes the numerical value of the
previously applicable treatment
standards to the UTS.
3. Soil Contaminated by Underground
Storage Tanks
Soil which is contaminated with
petroleum and is managed during
corrective action of releases from a
RCRA Subtitle I underground storage
tank (UST) is not subject to the
treatment standards promulgated today
for the TC organic wastes (D018-D043).
Such 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 proposed to
permanently exempt UST petroleum-
contaminated soils from the TC rule (58
FR 8504). However, any Subtitle I
petroleum-contaminated soil identified
as D001 through D017 would not be
subject to the deferral and would be
subject to all applicable RCRA land
disposal restriction requirements.
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 land
disposal restrictions. Likewise,
petroleum-contaminated soils from non-
UST sources that exhibit a hazardous
characteristic are also subject to
applicable Subtitle C requirements.
4. Metal TC Wastes Are Not Affected by
Today's Rule
Today's rule does not affect TC metal
wastes at all; this rule leaves the Third
Third final treatment standards (which
apply to EP metals) in place.
Furthermore, today's rule does not affect
the mineral processing wastes which
were formerly exempt from Subtitle C
regulation under the Bevill Amendment
but which recently lost that exemption.
Included in that set of wastes are wastes
from the remediation of historic
manufactured gas plant or coal
gasification sites. EPA will address TC
metal wastes and the former Bevill
mineral processing wastes in a future
ralemaking.
B. Background
1. Legal and Policy Basis for Today's TC
Standards
Today's rule applies the UTS to
underlying hazardous constituents in
D012-D043 wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. Commenters' principal
objection to the proposed standards for
TC wastes was that the September 1992
Circuit Court decision did not authorize
EPA to regulate underlying hazardous
constituents in TC wastes.
Most of these comments asserted that
organic TC wastes were fundamentally
different from ignitable or corrosive
wastes and therefore EPA's decision to
apply the standards promulgated in the
May 24,1993 Interim Final Rule for
ignitable and corrosive wastes was
inappropriate. These commenters said
that TC wastes were unlikely to pose a
threat to human health and the
environment once treatment removed
the single constituent, partly because
such treatment would remove other
similar hazardous components of the
waste. None of these commenters
submitted process data demonstrating
these claims. On the other hand, some
commenters argued that merely
deactivating characteristic wastes might
-------
48006 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
well leave hazardous components
intact.
The Agency is regulating in this rule
underlying hazardous constituents in
TC wastes when they are managed in
non-CWA/non-CWA equivalent/non-
Class I injection well waste management
systems. If, as commenters assert,
treatment of the TC constituent
effectively treats underlying hazardous
constituents, then regulating the
underlying hazardous constituent poses
no further burden. Additionally, EPA
believes that the compliance monitoring
provisions requiring the generator to
address only those underlying
constituents "reasonably expected to be
present in the wastes" relieves
generators and treaters from an undue
regulatory burden.
Several commenters objected that
extending the requirement to treat
underlying hazardous constituents from
ignitable and corrosive wastes, as
promulgated in the May 24,1993
Interim Final Rule, to TC wastes was
unnecessary. The numerical treatment
standard for the constituent present at
the TC level, the commenters reasoned,
meets RCRA's section 3004(m)
"minimize threat" requirement. EPA is
not persuaded by such reasoning. 55 FR
22542, 22652 (June 1,1990); Chemical
Waste Management, 976 F.2d at 14;
HWTC III, 886 F. 2d at 362. The TC
level identifies wastes that are clearly
hazardous, and does not evaluate
presence of underlying hazardous
constituents, non-groundwater exposure
pathways, or adverse environmental
effects.
2. Ongoing Management Practices for
TC Wastes
The proposed rule solicited comments
and data on volumes of TC wastes
managed in Class V injection wells, and
on waste management practices
employed prior to such injection. EPA
received little substantive comment and
consequently has no basis for changing
the proposed approach.
The proposed rule also solicited
information about industrial generation
patterns in order to allow the Agency to
assess the potential for source reduction
or recycling for these TC wastes in light
of their wide diversity. However, EPA
received no comments describing
current industry practices upon which
the Agency could act.
The Agency is to consider
opportunities for source reduction and
recycling of these wastes, and ways
treatment standards could reflect such
types of waste minimization. The
Agency notes that the subtitle C rules
generally, and the LDR rules in
particular, have already resulted in
substantial volumes of hazardous waste
no longer being generated, because these
rules impose waste management costs
on hazardous waste generators, and thus
create a financial incentive to generate
less waste.
Finally, several commenters
expressed concerns about achievability
of UTS for underlying hazardous
constituents in complex matrices and
about the appropriateness of numerical
standards based on incineration. See the
discussion of UTS in section III.A of this
preamble for more information on these
comments.
C. Treatment Standards for New TC
Organic Constituents (D018-D043]
1. Nonwastewaters
The Agency is also promulgating
concentration-based treatment standards
for TC organic constituents in
nonwastewaters, that are identical to the
levels promulgated as UTS in a separate
section of this preamble. These
standards are based on treatment data
that were used to establish UTS for
these same constituents in listed wastes.
These standards are primarily based on
incineration data and are presented at
the end of this section.
EPA believes that a variety of
treatment technologies, combustion and
non-combustion, qan achieve these
treatment standards. EPA reiterates that
any technology that does not constitute
impermissible dilution can be used to
meet these concentration levels.
BOAT STANDARDS FOR TC ORGANIC
WASTES
[Nonwastewaters]
Code
D018
D019
D020
D021
D022
D023
D024
D025
D026
D027
D028
D029
D030
D031
D031
D032
D033
D034
D035
Regulated constitu-
ent
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
o-Cresol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Cresol '. ....
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane ...
1 ,1-Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide ..
Hexachlorobenzene .
Hexachiorc-1 ,3-buta-
diene.
Hexachloroethane ....
Methyl ethyl ketone ..
Maximum
for any •
single grab
sample.
Total com-
position
(mg/kg)
10
6.0
0.26
6.0
6 0
5.6
156
156
5:6
6.0
6.0
6.0
140
0.066
0.066
10
5.6
30
36
BOAT STANDARDS FOR TC ORGANIC
WASTES—Continued
[Nonwastewaters]
Code
D036
D037
D038
D039
D040
D041
D042
D043
Regulated constitu-
ent
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol ...
Pyridine
Tetrachloroethylene .
Trichloroethylene
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Vinvl Chloride
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
Total com-
position
(mg/kg)
14
7.4
16
6.0
6.0
7.4
7.4
6.0
1 m- and p-cresol are regulated together as
the sum of their concentrations.
2. Wastewaters
The Agency is today promulgating
concentration-based treatment standards
for the TC organic constituents in
wastewaters, that are identical to the
levels promulgated as UTS in a separate
part of today's rule. These standards
were based on existing treatment data
that were used to establish UTS for
these same constituents in the broad
array of listed wastes. Today's standards
are based on data representing a variety
of wastewater treatment units and are
presented at the end of this section.
These wastewater treatment standards
apply to 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 treatment standards
promulgated today for newly identified
TC organic (D018-D043) wastewaters
require treatment to meet the UTS for
the TC constituent and for the
underlying hazardous constituents in
the TC waste as generated.
BOAT STANDARDS FOR TC ORGANICS
[Wastewaters]
Constituent
D018—Benzene
D019—Carbon tetrachloride
D020—Chlordane
D021—Chlorobenzene
D022—Chloroform
D023—o-Cresol
D024—m-Cresol
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
Total com-
position
(mg/l)
0.14
0.057
0.0033
0.057
0.046
0.11
0.77
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48007
BOAT STANDARDS FOR TC
ORGANICS—Continued
[Wastewaters]
Constituent
D025—p-Cresol
D025—Cresol
D027—1,4-D!chlorobenzene
D028—1,2-Otehloroethane ...
D029—1,1-Oichloroethylene .
D030—-2,4-Dlnitrotoluene
D031—Heptachlor
D031—Heptachlor epoxkte ...
D032—Hexachtorobenzene...
D033—Hexachloro-1,3-buta-
diene
D034—Hexachaloroethane ...
D035—Methyl ethyl ketone ...
0036—Nitrobenzene ,
D037—Pentachlorophenol .....
0038—Pyrkilne
D039—Tetrachloroethylene ...
D040—Trichloroethylene ,
D041—2,4,5-Trichlorophenol,
D042—2,4,6-Trfchlorophenol.
D043—Vinyl Chloride
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
Total com-
position
(mg/l)
0.77
0.88
0.09
0.21
0.025
0.32
0.0012
0.016
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.28
0.068
0.089
0.014
0.056
0.054
0.18
0.035
0.27
3. Radioactive Mixed Waste
Radioactive mixed wastes are those
wastes that satisfy the definition of
radioactive waste subject to the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA) 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 in
subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261. Since the
hazardous portions of the mixed waste
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.
Therefore, any radioactive waste mixed
with organic TC wastes that are
managed in non-CWA/non-CWA-
equivalent/non-Class ISDWA facilities
must meet the treatment standards being
promulgated today for the TC wastes.
The standards that were proposed for
the TC wastes were also proposed for
TC radioactive mixed wastes. Prior to
this proposal, however, the Department
of Energy (DOE) had expressed some
concerns about meeting certain
treatment standards and stated that they
were collecting data from their facilities
on mixed TC wastes. EPA stated in the
proposed rule that, for the most part, the
low concentrations of radioactive
compounds should not interfere with
the trcatability of the hazardous
constituents in the waste, and requested
data on instances when the radioactivity
prevented the waste from meeting the
LDR treatment standard.
One commenter suggested that EPA
postpone its decision on appropriate
methods for treating mixed waste until
information currently being collected
profiling commercially generated low-
level radioactive mixed waste has been
submitted and reviewed by EPA. This
commenter claimed that the results of
this profile contradict EPA's statement
that radioactive material concentrations
in mixed waste are low and should not
interfere with the treatment of the
mixed waste. Another commenter
expressed the belief that the presence of
radioactive components within the
limits of operator exposure and safety
should not interfere with the treatment
of hazardous constituents in waste.
Neither commenter submitted any
data or other supporting information to
substantiate their assertions regarding
the treatability of radioactive mixed
waste; therefore, EPA has decided to
promulgate the standards for newly
identified TC radioactive mixed wastes
as proposed. However, if data is
submitted to EPA indicating that the
presence of radioactive components
prevents a waste from meeting the LDR
treatment standards, the Agency will
evaluate the data and amend the
standards as appropriate. The Agency's
variance provisions of 40 CFR 268.44
can also be used to obtain alternate
limits in the meantime.
D. Treatment Standards for Pesticide
Wastes Exhibiting the Toxicity
Characteristic
D012—Endrin
D013—Lindane
D014—Methoxychlor
D015—Toxaphene
D016—-2,4-D
D017—2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
The Agency is promulgating treatment
standards for these wastes essentially as
proposed with the additional
requirement that underlying hazardous
constituents be treated in
nonwastewater forms of these wastes.
Today's standards apply to all D012-
D017 wastes managed in non-CWA/non-
CWA-equivalent/non-Class I injection
well waste management facilities. These
are the toxic pesticide wastes which are
identified as toxic following application
of the TCLP. The TCLP is more sensitive
than the EP analysis, possibly bringing
more wastes into the toxicity
characteristic category than did the EP.
1. Newly Identified Pesticide
Nonwastewaters
EPA is today regulating newly
identified D012-D017 nonwastewaters
plus D012-D017 nonwastewaters
regulated earlier in the Third Third rule.
Treatment standards for both sets of
D012-D017 nonwastewaters include the
UTS value for the TC constituents plus
UTS values for underlying hazardous
constituents. The changes between the
Third Third standards and today's rule
are that the numerical value of the
toxaphene nonwastewater standard rises
from 1.3 to 2.6 and the standard for
D013, lindane, incorporates numbers for
the four BHC isomers. (It should be
noted that EPA determined that the
amount of D012-D017 waste subject to
the treatment standards is very small. 55
FR at 22634, 22646. Based on this
determination, it is very unlikely that
newly identified D012-D017 are being
generated.)
Today's rule also prohibits dilution of
D012-D017 nonwastewaters injected
into Class I deep injection wells.
Consequently, these pesticide wastes
must be treated to meet the treatment
standards before they can permissibly
be injected into such units, unless that
unit has been granted a no-migration
determination. Section VIII of this
preamble discusses this and other
deepwell injection issues presented in
today's rule in more detail. :
BOAT STANDARDS FOR PESTICIDES
[Nonwastewaters]
Code
D012
D012
D013
D013
D013
D013
D014
D015
D016
D017
Regulated
constituent
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
gamma-BHC
delta-BHC
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2 4-D
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
Total com-
position
(mg/kg)
0.13
0.13
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
0 18
26
10
7.9
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). Today's rule extends
these treatment standards to those
pesticide wastewaters covered in
today's rule. (See 268.40)
-------
48008 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
E. Exemptions for De Minimis Losses of
Commercial Chemical Product or
Chemical Intermediates That Exhibit the
Toxicity Characteristic (TC), and for TC
Laboratory Wastes Discharged to CWA
Wastewater Treatment Systems
In the Interim Final Rule published
May 24,1993, EPA established de
minimis exemptions for commercial
chemical product or chemical
intermediates that are ignitable or
corrosive hazardous wastes and that
contained underlying hazardous
constituents (58 FR 29875). The Agency
proposed in Phase II to extend the
exemptions in 40 CFR 268.1 to
commercial chemical products or
chemical intermediates that are TC
organic wastes when disposed (58 FR
48118). Commenters expressed support
for this approach.
This action is necessary to avoid
situations where minor leaks of organic
TC commercial chemical products or
chemical intermediates to a wastewater
treatment system would potentially
trigger all of the potential consequences
of treating all underlying hazardous
constituents that might be in the waste.
As EPA noted in originally determining
that the mixture rule should not apply
in such situations, such small losses are
as a practical matter unavoidable;
responsible management involves
channeling these minor losses to a
centralized wastewater treatment
system. In addition, there is a natural
incentive to minimize the losses
because the materials would otherwise
be commercial chemical products or
intermediates (46 FR 56583, Nov. 17,
1981). Moreover, allowing de minimis
losses of TC materials to trigger all of
the LDR treatment consequences would
be anomalously stringent because de
minimis losses of listed wastes (i.e., the
commercial chemical products listed in
§ 261.33), which tend to be more
concentrated (see generally 58 FR at
29875), would not be regulated because
of the exception to the mixture rule
found at § 261.3(a)(iv)(D).
This same type of exception is needed
for TC laboratory wastes that are
commingled with other plant
wastewaters under designated
circumstances: TC 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 part per million
(the same condition that applies to the
existing exemption in
§261.3(a)(2)(iv)(E)).
Thus de minimis losses of commercial
chemical product or chemical
intermediates that are TC organic
wastes, and TC organic laboratory
wastes discharged to CWA wastewater
treatment systems, are not subject to the
requirements of 40 CFR 268. De minimis
losses are those occurring from normal
material handling, minor leaks of
equipment tanks or containers, and
similar small but, for practical purposes,
unavoidable losses. See
§ 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(D) and 268.1(e)(4) as
promulgated at 58 FR 29884 (May 24,
1993). The definition of de minimis loss
is the same as EPA used in the May 24,
1993 rule. This definition mirrors the
parallel language in § 261.3(a)(iv)(D)
except that it also includes discharges
from safety showers and rinsing and
cleaning of personal safety equipment
and rinsate from empty containers or
from containers that are rendered empty
by that rinsing. When the § 268.1(e)(4)
definition was originally promulgated in
the May 24,1993 rule, it seemed
unlikely that ignitable or corrosive
wastes would be generated from safety
showers or rinsate. The Agency believes
it is more likely that TC wastes could be
generated in such a manner, therefore,
the definition is being expanded to
include this language in this rule.
EPA also notes that the characteristic
commercial chemical products
exempted under this rule and the May,
1993 rule are not limited to products in
which a particular chemical is "the
commercially pure grade of the
chemical, any technical grades of the
chemical, and all formulations in which
the chemical is the sole active
ingredient." (See § 261.33(d) comment).
Rather, the exemption extends to de
minimis losses (as defined) of in-process
materials such as-intermediates and
materials that would be products if they
were not inadvertently discarded. 55 FR
at 2869 (Jan. 31, 1991). The citation in
the comment to § 261.33(d), quoted
above, is necessary to define the scope
of the listing, but as just explained, does
not apply to losses of characteristic
materials.
V. Treatment Standards for Newly
Listed Wastes
A. Treatment Standards for Coke By-
product Production Wastes
K141—Process 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.
K142—Tar storage tank residues from the
production of coke from coal or the
recovery of coke by-products produced
from coal.
K143—Process 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.
K144—Wastewater treatment sludges from
light oil refining, including but not
limited to intercepting or contamination
sump sludges from the recovery of coke
by-products produced from coal.
K145—Residues from naphthalene collection
and recovery operations from the
recovery of coke by-products produced
from coal.
K147—Tar storage tank residues from coal tar
refining.
K148—Residues from coal tar distillation,
including but not limited to still
bottoms.
EPA is promulgating the treatment
standards that were proposed for coke
by-product production wastes. These
treatment standards also apply to soil
and debris contaminated with these
wastes, although a variance process is
available for such soils (see discussion
on variances in the Background section
of this rule under the heading "E.
Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Soil"). The preamble of the proposed
rule describes the generation and
characteristics of the newly listed
wastes in greater detail (58 FR 48119).
Today's standards are concentration-
based limits for wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, numerically identical
to the UTS promulgated elsewhere in
this rule for the nine constituents
regulated in these wastes.
The American Coke and Coal
Chemicals Institute requested that EPA
allow the use of these wastes as fuels in
blast furnaces and other applications
where coke, coal and coal tar are used
as fuels. The commenters were
requesting EPA to extend the existing
recycling exclusion—which allows
these wastes to be combined with coal
feedstock residue as it is charged to the
coke oven, added to the coal recovery
process or mixed with coal tar before
this coal tar is sold as a product or
further refined. Extending this exclusion
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48009
is beyond the scope of this regulation;
it was not included in the September
proposal as an option for managing
these wastes. The Definition of Solid
Waste Task Force is examining the
broad range of these types of issues.
The other comments received
concerning the proposed treatment
standards for coke products' wastes
came from the waste treatment industry.
Several waste treatment companies
supported applying universal standards
to these waste streams and the UTS
concept in general. However, one
commenter provided data in support of
extending the standards originally
applied to K087 to these wastes. EPA
evaluated these data but found no
reason not to apply UTS to these wastes.
EPA's evaluation of these data is
presented in the Background Document
for these wastes. In separate comments,
two waste treatment companies objected
to the benzene nonwastewater standards
as unnecessarily high and pointed out
that their facilities could achieve
benzene limits below that proposed in
the UTS. EPA does not believe these
data really reflect better treatment.
Rather, the commenters appear to have
generated a waste matrix in which
benzene is detectable at lower levels.
EPA is promulgating the benzene
nonwastewater standard as proposed,
believing that it reflects an appropriate
and broader assessment of benzene
detection limits in combustion residues.
BOAT STANDARDS FOR K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, AND K148
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Benzene
8enzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo{k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a h)anthracene
lndeno{1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
Total com-
position
(mg/kg)
10
3.4
3.4
16.8
16.8
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
1 This standard represents the sum of the concentrations for each of this pair of constituents.
BOAT STANDARDS FOR K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147, AND K148
[Wastewaters]
Constituent
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a}pyrene
Benzo(b}lluoranthene
Benzo(k)ftuoranthen6
Chrysene
Dibenz(a h)anthracene
lndeno{1 ,2,3-cdJpyrene
Naphthalene
Maximum
for any
single grab
•sample.
Total com-
position
(mg/l)
0.14
0.059
0.061
10.11
10.11
0.059
0.055
0.0055
0.059
Constituents regulated for waste codes
K141
xxxxxxxx
K142
XXXXXXXX
K143
XXXXXX
K144
XXXXXXX
K145
X
X
X
X
X
X
K147
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K148
XXXXXX
1 This standard represents the sum of the concentrations for each of this pair of constituents.
-------
48010 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
B. Treatment Standards for
Chlorotoluenes
K149—Distillation bottoms from the
production of alpha (methyl) chlorinated
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.)
KlS'O^-Organic residuals, excluding spent
carbon adsorbent, from the spent
chlorine gas and hydrochloric acid
' recovery processes associated with the
production of alpha (methyl) chlorinated
toluenes, ring-chlorinated toluenes,
benzoyl chlorides, and compounds with
mixtures of these functional groups.
K151—Wastewater treatment sludges,
excluding neutralization and biological
sludges, generated during the treatment
of wastewaters from the production of
alpha (methyl) chlorinated toluenes,
ring-chlorinated toluenes, benzoyl
chlorides and compounds with mixtures
of these functional groups.
EPA is promulgating the treatment
standards that were proposed for
chlorotoluene wastes. The preamble of
the proposed rule describes the
generation and characteristics in greater
detail (58 FR 48121). Today's standards
are concentration-based limits for
wastewaters and nonwastewaters,
numerically identical to the UTS
promulgated elsewhere in this rule for
the thirteen constituents regulated in
these wastes.
Comments received concerning the
proposed treatment standards for
chlorotoluene wastes came from the
waste treatment industry; they were
similar to those received concerning the
treatment standards for coking wastes.
Several waste treatment companies
supported applying universal standards
to these waste streams and the UTS
concept in general. Two waste treatment
companies objected to the benzene
nonwastewater standards as
unnecessarily high and pointed out that
their facilities could achieve benzene
limits below that proposed in the UTS.
EPA, however, believes that the UTS for
benzene nonwastewaters reflects an
appropriate and broad assessment of
benzene detection levels in combustion
residues.
BOAT STANDARDS FOR K149, K150, AND K151
[Nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Benzene ;
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentaohlorobenzene
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane .
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Toluene
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 for
waste codes
K149
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K150
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K151
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BOAT STANDARDS FOR K149, K150, AND K151
[Wastewaters]
Constituent
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorobenzene
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethvlene
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
Total com-
position
(mg/l)
0.14
0.057
0.046
0.19
0.057
0.090
0.055
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.056
Constituents regulated for
waste codes
K149
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K150
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
K151
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48011
BOAT STANDARDS FOR K149, K150, AND K151—Continued
[Wastewaters]
Constituent
Toluene
Maximum
for any
single grab
sample.
Total com-
position
(mg/l)
0.055
0.080
Constituents regulated for
waste codes
K149
X
K150
X
K151
X
VI. Debris Contaminated With Newly
Listed or Identified Wastes
Debris contaminated with the
hazardous wastes included in today's
rule must be treated prior to land
disposal. The hazardous debris may be
treated to meet the treatment standards
promulgated today for the constituents
which are contaminating the debris, or
it may be treated to meet the alternative
debris standards promulgated in the
LDR for Newly Listed Wastes and
Hazardous Debris (57 FR 37194, August
18,1992).
A. Debris Treated To Meet the Phase II
Treatment Standards
Debris that is treated to meet the
treatment standards promulgated in
today's rule for newly listed wastes
would remain subject to the hazardous
waste management regulations (subtitle
O for as long as the debris "contains"
the hazardous waste (see 57 FR 37625-
26, August 18,1992). On the other hand,
debris that is treated to ineet the
treatment standards promulgated in
today's rule for newly identified TC
organic wastes, including any
underlying hazardous constituents the
generator reasonably expects to be
present in the waste, could be disposed
in a nonhazardous waste (subtitle D)
landfill because the characteristic
identifying the waste as hazardous is
removed through meeting the LDR
treatment standards.
B. Debris Treated To Meet the
Alternative Debris Treatment Standards
The alternative treatment standards
require the use of specific technologies
from one or more of the following
categories: extraction technologies,
destruction technologies, or
immobilization. Treatment must be
performed in accordance with specified
performance standards found in the
regulations at 40 CFR 268.45. If one of
the extraction or destruction
technologies is used, and the debris
does not display any characteristic of
hazardous waste, then EPA would
consider the treated debris to no longer
contain hazardous waste. Such treated
debris could, therefore, be reused,
returned to the natural environment, or
disposed in a nonhazardous waste
(subtitle D) facility. Nondebris residuals
generated from the treatment of debris
contaminated with listed wastes would
still be hazardous wastes by virtue of
the derived-from rule and would be
subject to the hazardous waste
management system, including the
treatment standards for newly listed
wastes in today's rule.
VII. Response to Comments Regarding
Exclusion of Hazardous Debris That
Has Been Treated by Immobilization
Technologies
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 or destruction technology
provided the treated debris meets the
performance standards specified in
§ 268.45 Table 1. Our 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
not leach Appendix VIII constituents
over time in a manner that would be
protective to human health 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
Agency received favorable comments 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 decided 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 information on
the issue, the Agency sponsored a
roundtable discussion on August 3,
1992. 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 data was
gathered, there was a general discussion
on the types of standards that could be
applied such as 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.
• There was some question whether a
specific exclusion for immobilized
hazardous debris was necessary or
whether the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR) may be a
more appropriate mechanism for
addressing this issue.
• A representative from the glass
industry suggested that glass cullet and
vitreous materials should have a
separate treatment standard. He
indicated that the glass matrix would
-------
48012 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
not leach lead at a higher rate than
would an immobilized product—that is,
it made 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.
Microencapsulation: Participants at
the meeting seem to believe that using
a leach test may be more appropriate to
demonstrate effective
microencapsulation immobilization
over an approach of developing design
and operating standards. It was noted
that treatment of hazardous debris is
very waste and debris specific; if one
could define design and operating
standards that were generally
applicable, they would likely be too
burdensome in many cases.
Macroencapsulation/Sealing: The
participants seem to indicate that the
grinding requirement in the TCLP leach
test made it inappropriate for predicting
performance of macroencapsulation/
sealing immobilization technologies.
These 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
believed that such an approach was
workable, no one was able to suggest a
specific test or standard. In addition, it
was felt by some of the participants that
the development of such a test could be
difficult to develop.
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 in
making its decision.
C. EPA Investigations
In addition to the above roundtable
discussions, EPA has also been
reviewing the literature and talking to
vendors in an effort to obtain sufficient
information on how to propose
standards that could allow the exclusion
of immobilized hazardous debris. At the
time the Phase IILDR rule was
proposed, no useful insights had been
gained on how to specify design and
operating standards that would ensure
that immobilized hazardous debris was
nonhazardous; the reason for this was
the paucity of experience in
immobilizing hazardous debris.
Nevertheless, the Agency expressed
interest in pursuing this area and
specifically sought assistance from the
regulated community on this issue.
D. Specific Questions for Which
Comments Were Solicited
While the Agency had a better sense
of the types of standards that may be
appropriate for excluding immobilized
hazardous debris from Subtitle C control
at the time of the Phase II proposal, the
Agency still did not have the data to
propose specific exclusions. For
microencapsulation in particular, if a
leach test were the most appropriate
mechanism for determining whether
such treated debris is nonhazardous, the
Agency expressed the belief that HWIR
may be the most appropriate rulemaking
to address this issue. The Agency had a
series of studies underway, was
evaluating comments, but was not in a
position to determine what such levels
were at that time. With respect to
macroencapsulation/sealing, additional
data or information needed to be
gathered before the Agency would be in
a position to exclude this type of
immobilized hazardous debris. To assist
the Agency in this effort, we specifically
solicited comment on the following
questions:
Microencapsulation:
• 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/Sealing:
• What type of structural or other test
could be used?
• What type of criteria should be
applied in determining whether such
debris is nonhazardous?
The Agency is also considering
allowing stabilization for soils
containing low levels of organic
constituents, and solicited 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.
In addition, the Agency specifically
solicited comment on any available data
or information to demonstrate that
immobilized hazardous debris (if treated
properly) would not pose a substantial
hazard to human health and the
environment, stating that if such
information were submitted to the
Agency, the Agency would exclude
such debris from Subtitle C control.
E. Comments Received and Conclusions
Microencapsulation: One commenter
stated that specifying design and
operating standards is appropriate for
excluding immobilized hazardous
debris from subtitle C, asserting that
nothing is gained in performing a leach
test on hazardous debris. Other
commenters suggested that EPA
consider a combination of a structural
test combined with a leaching test
conducted on a representative intact
sample of the encapsulated waste. None
of these commenters submitted any
supporting information to substantiate
these conflicting claims. However, the
commenters did agree that if a leach test
is used, the TCLP as it is now defined
is inappropriate for immobilized debris.
Macroencapsulation/Sealing: Several
commenters claimed that the TCLP test
is inappropriate for immobilized
material because the size reduction
required by the test protocol destroys
the encapsulant, thereby defeating the
purpose of the technology. These
commenters suggested that EPA instead
consider a combination of a structural
test (a 50 psi standard was suggested)
combined with a leaching test
conducted on a representative intact
sample of the encapsulated waste. These
commenters did not submit any data to
verify that a 50 psi standard would
insure the integrity of the immobilized
waste, and although some commenters
recommended that a new leach test
protocol be developed, they did not
suggest any specific protocols for a
leach test on the intact debris waste.
Exclusion of Immobilized Debris from
Subtitle C Regulation: Several
commenters maintained that debris
treated with an immobilization
technology should be excluded from
Subtitle C regulation. However, these
commenters did not submit any
supporting data to verify this claim.
Two commenters claimed that a
careful reading of 40 CFR 268.7(b)
indicates that waste which is treated
using a specified treatment technology
is not subject to further testing to exit
Subtitle C and claimed that the rules for
debris treated in accordance with the
alternative treatment standards
specified in 40 CFR 268.45 should be
the same. Then- interpretation of this
section of the CFR is incorrect. With
regard to wastes for which technologies
have been specified as the treatment
standard, 40 CFR 268.7(b) contains the
wording of the certification stating that
the waste has been treated in
accordance with § 268.42; this
certification must be signed before the
waste may be land disposed. 40 CFR
268.7(b) does not say that this waste is
no longer subject to subtitle C
regulation.
One commenter suggested that, at a
minimum, EPA should establish health
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48013
based numerical standards for exclusion
of hazardous debris from subtitle C.
This commenter made no suggestion as
to what test method should be used. The
issue of basing LDR standards on the
basis of risk rather than technology
performance is addressed in Section III
A 2 a of this rule, "Risk-based Universal
Treatment Standards."
Finally, one commenter suggested
that EPA allow the use of stainless steel
as an encapsulant, claiming that its
performance would be superior to that
of other encapsulants, such as
polymeric organics, which allegedly fail
due to the radiation effects to their
chemical bonds.
Conclusions: Although commenters
were in general agreement on a number
of issues (e.g. inappropriateness of the
TCLP for debris, use of a 50 psi
structural test as a performance
standard, use of a leach test performed
on intact debris), no supporting data or
other information was submitted to
support their claims and requests.
Therefore, the Agency is not
promulgating any modifications to the
debris rule at this time. The Agency is
evaluating exclusions as part of the
HWIR process and will reassess
appropriate action on debris if HWIR
does not adequately address debris.
VIII. Deep Well Injection Issues
A. Prohibition of Dilution of High TOC
Ignitable and of TC Pesticide Wastes
Injected Into Class I Deep Wells
Today's rule prohibits the disposal of
two types of waste into deep-well
injection via Class I Underground
Injection Control (UIC) wells unless the
wastes first meet the land disposal
restrictions promulgated in today's rule
for these wastes, or the wastes are
injected into a well that is subject to a
no-migration determination. These
wastes are nonwastewaters exhibiting
the characteristic of ignitability at the
point of generation and containing
greater than 10 percent Total Organic
Carbon ("high TOC ignitable liquids
subcategory") and also TC toxic
halogenated pesticide wastes (DO12-
D017). Thus, EPA is promulgating, as
proposed, regulations excluding these
two wastes from the portion of the rule
at 40 CFR 268.1(c)(3) that allows a waste.
to be injected into a Class I deep
injection well if the waste no longer
exhibits a characteristic at the point of
injection. Today's rule also includes a
one-year capacity variance for these
injected waste streams.
For D001 High TOC ignitables, the
treatment standard is expressed as
methods of treatment that must be used
prior to land disposal: combustion (i.e.
incineration or fuel substitution) or
recovery of organics. The preamble to
the proposed rule stated that high TOC
ignitable nonwastewaters contain high
concentrations of organics that can
either be recovered directly for reuse, or
can be burned in combustion devices.
These wastes are not injected in
significant volumes, so that redirection
of the wastes to treatment technologies
will not have significant impact on well
operators. 58 FR 48118-48119. EPA
received no information to the contrary
from commenters.
The treatment standards for TC
pesticide wastewaters are also expressed
as methods of treatment: biodegradation
or incineration. On the other hand, the
treatment standards for EP pesticide
nonwastewaters are expressed as levels
that may be achieved by using any
treatment technology, other than
impermissible dilution. (The Third
Third rule had already disqualified
these wastes from the exception that
allowed dilution of characteristic wastes
that were to be managed in Clean Water
Act treatment systems including surface
land disposal units, § 268.3(b) and 55
FR 22657.)
As discussed at length in the
preamble to the proposed rule, the
Agency's initial reading of the D.C.
Circuit Court's decision is that wastes
that are characteristically hazardous at
the point of generation must typically be
treated to destroy or remove hazardous
constituents before land disposal, or be
disposed of in a no-migration unit. 976
F.2d at 24. This is certainly a
permissible interpretation of the
opinion. Furthermore, the decision
encompasses underground injection
wells, specifically Class I deep wells,
since they are permanent land disposal
units. 976 F.2d at 25. Thus, under this
reading of the court's opinion, these
ignitable and pesticide wastes would
have to be treated to remove hazardous
constituents before injection.
EPA's decision to prohibit injection of
these untreated wastes, however, is
based not only on.it? initial
interpretation of the Chemical Waste
Management opinion (which, as noted
below, may still evolve), but also on the
particular wastes involved here. The
wastes at issue are ignitable wastes with
potentially very high concentrations of
hazardous constituents, and pesticide
wastes containing very toxic
constituents.
Treatment is also warranted to reduce
the amounts of these toxic wastes being
land disposed. RCRA section 1003(a)(6)
("statutory goal of minimizing the ...
land disposal of hazardous waste by
encouraging ... properly conducted
recycling and reuse, and treatment");
Steel Manufacturers' Association v.
EPA, F.3d , (D.C. Cir. July
9,1994) ("We conclude that minimizing
the overall volume of slag that is to be
disposed is by itself, a sufficient
justification for the zinc treatment
standard ...") (slip op. at 13). Finally,
only small volumes of these wastes are
injected, and segregation of the wastes
should not prove to be unduly difficult.
For all of these reasons, the Agency
believes it appropriate to prohibit
injection of these wastes at this time,
unless the wastes are treated to satisfy
section 3004(m) or are disposed in a no-
migration unit. In this regard, the
Agency emphasizes that no-migration
petitions for Class I nonhazardous wells
receiving decharacterized wastes may be
submitted to EPA or the Authorized
States for evaluation at this time. The
petitions may encompass not only the
pesticide and high-TOC ignitable wastes
prohibited in this rule, but other types
of decharacterized wastes (which are
not yet prohibited but are scheduled to
be addressed in Phase III) as well.
Most comments to the proposed rule
requested independent consideration of
Class I injection wells, because they
believed that underground injection
differs from other forms of land
disposal, such as landfills and
impoundments. Other comments
questioned EPA's interpretation of the
Third Third court decision and the
Agency's belief that treatment of these
waste streams should be the preferred
management approach for them. These
commenters indicated that aggregation
of waste streams meets the minimize
threat standard and expressed their
opinion that segregation of these wastes
for treatment poses substantial risks to
the environment and that underground
injection is an inherently safer waste
management practice. The Agency
intends to consider all the above
arguments (e.g., risks posed by wastes
going to deep well injection) in the
identification of alternatives for land
disposal standards. The Agency will
continue to investigate any and all
information received concerning these
comments, and intends to address land
disposal standards for underground
injection of characteristic wastes in a
comprehensive manner in the Phase III
rulemaking. Until these treatment
standards become effective one, year
from the date of publication of this rule,
they may continue to be injected into
Class I injection wells without prior
treatment.
-------
48014 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
B. Request for Comment on Petition
From Chemical Manufacturer's
Association Regarding Deep Well
Injection oflgnitable and Corrosive
Characteristic Wastes
The proposed rule solicited comments
on a request from the Chemical
Manufacturer's Association (CMA) that
EPA develop separate treatment
standards intended for those wastes
disposed in Class I deep injection wells.
CMA requested a separate set of
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. Many comments received by
EPA urged the Agency to develop so-
called UlC-specific treatment standards
in light of this petition. However, EPA
received virtually no technical
information to support these comments.
Therefore, the Agency is not issuing a
final response to CMA's request in
today's rule. EPA continues to solicit
information necessary to enable EPA to
act on this petition in the future. These
requests are documented in the
rulemaking docket for today's rule. In
particular, the Agency particularly
requests data concerning waste
volumes, waste transport, injection
system integrity or the fate of disposed
pollutants throughout the course of the
injection procedure.
IX. Modifications to Hazardous Waste
Recycling Regulations
A. Introduction
Today's rulemaking finalizes the
proposed changes to the hazardous
waste recycling regulations, thus
slightly broadening the scope of an
existing exclusion (and related
variance). This modification of the
regulatory framework will allow for
environmentally beneficial recycling to
occur without unnecessary regulatory
consequences.
EPA wishes to note that the changes
to the definition of solid waste being
promulgated today are narrow in scope
and will have minor impact. A more
broad-ranged evaluation of the
regulations applicable to the recycling
of hazardous waste is being conducted
by EPA's Definition of Solid Waste Task
Force. This Task Force has been
administering a public dialogue process
to examine the overall impacts of the
RCRA program on recycling, and will
consider broader changes to the
definition of solid waste as part of that
process.
B. Modification of the Existing "Closed-
loop" Recycling Exclusion and Related
Case-specific Variance
1. "Closed-loop" Recycling Exclusion
and Related Variance
In the January 4,1985 final rule, the
Agency promulgated an exclusion from
the definition of solid waste at
§ 261.2(e)(l)(iii) for secondary materials
that are recycled in a "closed-loop,"
(i.e., returned to the original production
process in which the material was
generated (see preamble discussion at
50 FR 639)). To be considered such a
"closed-loop" process, three conditions
must be met. First, the secondary
material must be returned to the original
process without undergoing significant
alteration or reprocessing (i.e., it must
be returned without first being
reclaimed. See 261.2(e)(3) and Table 1).
Second, the production process to
which the unreclaimed materials 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
waste management (i.e., the material is
not part of the waste management
problem).
Today's action addresses the second
condition—that the production process
to which a secondary material is
returned be a primary process. This
condition was part of the' original
exclusion due to considerations
regarding jurisdiction, as it was
understood in 1985, rather than to an
evaluation of the potential impacts on
the environment from such "closed-
loop" recycling involving secondary
processes. This condition thus 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. The Agency
therefore 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 with few
exceptions, this condition has no actual
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 likewise
excluded from the definition of solid
waste if reclaimed.)
Although the Agency continues to
believe that the jurisdictional logic '•
behind this condition is sound, the
judicial opinions regarding RCRA
jurisdiction allow more weight to be
given to environmental considerations.
APIv. EPA (API), 906 F.2d at 740-41;
AMC v. EPA (AMCII), 907 F.2d 1179, -
1186 (B.C. Cir. 1990). Thus, 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 the condition of a
closed-loop involving only primary
processes is not legally compelled, and
that this condition is less relevant as an
environmental consideration, assuming
that the secondary material is well-
managed prior to reprocessing in the
primary or secondary process that
generated it.
Comments received on the Agency's
proposal to remove this condition from
the exclusion were favorable. Although
several commenters said that the
Agency should go further in modifying '
the existing regulations to encourage the
recycling of hazardous wastes, such an
action is beyond the scope of this
proceeding. Such further action could
result from the efforts currently ,
underway to reevaluate the regulations
applicable to hazardous waste recycling
(i.e., the Roundtable discussions
undertaken by the Definition of Solid
Waste Task Force). One commenter also
urged the Agency to make regulatory
modifications only as part of the
Definition of Solid Waste Task Force.
EPA does not view the salutary and
relatively modest change to the rules
promulgated here as undermining the
Task Force effort, and so is adopting the
amendment.
Thus, the Agency is today removing
this condition (i.e., that the process be
a primary production process) from the
"closed-loop" recycling exclusion. By ,
doing this, secondary materials that are
recycled back into the secondary
production process from which they
were generated are excluded from the
definition of solid waste.
Following the same reasoning, the '
Agency proposed and is today finalizing
a modification to section 260.30(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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48015
(see 50 FR 652 (January 4,1985) for a
discussion of the existing variance).
This modification similarly expands the
variance to make it available for
materials that are returned to secondary
processes, as well as those returned to
primary processes.
2. Storage Prior to Recycling
At proposal, the Agency proposed to
condition the "closed-loop" exclusion
(and the related 260.30(b) variance)
such that secondary materials recycled
back into secondary processes from
which they were generated would
continue to be managed in an
environmentally sound manner. The
Agency proposed this condition to
address concerns that, absent this
condition, a listed waste that would
otherwise be required to be managed in
a protective manner (e.g., without direct
placement on the land) could begin to
be managed in an unprotective manner
because, as an excluded secondary
material, no regulatory requirements
would apply. Storage of hazardous
secondary materials on the land can be
deemed to be a type of discarding ("part
of the waste disposal problem" in the
words of the B.C. Circuit), and hence
provide a basis for classifying the
materials as solid and hazardous wastes.
AMCII, 907 F.2d at 1187. The only
comments received addressing this
proposed condition asked for more
clarification of what would be
considered "a protective manner." The
Agency is promulgating the condition to
the exclusion that such secondary
materials be managed in a protective
manner such that there is no placement
on the land, that is no land disposal as
defined in §3004(k). See § 261.4(a)(10)
and (11) where EPA has attached this
same condition to comparable
exclusions. Management that is
designed to contain the material or
otherwise prevent its release to the
environment, such as in a containment
building (see 40 CFR 264.1100) or tank,
is permissible. The Agency believes that
this condition will not require any
changes in how these secondary
materials are currently managed and
will ensure that providing regulatory
relief will not unintentionally increase
risk to human health and the
environment.
Additional changes were proposed
and are being promulgated in this rule
in order to implement and be consistent
with the changes in variances discussed
above. Previously the Regional
Administrator granted variances from
classification as a solid waste in 40 CFR
260.30,260.31, 260.32, and 260.33.
Today's rule transfers this authority to
grant variances from the Regional
Administrator to the Administrator. The
changes in §§ 260.30 and 260.31 are
necessary because such variances
involve determining RCRA jurisdiction
over secondary materials going to
secondary processes. The other changes
in authority to grant variances in
§§ 260.32 and 260.33 are being made in
order to be consistent with the
provisions of §§260.30 and 260.31.
X. Compliance Monitoring and
Notification
A. Compliance Monitoring
As proposed, the Agency is adopting
an approach that will allow generators
and facilities that manage organic
toxicity characteristic (TC) wastes in
systems other than those regulated
under the Clean Water Act (CWA), those
engaged in CWA-equivalent treatment
prior to land disposal, and those
injecting into Class I deep injection
wells, to monitor or otherwise
determine the presence of underlying
hazardous constituents "reasonably
expected to be present" in their waste.
(See definition at 268.2(i).) This means
that regulated entities do not have to
ascertain the presence of all hazardous
constituents for which EPA is
promulgating a universal treatment
standard. Generators may base this
determination on 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 at § 268.48.
The Agency solicited comment on
whether generators should be required
to do some testing of organic TC wastes
to determine what underlying
hazardous constituents are present and
whether they meet UTS. Furthermore,
the Agency noted that generators who
also treat (including generators who
decharacterize their waste but do not
treat for underlying hazardous
constituents) are classified as treaters,
and would therefore be required to do
some analysis of their wastes pursuant
to § 268.7(b) and prepare a treater's
certification pursuant to § 268.9(d) (58
FR 48134). A few commenters believed
that generators should have to test their
organic TC wastes at least once. Most
commenters on this issue, however,
strongly opposed a generator testing
requirement and said that generators
should be allowed to use knowledge of
their wastes to make such a
determination. Based on these
comments, and the Agency's reluctance
to require generator testing of
characteristic wastes but not listed
wastes, the Agency is not imposing a
testing requirement on generators of
organic TC wastes at this time.
The Agency believes, however, that
certifications should identify which
hazardous constituents may be present
in the waste. This is necessary in order
that there be some record that the waste
indeed requires treatment of these
constituents before it can be land
disposed. As explained below, existing
regulations already require mention of
the presence of underlying hazardous
constituents in some situations. EPA is
slightly amending those regulations
today to make the requirement uniform,
as discussed below.
If a generator does not treat a
prohibited characteristic waste, then the
generator must prepare the standard
notification and certification required
by § 268.7(a)(l) (for wastes that have not
been treated to meet the treatment
standard) (see § 268.9(d), first clause).
These requirements explicitly require
mention of underlying hazardous
constituents (§ 268.7(a)(l)(ii)).
If a generator partially treats a waste,
however, for example by
decharacterizing it but not treating the
underlying hazardous constituents,
there is a slight gap in the existing rules.
Those rules require that a one-time
notification and certification be
prepared (§ 268.9(d)) and that the
certification "must state the language
found in 268.7(b)(5)" (§ 268.9(d)(2)).
The § 268.7(b)(5) certifications,
however, do not contemplate the
possibility that wastes may require
additional treatment for underlying
hazardous constituents. To allow for
this possibility, EPA is amending
§ 268.9(d) to state that in the event
underlying hazardous constituents in a
decharacterized waste have not been
fully treated, the certification shall so
state. EPA is also adding the following
new certification to § 268.7(b)(5) to
account for this circumstance:
I certify under penalty of law that the
waste has been treated in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR 268.40 to remove
the hazardous toxicity characteristic or the
characteristics of ignitability and corrosivity.
This decharacterized waste contains
underlying hazardous constituents that
require further treatment to meet universal
treatment standards. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment.
The Agency proposed, alternatively,
that generators could be required to
certify what underlying hazardous
constituents are in the organic TC waste
and whether they meet treatment
standards, in a manner similar to the
existing certification requirement for
generators of wastes that meet the
-------
48016 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
treatment standards as generated (see 40
CFR 268.7(a)(2)(ii)) (58 FR 48134). This
suggestion was generally not supported
by commenters, and EPA is not
adopting this approach in this final rule.
Before considering broader changes,
EPA will see if the amended
requirement in § 268.9(d)(2)(i) discussed
above is sufficient to create an adequate
record.
B. LDR Notification
I, Constituents To Be Included on the
LDR Notification
EPA solicited comment on how to
limit the underlying hazardous
constituents that must be monitored in
organic TC wastes, and consequently
reported on the LDR notification.
Commenters on this issue said that the
regulated community should only be
required to address those constituents
which are in the organic TC wastes as
generated, prior to any subsequent
mixing with other wastes. This is the
approach being adopted in this rule. ,
Such an approach is identical to the
approach adopted in the May 24,1993
Interim Final Rule (58 FR 29873) and is
supported by commenters.
As a simplifying measure, EPA is also
slightly amending the language of
§ 268.7(a)(l)(ii) and § 268.7(b)(4)(ii). The
language in these paragraphs required
that the hazardous constituents in
F001-F005 spent solvents, F039, wastes
subject to the California list provisions
of § 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d),
and underlying hazardous constituents
in characteristic wastes be listed on the
LDR notification. This language is being
changed so that if all the hazardous
constituents are present in the waste
(and thus the generator/treater will be
treating all the constituents), then there
is no longer a need to list all the
constituents on the notification form. If,
however, a subset of constituents are
present in the waste (and thus the
generator/treater will only be treating
these constituents), the constituents in
the waste must continue to be listed on
the notification form.
2. Management in Subtitle C-Regulated
Facilities
The Agency has information that
many of the organic 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.
In such a case, the notification,
certification, and recordkeeping
requirements set out in 40 CFR 268.7
apply (which includes identification of
the underlying hazardous constituents
reasonably expected to be present in the
organic TC waste). For organic TC
wastes, once the waste is no longer
hazardous, however, further
recordkeeping and documentation
requirements are set out in 40 CFR
268.9. Section 268.9 requires that the
generator or treater (including
generators who treat, see 51 FR 40598,
November 7,1986) prepare a one-time
notification which is sent to the EPA
Region or authorized state and also kept
in the generator's or treater's files.
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
impermissible dilution. See
§ 268.7(b)(5), which applies to persons
who treat formerly characteristic wastes
(see existing § 268.9(d)(2)). The Agency
believes that, normally, at least some
waste analysis is needed to make a good
faith showing for meeting the treatment
standards, given the number of
hazardous constituents that could be
covered by those standards.
3. Potential Management of
Decharacterized Wastes at a Subtitle D
Waste Management Facility
The Agency solicited information on
certain potential waste management
practices for decharacterized TC wastes
to help determine whether new
notification requirements are needed. In
particular, EPA requested whether
generators or treaters, after removing the
characteristic, send the decharacterized
TC waste off-site to a Subtitle D
(nonhazardous waste) treatment facility
for further treatment to address the
underlying hazardous constituents (58
FR 48134). The Agency solicited
comment on potential enforcement
concerns if there is not a federal
requirement that generators notify
Subtitle D treatment and disposal
facilities receiving decharacterized
wastes.
One commenter stated that the
generator of the waste should be made
responsible through an EPA mandate to
assure that treatment of underlying
hazardous constituents at a subtitle D
facility meets LDR treatment standards.
Other commenters thought that the
generator should notify the subtitle D
facility of the underlying hazardous
constituents, but they did not specify
that a mandated notification should be
required. However, other commenters
said that existing arrangements between
generators and off-site treatment
facilities would suffice because EPA
already requires generators to notify the
EPA Regional office or Authorized State
when it is sending decharacterized
waste to a subtitle D facility under 40
CFR 268.9. One commenter pointed to
the contract between the generator and
the subtitle D facility as the mechanism
by which generators would notify the
treatment facility of what underlying
hazardous constituents are in the waste.
Only one commenter offered
information on the extent that the
practice of sending decharacterized
wastes to a nonhazardous waste treater
for treatment of underlying hazardous
constituents is actually occurring. This
commenter asked generators who send
waste to their facilities how often they
remove the characteristic prior to
sending the decharacterized waste to a
nonhazardous waste treatment facility
for treatment of underlying hazardous
constituents. They found that roughly
2-3 percent of the wastes from their
survey group were decharacterized
D001 and D002 wastes being sent off-
site for further treatment at a
nonhazardous waste treatment facility
that employs CWA wastewater
treatment or stabilization of underlying
hazardous constituents. The commenter
added, however, that there will be less
decharacterized TC wastes going off-site
for treatment of underlying hazardous
constituents because these wastes
require more sophisticated treatment
systems to remove the characteristic
than do the D001 and D002 wastes.
Based on this information, the Agency
has decided, for the time being, not to
impose new notification requirements
in today's final rule (a new certification
is being added in this rule to
§ 268.7(b)(5)(iv) as described above).
The Agency continues to believe that
very little decharacterized TC wastes
will be sent to a subtitle D facility for
treatment of underlying hazardous
constituents. If such a practice should
occur, generators and Subtitle D
facilities have substantial incentives
(such as CERCLA liability) to exchange
and verify compliance with treatment
standards for underlying hazardous
constituents independent of federal
notification requirements.
If, however, information becomes
available that generators are sending
substantial amounts of decharacterized
TC wastes off site to subtitle D facilities
for treatment of underlying hazardous
constituents, or that there is a
paperwork loophole that existing
arrangements between generators and
treatment facilities do not address,
today's approach will be revisited to
determine whether such tracking is
necessary to assure "cradle to grave"
tracking of wastes and better informing
subtitle D treatment and disposal
companies of the requirements to which
these decharacterized wastes remain
subject.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48017
regulation because TC metals will not be
addressed until a later rulemaking.
These flowcharts present only the major
decisions that must be made; a thorough
reading of the regulations will be
necessary to fully implement the LDRs.
There are requirements for specific
waste management scenarios that are
not included in these flowcharts
because they would have become too
complex to be generally useful.'
XI. Implementation of the Final Rule
This section presents flowcharts of
what EPA expects will be the most
frequent set of decisions that must be
made to implement the regulations for
TC organic wastes (including soils),
mixtures of TC organic wastes with
listed wastes, and mixtures of TC
organic wastes with ignitable or
corrosive wastes. A flowchart describing
the decisions necessary to comply with
treatment standards for Phase II newly
listed wastes is also included.
Additionally, a flowchart is presented •
that outlines the decisions necessary to
comply with treatment standards for
debris contaminated with Phase n
wastes. And, as a reminder that TC
metals are not regulated by today's rule,
a flowchart is also included of the
decisions that must be made to
determine if a characteristic metal waste
is subject to the LDRs at this time based
on regulation of Extraction Procedure
(EP) metals in the Third Third rulq in
1990, or is not yet subject to LDR
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
48018 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
Implementation of Key Phase II LDRs
For wastes identified by one or more of
the following Phase II waste codes:
D012-D043 (newly identified TC organics);
K141-145, K147, K148 (newly listed
wastes); or K149-151 (newly listed wastes):
Is the waste hazardous only because of
D012-D043?
Is the waste managed in one of the
following manners:
1) |n a system not regulated by CWA; or
2) Zero discharge without CWA-equivalent
treatment prior to land disposal; or
•-3) Inject into other than a Class I deep
injection well.
YES
NO
YES
NO
TC organic wastes are not yet
regulated under LDRs; if TC waste is
mixed with ignitable or corrosive
waste, it is subject to deactivation
treatment standards in §268.40
Does the waste meet the definition of
hazardous debris in §268.2(h)?
YES
Flowchart A
"Phase II Hazardous
Debris Treatment Options"
NO
,YES
Is the waste hazardous only because it is a
newly identified TC organic waste (D012-43)
or is the waste a mixture of a newly identified
TC organic waste (D012-43) with a prohibited
D001 or D002 waste (ignitable or corrosive)?
YES
Flowchart B
"LDRs for Phase II TC
Organic Wastes and for
Mixtures of TC and Ignitable
or Corrosive Wastes"
NO
Is the waste a mixture of a newly identified
TC organic waste (D012-43) with a prohibited
listed waste or newly listed Phase II waste
K141-145, K148-151?
YES
Flowchart C
"LDRs for Prohibited
Listed Wastes that also
Exhibit an Organic
Toxicity Characteristic"
NO
Is the waste hazardous because it is a newly
listed Phase II waste (K141-145, K147-151)
only or is it also mixed with other listed wastes?
YES
Flowchart D
"LDRs for Phase II Newly
Listed and Other Listed
Wastes and Not
Characteristic Wastes"
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48019
Flowchart A
Phase II Hazardous Debris Treatment Options
Phase II Hazardous Debris
Treatment Options
Treat to meet Phase
standards for as-generated
wastes
Treat to meet alternative
debris treatment standards
Debns treated using an
immobilization technology
Debns treated using an
extraction or destruction
technology
Was
debris
contaminated
with a
characteristic
D012-
D043
Is
debris
contaminated
with a listed
waste
Was
debris
contaminated
with a newly
listed Phase II
waste
or is it expected
Treat to remove
characteristic
and underlying
hazardous
constituents,
if present
Debns must
meet treatment
standards for the
listed waste and
display no
characteristic
Does
debris exhibit
a characteristic
after treatme
Treat for the
characteristic
Subtitle D disposal2
(§268.9 requirements apply)
Subtitle C disposal
(§268.7 require-
ments apply)2
Disposal
Options1
Subtitle D disposal
(§268.9 require-
ments apply)2
' Tnaters have the option of Disposing of their trusted
wastes In either a Subtitle Cora Subtitle D facility.
' See Part 268, AppendixX, Table 1 fora detailed summary
of all notification and certification requirements under
§ 268.7 and 5 268.9
-------
48020 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday. September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
Flowchart B
LDRs for Phase II TC Organic Wastes and for
Mixtures of TC and Igmitable or Corrosive Wastes
Determine underlying hazardous constituents "Reasonably
Expected to be Present" based on generator knowledge or
analysis; document in generator files
Each
waste
shipment
must
have
a §268.7(a)
notice
and
certification2
Must go to a Subtitle C
facility for treatment
and disposal
Generators/Treaters
Generator treats to
remove characteristic;
generator is considered a
treater and is required to
conduct waste analysis
(see §268.7 {b)(103)(a)>.
The generator must
prepare a waste analysis
plan if treatment is
conducted in units that
do not require a RCRA
permit
There are no
requirements to notify
Subtitle D nonhazardous
waste treater of
constituents in waste, or
for the Subtitle D treater
to conduct analysis or
notify ultimate disposal
facility of waste
constituents; EPA
recommends that this
information be provided to
assure proper treatment
Treated waste no longer exhibits
I or C characteristic and meets
universal treatment standards
for 1) constituent that caused the
waste to be identified as TC
hazardous, and 2) underlying
hazardous constituents
Do
underlying
hazardous
constituents
meet universal
treatment
standards
Wastes can be
sent off-site for
treatment to meet UTS
Treatershave the option of disposing of their treated
wastes in either a Subtitle Cora Subtitle D facility.
See Part 268, Appendix X. Table 1 for a detailed summary
of all notification and certification requirements under
5 268.7 and §268.9
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations .48021
Flowchart C
LDRs for Prohibited Listed Wastes that also Exhibit
an Organic Toxicity Characteristic
Do
the
treatment
standards for the
listed wastes include
the treatment standards
for the constituents
in theTC
wastes
YES
Only the treatment2
standards for the listed
waste(s) apply
NO
Treatment standards apply for the following:
1) The listed wastes
2) The TC constituents for which the waste was
hazardous
3) Underlying hazardous constituents that are
"Reasonably Expected to be Present" in the TC
wastes based on generator knowledge or
analysis; document in generator files
Treat waste in a
Subtitle C TSDF
Does
the waste
meet the treatment
standards after
treatment
•7
Subtitle C disposal
(§268.7 requirements
apply)1
Options
i '
frl Treat agai
Seek treatability
variance under
§268.44
See Part 268, AppendixX, Table 1 for a detailed summary
of all notification and certification requirements under
, §268.7and 5268.9
For as-generated wastes; would not apply when a TC organic waste
Is intentionally mixed with a listed waste (in this case the treatment
standards for the underlying hazardous constituents in the TC waste
and the regulated constituents in the listed waste would apply)
-------
48022 Federal Register./ Vol. 59, No, 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulatiqns
Flowchart D
LDRs for Phase II Newly Listed and Other Listed Wastes
and Not Characteristic Wastes
Does
the waste
meet universal
treatment standards in
8 268.40 for all waste codes,
as generated (analysis
or generator
knowledge
acceptable)
Subtitle C disposal
(§268.7 requirements
apply)1
Treat waste in a
Subtitle C TSDF
Does the
waste meet the
universal treatment
standards after
treatment
Seek treatability
variance under
§267.44
' See Part 268, Appendix X. Table 1 fora detailed summary
of all noffffcaffon and certification requirements under
5268.7 and § 268.9
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48023
XII. Guidance to Applicants for
Trcatability Variances for As-
Generated Wastes
The Agency's existing regulations
provide for variances from treatment
standards if a waste cannot be treated to
the specified treatment standard or if
the treatment technology on which the
standard is based is inappropriate for
the waste. Section 268.44 (a). For
guidance on treatability variances for
soil, including site-specific, non-
rulemaking variances, see section I.E.
"Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Soil" in this rule. To be granted a
treatability variance, a petitioner must
show that "because the physical or
chemical properties of the waste differs
significantly from wastes analyzed in
developing the treatment standard, the
waste cannot be treated to specified
levels or by the specified methods." Id.
A demonstration that the waste cannot
be successfully treated can be made "by
showing that attempts to treat the waste
by available technologies were not
successful, or through appropriate
analyses of the waste which
demonstrate that the waste cannot be
treated to the specified levels." 51FR at
40606 (Nov. 7,1986). EPA evaluates
treatability variance requests by "first
look[ing] at the design and operation of
the treatment system being used. If EPA
determines that the technology and
operation are consistent with BDAT, the
Agency will evaluate the waste to
determine if the waste matrix and/or
physical parameters are such [that] the
BDAT properly reflects treatment of the
waste." Id. The guidance set out below
applies exclusively to treatability
variances (for as-generated wastes)
evaluated by EPA headquarters and
processed pursuant to rulemaking
procedures.
In order to settle a lawsuit challenging
the Agency's grant of treatability
variances to two particular facilities, 56
FR 12351 (March 25,1991), the Agency
has agreed to provide some clarifying
guidance regarding treatability
variances, which essentially restates
existing Agency practice and does not
call into question the validity of any
treatability variance the Agency has
issued. First, as stated in 1986, to
support an application for a treatability
variance pursuant to § 268.44(a) for
process waste, the applicant should
collect and analyze a sufficient number
of samples of the untreated waste to
accurately characterize it. 51 FR at
40606 (Nov. 7,1986). In general, the
Agency would expect the applicant to
collect and analyze four samples of its
untreated and treated waste. (This
corresponds to the minimum number of
samples applicants for delisting
pursuant to 260.20 must submit.)
However, the exact number of samples
would be determined by EPA as part of
the Agency's evaluation of each
treatability variance application (and so
could be less than four samples in a
particular case).
Second, the applicant should
normally investigate and report on
demonstrated and reasonably available
pretreatment steps that could
significantly improve the effectiveness
of the treatment the applicant is
conducting. 51 FR at 40606. What the
Agency has in mind is that applicants
not overlook potentially simple types of
pretreatment to remove an interfering
parameter; for example, settling to
reduce excess total dissolved solids. The
Agency does not intend that applicants
perform an extensive or expansive
engineering analysis. Nor does the
Agency intend that applicants be
required to utilize treatment systems
significantly different from those the
Agency evaluated when promulgating
the treatment standard. Rather, the
Agency wishes to assure that applicants
not overlook some relatively obvious
means of removing interferences. Again,
in particular cases, it may not make
sense to conduct this type of analysis,
in which case no such evaluation would
be necessary.
Third, the applicant should make a
good faith effort to explain why the
treatment standard is not achievable for
its waste. 51 FR at 40606. This good
faith effort is to be based on the .
applicant's knowledge of its process,
and is not to entail additional expense
(such as a consultant's engineering
analysis). As a general matter, the
Agency simply believes that some
thought should be given (and
documented) as to what might be
causing the problem.
Finally, EPA's general policy has been
and will be to publish a notice of its
proposed decision on applications for
treatability variances in the Federal
Register, § 261.44 (e), and to allow a
minimum of 30 days for the public to
comment on the proposal. 51 FR 40607.
All applicants will have the opportunity
to comment on the reasonableness of
applying one or more of these foregoing
statements of guidance to their
applications, and, as a result, EPA may
decide not to apply them.
EPA notes further that there have
been only a handful (fewer than 10) of
applications for treatability variances
since implementation of the land ban
(aside from applications relating to
contaminated media and debris), of
which EPA has granted three. In the
applications relating to electroplating
wastes cited earlier, the Agency inferred
that something about the applicants'
wastes was making the wastes more
difficult to treat than the waste EPA
evaluated when promulgating the
applicable treatment standard. This
inference was based on the fact that the
applicants were treating the waste with
properly designed and operated BDAT
treatment technology, namely the same
type of treatment technology on which
the treatment standard is based. 56 FR
at 12352. EPA emphasizes that this type
of inference was, and remains,
permissible.
XIII. Clarifications and Corrections to
Previous Rules
A. Corrections to the Interim Final Rule
Establishing Land Disposal Restrictions
for Certain Ignitable and Corrosive
Wastes
On May 24,1993, the EPA published
an interim final rule establishing
treatment standards for ignitable and
corrosive characteristic wastes except
those disposed in facilities regulated
under the Clean Water Act (CWA), or
Class I injection wells subject to the Safe
Drinking Water Act, or zero-discharge
facilities engaged in CWA-equivalent
treatment. In today's rule, the Agency is
clarifying that the provisions of the
interim final rule remain in effect unless
and until they are superseded in future
LDR rules. The Agency does not plan to
issue a final rule at this time; however,
it is using the comments received on the
interim final rule in developing future
rules concerning the portions of the
Third Third Land Disposal Restrictions
Rule which were remanded by the D.C.
Circuit (for discussion of the court
ruling, see 58 FR 29861).
Among other things, the interim final
rule established treatment standards for
the underlying hazardous constituents
reasonably expected to be present in the
affected wastes at the point of
generation. These treatment standards
were the concentration levels for the
constituents found in F039 (multisource
leachate) wastewaters and
nonwastewaters. The Agency is
clarifying here that the universal
treatment standards (UTS) established
today supersede the F039 standards.
Therefore, underlying hazardous
constituents in the ignitable and
corrosive wastes covered by the interim
final rule must meet the 40 CFR 268.48,
Table UTS—Universal Treatment
Standards, levels before they can be
land disposed. This change is being
made simply so that the references to
treatment standards for underlying
hazardous constituents in ignitable and
corrosive wastes in the interim final rule
-------
48024 Federal Register /Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
will be the same as those established for
organic TC wastes in today's rule.
Also in the interim final rule, the
Agency promulgated requirements to
I address a concern raised by the court
I about the potential for volatile organic
constituent (VOC) emissions to create
violent reactions during the dilution of
ignitable and reactive wastes (see 58 FR
29873). The regulatory language in
§§ 264.1(g)(6) and 265.1(c)(10), however,
inadvertently promulgated requirements
for ignitable (D001) wastes and
corrosive (D002) wastes. These sections
are being corrected in today's rule to
indicate, rightly, that the requirements
apply to ignitable (D001) and reactive
(D003) wastes.
B. Corrections to the Phase I Rule
Establishing Land Disposal Restrictions
for Newly Listed Wastes and Hazardous
Debris
Today's rule clarifies several issues
from the final rule establishing Land
Disposal Restrictions for Newly Listed
Wastes and Hazardous Debris (57 FR
37194, August 18,1992).
The first issue being corrected
responds to questions over which
treatment standards can be used for
treating hazardous debris. It was stated
clearly in the preamble to the August
18,1992 rule that debris must be treated
by either using one of the specified
technologies in § 268.45, or, as an
alternative, by meeting LDRs for the
specific prohibited listed or
characteristic waste with which the
debris is contaminated (57 FR 37221).
Subsequent comment from the regulated
community indicate that this fact was
not made completely clear in the
regulatory language of that rule. Certain
commenters suggested that a revision of
the paperwork requirements found in
§ 268.7 indicating that generators have a
choice as to which treatment standards
they may use would help alleviate the
confusion.
EPA is, therefore, revising
§ 268.7(a)(l)(iv) and § 268.7(a)(3)(v) to
reflect that it is not mandatory to meet
the alternative debris standards in
§ 268.45, and that generators have the
option to meet the treatment standards
for the as-generated wastes
contaminating the debris. It should be
noted that the paperwork requirements
for meeting treatment standards for as-
generated wastes contaminating debris
are the same as those for as-generated
wastes. A new paragraph is being added
to the regulatory language to indicate
this.
In addition, consistent with EPA's
effort to simplify LDR paperwork
requirements, EPA is shortening the
notification statement accompanying
prohibited debris. In § 268.7(a)(l)(iv)
and § 268.7(a)(3)(v), as promulgated on
August 18,1992, the statement "This
hazardous debris is subject to the
alternative treatment standards of 40
CFR 268.45" was required to be placed
on the LDR notification, after listing the
contaminants subject to treatment. EPA
is revising that particular statement
today so that merely referencing
§ 268.45 after listing the contaminants
subject to treatment is all that must be
included on the LDR notification.
The second issue the Agency wishes
to clarify and correct today concerns the
language in § 268.45 (b) (2) of the August
18,1992 Federal Register. This section
states that the contaminants subject to
the alternative treatment standards for
hazardous debris, which were
promulgated in the August 18,1992
rule, are those constituents for which
BOAT standards are established in
§§ 268.41 and 268.43. The Agency has
received several letters asking why
section 268.42 was not included in that
language. Section 268.42 lists those
wastes for which EPA established a
treatment method as the standard. The
reason section 268.42 was not included
in the language in § 268.45(b)(2) is that
only the wastes themselves, and not
waste constituents, are listed in
§268.42.
The Agency fully intends, however,
that debris contaminated with those
wastes be subject to the alternate debris
standards. Therefore, § 268.45(b)(2) is
being clarified today to read "The
contaminants subject to treatment for
debris that is contaminated with a
prohibited listed hazardous waste are
those constituents or wastes for which
BOAT standards are established for the
wastes under §§ 268.41, 268.42, and
268.43."
The third issue the Agency is
clarifying concerns exactly when
surface impoundments which are newly
subject to RCRA section 3005(j)(l) are
expected to be in compliance with the
requirements of § 265.221 (a), (c), and
(d). As is stated in § 268.5(h)(2)(v) (as
promulgated at 57 FR 37270, August 18,
1992), such surface impoundments must
be in compliance within 48 months after
the promulgation of additional listings
or characteristics for the identification
of hazardous waste. This is the
maximum time allowed by RCRA
section 3005(j)(6).
EPA mistakenly stated in two separate
places in the preamble to the August 18,
1992 rule that the compliance date was
48 months from the effective date of a
waste identification or listing (57 FR
37220). The Agency wants to make it
clear that the compliance date which
was promulgated in the regulations, and
which is mandated by RCRA 3005(j)(6),
is correct (57 FR 37270). These surface
impoundments are thus required to be
in compliance 48 months from the
promulgation date of a new
identification or listing. § 268.5(h)(2)(v).
The promulgation date is the date the
Administrator signs the rule which lists
the new waste(s). The effective date is
the date the new waste must come into
compliance with hazardous waste
management requirements, and may be
six months from the promulgation date.
The Agency believes that 48 months to
retrofit a surface impoundment is a
reasonable amount of time, and believes
that effort should begin as soon as the
listing of a waste is published in the
Federal Register; there is no reason to
wait to begin retrofitting until a new
listing or identification actually
becomes effective. In any case, section
3005(j)(6) allows no other option.
Finally, in § 268.38(a) of this rule,
EPA is prohibiting debris that is
contaminated with the wastes that were
prohibited in the Phase I rule. EPA
inadvertently omitted to include such
contaminated debris in the August 18,
1992 rule.
C. Amendment of Boiler and Industrial
Furnace Rules for Certain Mercury-
Containing Wastes
1. The Proposal
The Agency proposed a technical
clarification to the Boiler and Industrial
Furnace (BIF) rules on July 21,1994 (59
FR 31964), that would exempt certain
mercury-bearing hazardous wastes
generated by the Chlorine Industry from
the provisions of 266.100(c). Under this
provision, owners and operators of
smelting, melting, and refining furnaces
that process hazardous wastes solely for
metal recovery are conditionally exempt
from regulation. To be exempt, the
owner or operator must comply with
certain notification, sampling and
analysis, and recordkeeping provisions
(see 266.100(c)(l)(i)). In addition, as
indicated above, the waste must be
processed solely for metal recovery; to
be processed solely for metal recovery,
the waste can not have a heating value
greater than 5000 BTU/lb or have a total
concentration of organic compounds
listed in Appendix VIII of Part 261
greater than 500 ppm by weight. Wastes
that have a heating value greater than
5000 BTU/lb or have a total
concentration of hazardous organic
compounds exceeding 500 ppm are
considered by EPA to be burned for
energy recovery and destruction,
respectively and, thus, are subject to the
BIF rules.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48025
The Agency generally believes that
most wastes that meet these criteria are
appropriately subject to the BIF
regulations. However, in certain
instances, wastes that are burned for
legitimate metal recovery can also
exceed the 5000 BTU/lb and 500 ppm
organic compound limits, in which case
standards other than those in the BIF
rules are likely more appropriate. (See
59 FR at 29776 (June 9,1994) proposing
CAA MACT standards for secondary
lead smelters and indicating why RCRA
air emission standards are not needed.)
In fact, the Agency has specified a set
of lead and nickel-bearing hazardous
wastes that exceed the energy recovery
or destruction limits, but are still
conditionally exempt from the BIF rules
if these wastes are legitimately burned
for metal recovery (see 266.100(c)(3) and
Appendices XI and XII to Part 266).
In the proposed technical
clarification, the Agency defined some
additional hazardous wastes—
specifically, those generated by the
Chlorine Industry and which are
suitable for mercury recovery—that
could be recovered in mercury retorting
units without those units being subject
to the BIF rules (provided the owners or
operators of these units meet certain
conditions). The Agency proposed this
change based on the fact that these
wastes contain high levels of mercury
(from hundreds of parts per million to
as much as 45%) and, thus are
appropriate for recovery; in addition,
the retort units in which these wastes
are processed must be subject to
emissions controls under the Clean Air
Act. See §268.42 (treatment standards
for high mercury subcategory wastes
that require retorting units to be subject
to the CAA or comparable standards for
control of mercury). It should also be
noted that the Chlorine Institute, as part
of their comments on the Phase IILDR
proposal, requested that the Agency
exempt these wastes from the BIFs
rules. The remainder of this section of
the preamble discusses the comments
received and our response to those
comments.
2. Comments and the Final Rule
The Agency received comments from
five parties, Borden Chemical and
Plastics (BCP), Bethlehem Apparatus
(BA), PPG Industries (PPG), Olin
Chemicals (Olin), and the Chlorine
Institute (CI). Their collective comments
and the Agency's response follows.
The proposal limited the conditional
exemption to certain mercury-bearing
hazardous wastes generated by the
Chlorine Institute. BCP, BA, and CI
argued that the proposed change was
too narrow, and that other mercury
recovery units may also process
combustible materials for legitimate
metals recovery. Commenters thus
recommended that the exemption
should apply to all processors of
mercury wastes. The Agency generally
agrees with this position. Upon
reevaluation, EPA believes there is no
need to differentiate between units in
the Chlorine Industry and similar units
outside the Chlorine Industry.
Therefore, the Agency is promulgating a
rule which includes units operated by
manufacturers and users of mercury or
mercury products.
BCP addressed a second option for
broadening the exemption so that
devices other than those operated in the
Chlorine Industry could process
combustible wastes for legitimate metals
recovery. BCP suggested EPA define
mercury as a precious metal and allow
processors to burn mercury laden
hazardous wastes subject to the
Agency's BIF precious metals
exemption (see § 266.100(f)). EPA does
not agree with BCP's contention that
mercury is a precious metal. Mercury is
not considered a precious metal by EPA
or other Agencies or organizations.
Precious metals are defined by the
Bureau of Mines to include gold, silver,
platinum, and palladium (Mineral
Commodity Summary, 1993), and by
EPA at 40 CFR 266.70 to include gold,
silver, platinum, palladium, iridium,
osmium, rhodium, and ruthenium, all
metals whose value assures adequate
control. Therefore, EPA rejects the
approach suggested by BCP.
BCP, PPG, Olin, and CI also
commented that the list of materials in
the proposed technical clarification
should be broadened to include the
following additional items:
Sweepings
Respiratory Cartridge Filters
Cleanup Articles
Plastic Bags and Other Contaminated
Containers
Laboratory and Process Control Samples
Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge and
Filter Cake
Mercury cell process sump and tank
sludges
Mercury cell process solids
K106
Recoverable levels of mercury contained
in soil
Upon evaluation, the Agency agrees that
of these materials are appropriate for an
exemption as long as they have
recoverable levels of mercury. However,
many mercury units, e.g., retorters, are
not combustion devices and organic
emissions may not be controlled in
these units. Therefore, the Agency is
concerned that materials with
recoverable levels of mercury, but laden
with hazardous organics, may not
provide adequate destruction of the
hazardous organics in exempt retorters,
and thus, may not be protective of
human health and the environment. For
that reason, the Agency is promulgating
a broadened list of materials but is
limiting the exemption to these wastes
specifically identified and that contain
less than 500 ppm of part 261, appendix
VIII organics.
Finally, there appears to be some
confusion by the Chlorine Industry
about their status under the BIF rules
(collectively, those regulations set forth
in 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart H). CI, PPG,
and Olin argued that they are not
subject to BIF because they do not
"burn" or "combust" anything and the
BIF rules are written for combustion
devices. The Agency agrees that many
mercury recovery devices do not "burn"
or "combust" by design; however, these
units are Industrial Furnaces as defined
in § 260.10 and, thus, are subject to the
appropriate BIF rules. In particular,
§ 260.10 defines Industrial Furnaces as
"devices * * * that use thermal
treatment to accomplish recovery of
materials" and that these include
"refining furnaces". [Emphasis added.]
Mercury recovery units raise the
temperature of the waste to aid in the
recovery and refining of mercury.
Therefore, they are refining furnaces. In
addition, § 266.100(c) states that
"smelting, melting and refining furnaces
* * * that process hazardous waste
solely for metals recovery are
conditionally exempt * * *."
[Emphasis added.] This language
includes all refining furnaces that
process hazardous waste, irrespective of
whether the process to achieve this end
is combustion or not. Therefore,
mercury recovery devices are BIFs, and
come within the terms of § 266.100(c).
EPA is using the term "mercury
recovery furnace" in today's amended
rule to further clarify this point. (It
should be noted that compliance with
the BIF rules for these devices are not
rigorous. It requires sending a one time
written notification to the regional
Director and following the provisions
set forth in § 266.100(c).)
Mercury recovery operators should
note that the changes discussed in this
section of the preamble only apply to
units which have a metals recovery
exemption. Units which process these
wastes without the proper exemption
are in violation of the BIF rules and
subject to enforcement action.
-------
48026 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
D. Amendment of Rules on Use
Constituting Disposal •
In 1985, EPA created a separate
regulatory regime for hazardous wastes
that are recycled by being used in a
manner constituting disposal. Part 266
subpart C.1 These rules provide, in
essence, that the wastes can be so used
without being subject to the RCRA
facility standards if the waste-derived
product (i.e. the hazardous wastes that
is being used by being applied to the
land (i.e. used in a manner constituting
disposal)) has been "produced for the
general public's use," has undergone a
chemical change so as to be inseparable
by physical means, and if it meets the
applicable LDR treatment standard. See
§266.20(b).
Hazardous wastes used in a manner
constituting disposal that do not satisfy
these conditions are subject to all of the
subtitle C standards. See § 266.23(a). In
promulgating this provision in 1985,
however, the Agency neglected to
mention the then newly-enacted land
disposal restriction requirements as
among the standards to which the
wastes were subject. The Agency
obviously was not intending to amend
the statute, and cannot override an
express statutory requirement by
regulation. The Agency only recently
noticed this omission, and is using this
opportunity to correct the error.
Consequently, the Part 268 requirements
will be added to the list of requirements
in § 266.23(a) for those hazardous
wastes not satisfying the conditions of
'§ 266.20(b). This amendment is effective
90 days after publication of today's rule.
XIV. Capacity Determinations
This section presents the data 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 rule; Section B summarizes the
analysis of available capacity; Section C
summarizes the capacity analysis for
those newly identified and listed wastes
that are land disposed in units other
than deep injection wells; Section D
summarizes the capacity analysis for
wastes mixed with radioactive
contaminants; Section E summarizes the
results of the capacity analysis for high
TOG ignitable and TC pesticide wastes
and newly listed and identified wastes
injected into Class I deep wells; and
Section F presents the results of the
1 These rules apply, of course, only if the
recycling is legitimate, and not a form of surrogate
disposal. §266.20(a) applies only to "recyclable
materials", which are hazardous wastes being
recycled. § 261.6(a)(l). This does not include wastes
that are abandoned by being disposed of.
§261.2(b)(l).
capacity analysis for hazardous soil and
debris contaminated with the newly
listed and identified wastes covered in
this rule.
In general, EPA's capacity analysis
methodologies focus on the amount of
waste currently land disposed that will
require alternative commercial
treatment as a result of the LDRs. Land-
disposed wastes that do not require
alternative commercial treatment (e.g.,
those that are currently treated using an
appropriate treatment technology or that
will be treated using an alternative on-
site treatment system) are excluded from
the quantity estimates. In 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 rule 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 (TC Survey). 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 waste-stream 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 TC 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 and the survey used for the
required capacity estimates are part of
the docket for today's final rule.
A. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
For the organic TC wastes (D018-
D043), EPA estimates that 220,000 tons
of newly identified organic TC sludges
and solids will require alternative
commercial treatment as a result of
today's final rule.
EPA estimates that much smaller
quantities of the other listed wastes
included in today's rule will require
alternative commercial treatment. Fewer
than 100 tons of chlorinated toluene
(K149-K151) nonwastewaters are
currently being land disposed and will
require alternative treatment due to the
LDRs. Approximately 4,600 tons of coke
by-product (K141-K145, K147 and
K148) nonwastewaters are currently
being land disposed. However,
comments to EPA indicate that the
majority of the nonwastewaters are
recycled or used for energy recovery
and, therefore, alternative treatment
may not be required. No K141-K145,
K147 and K148 wastewaters are
currently being land disposed. No
K149-K151 wastewaters are currently
being land disposed.
The quantities of radioactive wastes
mixed with wastes included in today's
final rule and currently being land
disposed are generated primarily by the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). EPA
estimates that 1,300 m3 of high-level
waste, 380 m3 of mixed transuranic
waste, and 1,100 m3 of mixed low-level
waste containing wastes covered in
today's rule will be generated annually
by DOE. These estimates exclude mixed
wastes currently in storage,
environmental restoration wastes, and
soil and debris. DOE currently faces
treatment capacity shortfalls for some
high-level wastes and for all projected
mixed transuranic waste generation. In
addition, although the annual DOE
treatment capacity for mixed low-level
wastes exceeds the estimated annual •
generation, most of this capacity is
limited to treatment of wastewaters with
less than one percent total suspended
solids, and is not readily adaptable for
other waste forms. Consequently, DOE
also faces a treatment capacity shortfall
for mixed low-level nonwastewaters.
Furthermore, DOE has indicated that it
will generally give treatment priority to
mixed wastes that are already restricted
under previous LDR rules.
With respect to certain wastes being
injected into deep wells, EPA has very
limited information that differentiates
high TOG D001 ignitable wastes from
low TOG D001 ignitable wastes,
particularly with reference to the type of
Class I injection well (i.e., nonhazardous
versus hazardous) the wastes are
ultimately disposed into. 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
exemptions. However, several
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48027
commenters to the proposed rule, and
other industries with Class I injection
wells, indicated that it would be
extremely difficult to identify, segregate,
treat, and/or arrange for disposal of
these waste streams in a short time
frame. Consequently, EPA is granting
these wastes a one-year national
capacity variance.
The Agency also estimates that up to
120,000 tons of hazardous soil and
34,000 tons of hazardous debris
contaminated with the newly identified
organic TC wastes are expected to
require alternative commercial
treatment.
Table 1 lists each waste code for
which EPA is promulgating LDR
standards today. For each code, this
table indicates whether EPA is granting
a national capacity variance for land-
disposed wastes. As indicated, EPA is
not granting a two-year national
capacity variance for the newly
identified organic TC wastes, including
soil and debris, nor for the listed wastes
covered under this rule. Rather, EPA is
granting a three-month variance. (This
extension does not apply to wastes with
a specified longer national capacity
variance.) EPA is delaying 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 waste streams. 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. However,
the Agency is granting a two-year
national capacity variance for mixed
radioactive wastes (i.e., radioactive
wastes mixed with newly identified TC
organic constituents D018-D043),
including soil and debris contaminated
with mixed radioactive wastes.
EPA also is granting a one-year
national capacity variance to allow the
Class I injection facilities an appropriate
lead time to identify and then manage
their high TOG D001 and D012-D017
waste streams by developing practical
and sound treatment and/or disposal
options and ultimately to come into
compliance with today's rule.
TABLE 1.—CAPACITY VARIANCES FOR
NEWLY LISTED AND IDENTIFIED
WASTES 1
Waste type
High TOC D001
Wastes.
D012-D017
Wastes2.
D018-D043
Nonwastewaters.
K141-K145
Wastes.
K147-K148
Wastes.
K149-K151
Wastes.
Soil (Phase II
Wastes).
Debris (Phase II
Wastes).
Mixed Radioactive
Mixed Radioactive
Soil and Debris
(with Phase II
Wastes).
Variance
for surface-
disposed
wastes
No ..
No
No .
No
No
No
No
No
Two years
Two years
Variance
for deep
well-dis-
posed
wastes
One year
One year
N/A
No
No
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A=Npt applicable.
1 EPA is granting a three month national ca-
pacity variance for all the newly identified and
listed wastes covered in this rule to handle
logistical problems associated with complying
with the new standards.
2 Newly identified TC wastes that were not
previously hazardous by the old EP Leaching
Procedure.
B. Analysis of Available Capacity
The analysis of commercial capacity
for newly identified and listed wastes is
based primarily on data received in
voluntary data submissions. These data
include estimates of available capacity
at commercial combustion facilities
provided by the Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council (HWTC) on
incinerators and the Cement Kiln
Recycling Coalition (CKRC) on cement
kilns that burn hazardous wastes.
Capacity for other conventional
treatment processes (e.g., stabilization)
is based on the 1990 TSDR Survey
Capacity Data Set, which contains
results from the National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
Disposal and Recycling Survey (the
TSDR Survey), and required capacity
information from prior LDR rules.
Combustion Capacity. Combustion
capacity for liquid hazardous wastes has
historically been more readily available
than capacity for sludges and solids.
EPA estimates commercial combustion
capacity for TC organic liquids to be
about 1,267,000 tons per year.
Commercial capacity for combustion of
sludges and solids is available at both
incinerators and industrial furnaces
(primarily cement kilns that are
authorized to burn hazardous wastes as
fuel).
Cement kiln capacity for hazardous
waste is limited by air emission limits
(e.g., boiler and industrial furnace (BIF)
limits under 40 CFR 266 subpart H),
feed system limitations (e.g., particle
size and viscosity limits), and product
(i.e., cement clinker) quality
considerations. For instance, cement
quality considerations may require that
wastes burned in cement kilns have a
heating value of at least 5,000 BTU/lb to
ensure adequate temperatures in the
kiln. (Comments received by EPA,
however, indicate that some kilns
accept wastes below this heating value.)
Incineration capacity is also limited by
air emission limits, other permit limits
(such as heat release limits), and feed
system limits. EPA has taken these
limitations into account in its estimates
of available commercial combustion
capacity.
Information available to EPA
indicates that approximately 438,000
tons/year of commercial combustion
capacity are available for newly
identified TC organic sludges and
solids, including soil and debris.2 EPA
primarily derived this estimate
primarily from survey data compiled by
the Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
(HWTC) and Cement Kiln Recycling
Coalition (CKRC). These surveys
contained detailed information on the
amount and types of waste burned at
each commercial facility in 1992, and
the maximum amount of waste that
could practically be burned in light of
technical, operational, and regulatory
constraints. In deriving this estimate,
EPA first reviewed each survey response
to confirm that the information
provided was based on technically valid
assumptions. To be conservative in its
national estimate, EPA only included
facilities and units that are presently
capable of operating at or near full
capacity under current permit and
operational constraints. EPA then
derived a national baseline estimate of
available capacity by subtracting the
amount of waste (hazardous and
nonhazardous) burned in 1992 from the
maximum practical capacity at each
facility. Several cement kilns that burn
hazardous waste were not included in
the CKRC survey results. For these
facilities, EPA obtained maximum
practical capacity estimates from other
sources (e.g., past data submittals or
2 This estimate includes solids and nonpumpable
sludges, but excludes pumpable sludges. Pumpable
sludge capacity in general is grouped with liquid
capacity because of its limitations in particle size,
solids content, and viscosity, and because
pumpable sludges are often fed through the same
feed ports that are used for liquids.
-------
48028 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
general trade literature), and derived
available capacity estimates by
assuming that these kilns are utilized at
the average rate of those included in the
CKRC survey. EPA's methodology for
deriving its baseline capacity estimate is
described in greater detail in the
capacity background document for
today's rule.
Once EPA obtained its baseline
available commercial combustion
capacity estimate, it estimated available
capacity for wastes affected by today's
rule by subtracting required capacity for
routinely generated F037 and F038
(69,000 tons/year) from its baseline
estimate. This adjustment was needed
because these wastes were not regulated
during most of the 1992 base year (refer
to 57 FR 37194, August 18, 1992). EPA
did not adjust its capacity estimate to
account for one-time generation of F037
and F038 because the Agency
understands that these wastes were
generally removed prior to the June
1994 effective date of the LDR standards
or are being left in place when the
surface impoundments that contain
them are being closed.
EPA's estimate of available capacity
takes into account capacity that will be
required for Phase I wastes that were
granted a national capacity variance,
ignitable and corrosive wastes whose
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.
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 solicited
comments on the treatment capacity
effects of requiring facilities to treat the
underlying hazardous constituents in
TC organic hazardous wastes to meet
the then-proposed universal treatment
standards. Although several
commenters submitted comments in
support of or in opposition to
requirements for treatment of
underlying hazardous constituents, few
comments were received on the specific
issue of the effects of this requirement
on treatment capacity. EPA has
concluded that sufficient combustion
capacity exists to treat underlying
hazardous organic constituents. One
commenter indicated that few facilities
could achieve the universal treatment
standards (UTS) for some metals (which
may be present as underlying
constituents) in incinerator ash without
further treatment. However, EPA
believes that stabilization should
generally be able to achieve the UTS
levels for metal underlying constituents
present in residuals from the treatment
of organic TC wastes.
Stabilization Capacity. Stabilization
may be required to treat the residuals of
wastes covered in today's rule that
contain metal underlying constituents.
EPA estimates that over 1 million tons
of stabilization capacity is currently
available. In analyzing alternative
treatment capacity for stabilization of
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.
Innovative (Non-combustion)
Technologies. There are several non-
combustion technologies for the
treatment of soil contaminated with
RCRA hazardous wastes, 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 solicited comments
on the use of innovative technologies for
the treatment of soil contaminated with
RCRA hazardous wastes. Specifically,
EPA requested information regarding
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 and
scheduling. EPA also solicited data on
volumes of contaminated soil currently
being treated'by these technologies,
current available capacity, and estimates
of future capacity. EPA received two
comments regarding innovative
technologies. One commenter noted that
to treat soil on-site requires permitting
and approval by local, state, and federal
agencies, which may be a problem for
some innovative technologies. Another
commenter stated that the chemical
concentration to which a soil can be
biotreated is influenced by the
particular chemical, the soil type, the
age of the contaminated media, and the
bioremediation process. EPA encourages
the use of innovative technologies when
feasible, and realizes that—in some
cases—use of these technologies may be
limited by technical and non-technical
considerations. Sufficient conventional
treatment capacity is available,
however, such that these limitations do
not affect capacity determinations.
C. Surface Disposed Newly Identified
and Listed Wastes
1. Required Capacity for Newly
Identified TC Organics (D018-D043)
The Agency is promulgating treatment
standards for TC organic
nonwastewaters based primarily on
incineration performance data.
Treatment standards for some newly
identified organic TC wastewaters are
also being promulgated in today's rule.
(Organic TC wastewaters managed in
systems regulated under the CWA, those
injected into Class I injection wells as
regulated under the SDWA, and those
zero discharge facilities that engage in
CWA-equivalent treatment prior to land
disposal will be addressed in future
rulemakings. EPA will make variance
determinations for these wastes at that
time.) For the proposed rule, the Agency
did not have data indicating that
facilities managing organic TC
wastewaters would be impacted. Thus,
EPA solicited comments in the
proposed rule on the quantities of newly
identified organic TC wastewaters
affected by the rule. However, no
comments were received on this issue.
The Agency has concluded that
facilities managing organic TC
wastewaters will not be affected by this
rule (i.e., no organic TC wastewaters
will likely require alternative
commercial treatment as a result of
today's rule).
EPA developed estimates of the
quantities of newly identified TC
organic wastes based on current
management options to comply with the
LDR requirements. EPA did not receive
any data in public comments on the
quantities of organic TC nonwastewaters
containing underlying metal
constituents. EPA estimates that
approximately 220,000 tons of organic
TC nonwastewaters are subject to this
rule. (See Table 2 which presents the
quantities of TC nonwastewaters (except
for liquid nonwastewaters) requiring off-
site treatment by waste code.) Even if all
this quantity contained underlying
metal constituents, the residuals from
the treatment of organics could not be
higher than 220,000 tons. Underlying
metal constituents are, by definition, at
levels that are below TC levels for
metals. Stabilization is an appropriate
technology for treating low level metal
wastes. Given that ample treatment
capacity exists for stabilization (over 1
million tons), EPA believes that
sufficient treatment capacity exists for
residuals of organic TC wastes
containing underlying metal
constituents.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48029
TABLE 2.—QUANTITIES OF TC
NONWASTEWATERS REQUIRING OFF-
SITE COMMERCIAL TREATMENT
[Surface disposed wastes in tons]
TABLE 3.—REQUIRED AND AVAILABLE
CAPACITY FOR NEWLY IDENTIFIED
ORGANIC TC WASTES 1
[All quantities are in tons]
Code
D018
D019
D020
D021
D022
D023
D024
D025 .-.
D026
D027
D028
D029
D030
D031
D032
D033
D034
D035
D036
D037
D038
D039
D040
D041
D042
D043
TOTAL '
Nonwastewaters
126 000
s 7nn
6300
8 500
8 400
3 900
'wn
310
1 500
1 200
10800
3 800
510
200
*a Qnn
450
410
4 200
260
600
3 600
6 900
6 600
110
120
16 500
220,000
'Total may not sum due to rounding.
The Agency also developed estimates
of available commercial treatment
capacity. Table 3 summarizes available
capacity for each alternative treatment
technology required for the newly
identified TC nonwastewaters. The table
also summarizes the required capacity
for each technology. A comparison of
required and available treatment
capacity indicates that adequate
combustion capacity exists for TC
nonwastewaters. Therefore, in the
proposed rule, EPA indicated they
would not be granting a national
capacity variance for D018-D043
nonwastewaters. EPA requested
comments and any additional data on
its assessment that there is adequate
treatment capacity for these wastes. EPA
received one comment on this issue.
The commenter supported EPA's
determination that sufficient capacity
exists to treat D018-D043
nonwastewaters. Thus, EPA has not
changed its assessment and is not
granting a variance for these
nonwastewaters.
Treatment tech-
nology
Liquid Combus-
tion
Sludge/Solid
Combustion
Stabilization
Available ca-
pacity
1 267 000
438,000
31 127 000
Required
capacity
211 nnn
220,000
I4\
\ 1
1 Does not include hazardous soil and de-
bris, mixed radioactive wastes, or deep well
injected wastes.
2 These are liquid nonwastewaters.
3 Capacity analysis for the Phase I Newly
Listed and Newly Identified Waste rule.
4 Stabilization capacity may be required to
treat underlying metal constituents in organic
TC wastes after combustion.
2. Used Oil
EPA's capacity assessment does not
include specific quantities of used oil
which might be subject to this rule.
Absent data to the contrary, EPA
believes that the quantities of used oil
that are land disposed and hazardous
for TC organics are relatively small.
(Used oil that is recycled and that
exhibits the TC is not subject to the land
disposal restrictions. See 261.6(a)(4).)
EPA has requested information and
conducted various studies of generation,
management and characteristics of used
oil. Although the data are not
comprehensive, based on all
indications, most used oil is either
recycled or reused as fuel.
In its May 20,1992 (57 FR 21524)
final listing determination for used oil,
the Agency concluded that only a small
portion of used oil is land disposed (less
than 10 percent of the amount
generated). Although in general used oil
could be hazardous for TC organics
(benzene) and metals (lead), the Agency
furthermore observed that the trend of
increased recycling and the phase down
of lead in gasoline under the Clean Air
Act would decrease both the quantity of
used oil that is land disposed and the
proportion of it that is hazardous.
To update and refine its capacity
analysis for this rule, EPA requested
comments in the September 14,1993
proposed rule (58 FR 48092) and
reviewed available data sources. The
Agency requested comments on the
quantities of used oil that exhibit the
toxicity characteristic and is subject to
the LDRs. EPA received only one
comment from a firm that collected over
113 million gallons of used oil for re-
refining in 1992, but did not receive any
comments on the amounts of used oil
subject to the LDRs.
To gain a broader perspective of used
oil generation and management EPA
examined 1991 data from the national
Biennial Reporting System (BRS). EPA
did not expect to obtain comprehensive
total quantities of hazardous used oil
generation and management; however,
EPA was able to get the proportional
management of reported waste oils. The
BRS shows that less than one percent of
all waste oil reported is landfilled. For
example, in the 'waste oil from changes'
category of the 1991 BRS, approximately
1,400 tons was reported as landfilled.
Although EPA believes the
proportionate disposal (percent) is
nationally representative, the total
quantity was reported for waste streams
from only a few states which indicates
that the total is not comprehensive.
We have received preliminary data
from the State of New Jersey Hazardous
Waste Facilities Siting Commission.
New Jersey treats used oil as state
hazardous waste and the Commission
tracks generation and shipping/manifest
data. In the oil category, approximately
1 percent of used oil generated is
identified as land disposed (landfilled).
Of this 1 percent we do not know how
much would be hazardous for TC
organics.
Therefore, EPA believes that the
quantities of used oil that are land
disposed and are also hazardous for TC
organics are small and sufficient reuse-
as-fuel, energy recovery, and/or
incineration capacity exists. EPA
believes that a capacity variance is not
warranted for these wastes.
3. Required Capacity for Other Newly
Listed Organic Wastes
This section presents EPA's analysis
of required capacity for other listed
organic wastes including coke by-
product wastes and chlorinated toluene
production wastes.
a. Surface Disposed Coke By-Product
Wastes
K141—Process 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).
K142—Tar storage tank residues from the
production of coke from coal or the
recovery of coke by-products produced
from coal.
K143—Process residues from the recovery of
light oil, including, but not limited to,
those generated in stills, decanters, and
wash oil units from the recovery of coke
by-products produced from coal.
K144—Wastewater sump residues from light
oil refining, including, but not limited to,
intercepting or contamination sump
-------
48030 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
sludges from the recovery of coke by-
products produced from coal.
K145—Residues from naphthalene collection
and recovery operations from the recovery
of coke by-products produced from coal.
K147—Tar storage tank residues from coal tar
refining.
K148—Residues from coal tar distillation,
including but not limited to still bottoms.
For coke by-product nonwastewaters,
EPA is promulgating concentration-
based standards based on incineration.
Under the authority of section 3007 of
RCRA, EPA collected generation and
management information concerning
coke by-product wastes; this
information was collected in 1985 and
1987. The majority of K141 to K145
nonwastewaters generated during that
timeframe were recycled or used for
energy recovery. Tar storage tank and tar
distillation bottoms may be removed
periodically. The Agency identified the
following annualized land-disposed
quantities of wastes: 49 tons of K141
nonwastewaters, 2,750 tons of K142
nonwastewaters, 10 tons of K143
nonwastewaters, 304 tons of K144
nonwastewaters, 1,408 tons of K147
nonwastewaters, and less than 100 tons
of K148 nonwastewaters. EPA identified
no K145 nonwastewaters that were
being land disposed. The Agency
solicited comments on the above
estimated quantities that may require
alternative treatment as a result of the
LDRs. However, no comments were
received on this issue. Thus, EPA is
using the estimates shown above for the
quantities of these wastes that may
require treatment capacity as a result of
the LDRs.
Current management practices
indicate that the majority of the newly
listed coke by-product wastes are
amenable to recycling, and therefore
alternative treatment may not be
required as a result of today's final rule.
Thus, EPA believes that adequate
capacity exists to treat the small amount
of wastes that require alternative
treatment.
EPA does not have any information
that coke by-product wastewaters are
currently generated. The quantity of
these wastewaters is assumed to be zero.
EPA solicited comments on changes of
management practices or generation
data on these wastes. No comments
were received on this issue.
Consequently, EPA concludes that the
quantity of these wastewaters is zero.
As a result of this analysis, EPA is not
granting a national capacity variance to
K141, K142, K143, K144, K145, K147,
and K148 nonwastewaters and
wastewaters; however, the Agency is
granting a three-month variance as
described in Section A for the reason
described therein.
b. 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 does
not include still bottoms from the
distillation of benzyl chloride.)
K150—Organic residuals, excluding spent
carbon adsorbent, from the spent chlorine
gas and hydrochloric acid recovery
processes associated with the production
of alpha (methyl) chlorinated toluene, ring-
chlorinated toluene, benzoyl chlorides and
compounds with mixtures of these
functional groups.
K151—Waste-water treatment sludges,
excluding neutralization and biological
sludges, generated during the treatment of
wastewaters from the production of alpha
(methyl) chlorinated toluene, ring-
chlorinated toluene, benzoyl chlorides and
compounds with mixtures of these
functional groups.
For wastes generated during the
production of chlorinated toluene, EPA
is promulgating concentration-based
treatment standards based on
incineration for nonwastewaters. EPA
collected generation and management
information on wastes generated from
the production of chlorinated toluene.
EPA collected this information under
the authority of section 3007 of RCRA
during engineering site visits in 1988.
This capacity analysis incorporates data
from the section 3007 information
reque.st and engineering site visits. EPA
identified four facilities that produce
chlorinated toluene wastes.
The Agency has identified no K149
nonwastewaters, no K150
nonwastewaters, and less 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 treatment capacity as a result of
today's final rule.
EPA solicited comments on
management practices and generation
data on these wastes. One commenter
requested a variance because high
concentrations of salt and halogenated
compounds make these wastes difficult
to incinerate. EPA contacted a
commercial incineration facility that
stated that with proper management
they could treat these wastes. Therefore,
EPA believes that a capacity variance is
not warranted for these wastes.
EPA does not have any information
that chlorinated toluene wastewaters are
currently generated. EPA solicited
comments on changes of management
practices or generation data on these
wastes. No comments were received on
this issue. Thus, EPA concludes that the
quantity of these wastewaters is zero.
Because adequate capacity exists to
treat these wastes, EPA is not granting
a national capacity variance for K149,
K150, and K151 nonwastewaters and
wastewaters; however, like the other
newly listed and identified wastes, EPA
is granting a three-month variance as
described in Section A for the reason
described therein.
4. Newly Identified TC Wastes That
Were Not Previously Hazardous by the
Old EP Leaching Procedure
In the Third Third LDR rule (55 FR
22520, June 1,1990), EPA promulgated
treatment standards for D012 through
D017 wastes, but only for those wastes
that were previously hazardous by the
old EP leaching procedure and remain
hazardous under the new TCLP. D012
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 did not
receive any estimates for additional
waste quantities (or newly-identified
wastes) due to the use of the TCLP
rather than the EP leaching procedure.
Similarly, no estimates were received in
response to the proposed rule. 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 not granting
the newly-identified D012 through D017
wastes a national capacity variance.
However, the Agency is granting a three-
month variance as described in Section
A of the preamble.
D. Required and Available Capacity for
Newly Listed and 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 RCRA hazardous
waste regulations, including the LDRs,
regardless of the type of radioactive
constituents contained in these wastes.
Radioactive wastes that are mixed
with spent solvents, dioxins, California
list wastes, First Third, Second Third, or
Third Third wastes, and Phase I wastes,
are subject to the LDRs already
promulgated for these hazardous wastes.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48031
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 and
identified hazardous wastes being
restricted in today's rulemaking.
Based on comments received by EPA
in response to the proposed rule, the
ANPRM (56 FR 55160, October 24,
1991), 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.
1. Waste Generation
a. Non-soil and Non-debris Mixed
Radioactive Wastes
In April 1993, DOE released the
Interim Mixed Waste Inventory Report
(IMWIR), which included a national
inventory of all mixed wastes that were
being stored or would 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 site managing DOE wastes. This
report is currently being updated;
however the Final Mixed Waste
Inventory Report (MWIR) Data Base that
will be used to develop the Final MWIR
was made public in May, 1994. This
Data Base was used to determine the
quantity of DOE-generated mixed waste
requiring treatment.
Based on the MWIR data, EPA
estimates that DOE generates 1,700 m3/
yr of non-soil, non-debris mixed
radioactive waste contaminated with TC
organic constituents. In addition, DOE
currently has 19,000 m3 of these wastes
in storage. Table 4 lists the quantities of
each category of non-soil, non-debris
mixed waste that DOE expects to
generate annually, as well as the amount
currently in storage.
TABLE 4.—QUANTITIES OF DOE NON-
SOIL, NON-DEBRIS NEWLY IDENTI-
FIED TC ORGANIC MIXED RADIO-
ACTIVE WASTES
Mixed waste category
High-level waste
(HLW)
Mixed transuranic
waste (MTRU)
Mixed tow-level waste
(MLLW)
Current
inventory
(m3)
1 1 ,000
4,700
3,400
Annual
genera-
tion (m3/
yr)
1 300
1
400
b. Mixed Radioactive Soil
EPA derived data on the quantities of
DOE mixed radioactive soils using
MWIR data. Table 5 lists the quantities
of each category of mixed radioactive
soil that is expected to be generated
annually, as well as the amount
currently in storage. The quantity of
hazardous soil in storage, or projected to
be generated annually, is very small.
This can be attributed to the fact that the
MWIR Data Base generally does not
include DOE environmental restoration
wastes. When these wastes are
generated they will increase the
quantity of newly identified mixed
wastes, particularly soil, that require
treatment. Although these wastes are
not included in the Final MWIR Data
Base, the IMWIR estimates that DOE
will generate a total of approximately
600,000 m3 of mixed environmental
restoration wastes over the period from
1993 to 1997. Some of these wastes will
likely be newly identified organic TC
mixed wastes.
TABLE 5.—QUANTITIES OF DOE
NEWLY IDENTIFIED TC ORGANIC
MIXED RADIOACTIVE SOILS
Mixed waste category
High-level waste
(HLW)
Mixed transuranic
waste (MTRU)
Mixed low-level waste
(MLLW)
Current
inventory
(m3)
o
0
20
Annual
genera-
tion (m3/
yr)
0
0
10
c. Mixed Radioactive Debris
EPA derived data on quantities of
DOE mixed radioactive debris using
MWIR data. Table 6 lists the quantities
of each category of mixed radioactive
debris that is expected to be generated
annually, as well as the quantity
currently in storage.
TABLE 6.—QUANTITIES OF DOE
NEWLY IDENTIFIED TC ORGANIC
MIXED RADIOACTIVE DEBRIS
Mixed waste category
High-level waste
(HLW)
Mixed transuranic
waste (MTRU)
Mixed low-level waste
(MLLW)
Current
inventory
(m')
0
18,000
14,000
Annual
genera-
tion (m3/
yr)
o
380
650
2. Available Capacity and Capacity
Implications
a. Non-soil and Non-debris Mixed
Radioactive Wastes
EPA's review of IMWIR data indicates
that 4,000 m3 of treatment capacity are
available annually for HLW at three
DOE treatment systems. The available
capacity appears sufficient to treat the
estimated average annual generation.
However, the IMWIR indicates that the
current national inventory of HLW is
greater than 280,000 m3. This quantity
dwarfs DOE's annual available
treatment capacity for HLW.
Consequently, DOE faces a treatment
capacity shortfall for high-level
radioactive wastes.
DOE is developing the Waste Isolation
Pilot Project (WIPP) in New Mexico as
a permanent repository for DOE TRU
wastes, including MTRU wastes.
However, DOE is not yet authorized to
begin the placement of TRU wastes in
the WIPP. In addition, wastes received
at the WIPP must meet DOE's WIPP
Waste Acceptance Criteria (WIPP-
WAC). DOE is still in the planning
stages for facilities designed to prepare
MTRU wastes for shipment to the WIPP.
As a result, DOE faces a capacity
shortfall for treatment of MTRU wastes.
EPA's review of the MWIR data
indicates that 340 m3/yr of currently
available capacity exists at four DOE
treatment systems for the treatment of
alpha MLLW (i.e., MLLW with an alpha
particle content between 10 and 100
nCi/g). However, the available capacity
is greatly exceeded by the estimated
quantity of alpha MLLW requiring
treatment annually over the next five
years, 3,700 m3. Consequently, DOE
faces a treatment capacity shortfall for
non-soil, non-debris alpha MLLW.
According to IMWIR, 1,000,000 mVyr
of treatment capacity among 26 systems
are currently available to treat non-
alpha MLLW. However, IMWIR states
that most of DOE's currently available
treatment capacity for MLLW is
represented by facilities limited to the
treatment of wastewaters (defined by
DOE as less than 1 percent total
suspended solids (TSS)). While these
treatment facilities provide excess
capacity for MLLW wastewaters, they
cannot process wastes with high TSS
and are not readily adaptable for other
waste forms. Thus, although the
quantity of MLLW treatment capacity is
greater than the total quantity of mixed
wastes, DOE faces a treatment capacity
shortfall for nonwastewater MLLW, and
thus non-alpha MLLW.
While DOE has provided its best
available data on mixed waste
generation, uncertainty remains about
-------
48032 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
mixed waste generation at DOE (and
non-DOE) facilities. For example, not all
DOE Field Organizations responded to
DOE's request for information following
publication of the ANPRM. 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. The IMWIR estimates
that.DOE will generate a total of 600,000
m3 of mixed environmental restoration
, wastes over the period from 1993 to
1997. Although the IMWIR notes that
the estimates of DOE environmental
restoration wastes are preliminary, the
quantities noted above will place
additional strains on DOE's limited
available mixed waste treatment
capacity.
Although DOE is in the process of
increasing its capacity to manage mixed
RCRA/radioactive wastes, information
supplied by DOE indicates that a
significant capacity shortfall currently
exists for the treatment of mixed RCRA/
radioactive wastes, much of which are
in storage facilities awaiting treatment.
DOE has indicated that it will generally
give treatment priority to mixed wastes
that are already restricted under
previous LDR rules (e.g., radioactive
wastes mixed with solvents, dioxins,
California list wastes, First Third,
Second Third, or Third Third wastes,
and Phase I 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.
In response to the Phase II proposed
rule, EPA received six comments
concerning the proposal to grant a two-
year national capacity variance for non-
soil, non-debris TC organic mixed
radioactive wastes. All six commenters,
including DOE, were in favor of the two-
year national capacity variance.
Furthermore, none of the commenters
identified any additional treatment
capacity for the wastes. Thus, despite
the uncertainty about the exact
quantities of mixed radioactive wastes
containing newly listed and identified
wastes that will require treatment as a
result of today's rule, the quantities
appear to exceed available capacity. In
addition, any new commercial capacity
that does become available will be
needed for mixed radioactive wastes
that were regulated in previous LDR
rulemakings and whose variances have
already expired. Therefore, EPA has
determined that sufficient alternative
treatment capacity is not available for
mixed radioactive wastes contaminated
with newly listed and identified wastes
whose standards are being promulgated
today, and thus is granting a two-year
national capacity variance for these
wastes.
b. Mixed Radioactive Soil
EPA's review of IMWIR data indicates
that no available treatment capacity
exists at DOE facilities for mixed
radioactive soils. As indicated earlier, a
preliminary estimate of mixed
radioactive soil is approximately 10 m3/
yr. Therefore, EPA is granting a two-year
national capacity variance for mixed
radioactive soils.
c. Mixed Radioactive Debris
EPA's review of IMWIR data indicates
that less than 2 m3/yr of treatment
capacity is available that can accept
mixed low-level debris, an amount that
exceeds the estimated annual
generation. In addition, DOE has not yet
been authorized to begin placement of
MTRU wastes into the WIPP. As a
result, DOE faces a treatment capacity
shortfall for mixed transuranic debris.
Therefore, EPA is granting a two-year
national capacity variance to debris
contaminated with mixed radioactive
wastes.
E. Required and Available Capacity for
High TOCIgnitable, TC Pesticide, and
Newly Listed Wastes Injected Into Class
I Deep Wells
As explained in previous rules
concerning land disposal restrictions
(see e.g., 52 FR 32450, August 27, 1987;
53 FR 30912, August 16,1988; 55 FR
22520, June 1,1990), EPA is allocating
available capacity first to those wastes
disposed in surface units, second to
wastes resulting from CERCLA and
RCRA clean ups, and finally to
underground injected wastes. Based on
this hierarchical approach, the Agency
is promulgating the following effective
dates for injected wastes.
EPA still has very limited information
which differentiates high TOG D001
ignitable wastes from low TOG D001
ignitable wastes, particularly with
reference to the type of Class I injection
well (i.e., nonhazardous versus
hazardous) into which the wastes are
disposed. 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 variances. EPA is concerned
that since these wastes are being
generated, the potential exists that
diluted D001 ignitable wastes and
D012-D017 TC pesticide wastes are also
being injected into Class I nonhazardous
wells, hi the proposed rule, EPA
estimated that, based on management
practices, low volumes of diluted high
TOG ignitable waste were injected into
Class I nonhazardous wells, and less
than 420 tons of D012-D017 pesticide
wastes are deep well injected into Class
I nonhazardous wells. However, several
commenters to the proposed rule, and
other industries with Class I injection
wells, have indicated that it would be
extremely difficult to identify, segregate,
treat, and/or arrange for disposal of
these waste streams in a short time
frame. This may be particularly true if
waste volumes for high TOG D001
ignitable wastes are discovered to
greatly exceed earlier estimates. The
facilities, depending on their Class I
injection wells, would have to
reconfigure their disposal systems,
which may include the construction or
rearrangement of wastelines or piping.
To allow sufficient time to address
these logistical problems, EPA is
granting a one-year national capacity
variance to allow the Class I injection
facilities an appropriate lead time to
identify their decharacterized high TOC
D001 and D012-D017 waste streams and
to create an infrastructure that allows
their alternative management consistent
with today's rule and the statute. This
may include installation of equipment
to segregate wastes. For operators
applying for no-migration petitions, the
variance will allow time for conducting
the modelling or other analysis, for EPA
review, and for the operators to make
alternative arrangements if the petitions
are not granted.
The following wastes are the newly
listed wastes for which numerical
standards are being promulgated, and .
which current data indicate are not
being underground injected:
Coke By-Product Wastes: K141, K142, K143,
K144, K145, K147, K148
Chlorotoluene Production Wastes: K149,
K150, K151
The Agency requested further
comment on whether any of these
wastes are being injected. Comment was
also requested on what quantities of
wastes are being injected, and on the
characteristics of these wastes.
However, no comments were received
on this issue. EPA is therefore not
granting a national capacity variance for
coke production wastes (K141—K145,
K147, K148) and for chlorotoluene
production wastes (K149-K151) injected
into Class I deep wells.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48033
F. Bequired and Available Capacity for
Hazardous Soil and Debris
Contaminated with Newly Listed and
Identified Wastes
This capacity analysis focuses on
hazardous soil and debris contaminated
with wastes whose treatment standards
are promulgated in today's rule.
EPA used several data sources to
estimate the total quantity of land-
disposed hazardous soil and debris.
These sources include: responses to the
Advance Notice to the Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) for the newly
identified wastes (56 FR 55160); the TC
Survey; information provided during a
series of roundtable meetings held by
the Agency in May and June of 1991
with representatives of companies
involvea in the management and
disposal of hazardous debris and soil;
the Biennial Reporting System (BRS);
Records of Decision (RODs) of
Superfund sites; the TSDR Survey; and
the National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators.3
1. Waste Generation
a. Hazardous Soil
The hazardous soil covered by this
rule includes soil contaminated with
D018-DQ43 organic TC wastes, and soils
contaminated with coke by-product
wastes and chlorinated toluene wastes.
The largest quantity of hazardous soil
affected by today's rulemaking is
hazardous soil contaminated with
D018-D043 organic TC wastes. At the
time of the proposal, the Agency
estimated that approximately 233,000
tons per year of TC soils would require
off-site treatment and the majority of
these TC soils was expected to be
generated from surface impoundment
closures. Based on new data received
from owners/operators concerning
surface impoundment closure practices,
the Agency now estimates that the
annual quantities of TC soil that is land
disposed and subject to the LDRs ranges
from 70,000 to 120,000 tons. Because TC
soil generation from surface
impoundment closures is somewhat
discretionary, decisions by owners/
operators of facilities concerning closure
methods significantly changed the
generation rates previously estimated in
the TC Survey.
The Agency contacted facilities
expected to generate TC soils from
surface impoundment closures in 1993,
SEPA conducted the surveys during 1987 and
1983 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.
1994, and 1995 to confirm generation
rates. Nearly all of the owners/operators
revised their estimates for TC soil
generation downward. Most owners/
operators revised their closure practices
to minimize or eliminate TC soil
generation. Some facilities closed
impoundments prior to today's
rulemaking and other facilities are
closing their impoundments as landfills.
In closing as a landfill, a facility closes
the impoundment with the waste in
place. The facility owners/operators
remove all free liquids, stabilize the
sludges, cap the impoundment, and
establish a ground water monitoring
system. Therefore, for these facilities, no
LDR treatment capacity would be
necessary for TC soils. Of the facilities
that predicted TC soil generation in
1994 and 1995, no facility currently
expects to ship TC soils generated from
a surface impoundment closure off-site
for LDR treatment.
However* for at least two facilities,
some uncertainty existed concerning the
ability of these facilities to ship all of
their TC soils off-site prior to today's
rulemaking. Nevertheless, even if these
facilities generated all their TC soils
after today's rulemaking, the impact on
LDR treatment capacity would be
minimal because these facilities were
expected to generate only 5,300 tons of
TC soils. Therefore, only 5,300 tons of
TC soils generated by surface
impoundment closures might require
off-site treatment.
The Agency also reviewed the TC data
base and public information on specific
facilities to assess the TC soil generation
rate from routine and sporadic activities
that might require off-site disposal. For
this analysis, the Agency assumed that
routine activities and the quantity of
soil generated should be considered
constant over time .when analyzing the
generator population as a whole.
However, for sporadic activities (e.g.
surface impoundment closures), which
by their nature occur infrequently, the
year in which they occur is critically
important in determining the required
capacity for soil when the rule becomes
effective.
In the TC Survey, some TC wastes
were only characterized as a mixture of
soil and debris. For the lower bound
estimate (70,000 tons), the Agency
assumed a 50-50 ratio of soil and debris
in mixtures characterized as soil and
debris. Using this assumption, EPA
estimates that approximately 70,000
tons of TC soils generated by routine
and sporadic activities will require
additional treatment annually. In
addition, in this lower bound estimate,
the Agency assumed that all facilities
were able to manage the TC soils
generated from surface impoundment
closures prior to the effective date of
today's rule. Therefore, for the lower
bound estimate, no TC soils from
surface impoundment closures are
expected to require additional treatment
capacity. Based on these assumptions,
the Agency calculates that the lower
bound estimate is 70,000 tons of TC
soils per year.
For the upper bound estimate, the
Agency assigned the entire quantity of
mixtures of soil and debris reported in
the TC survey as TC soils. As a result,
the TC soil generation rate for routine
and sporadic activities increased by
about 20,000 tons. The Agency
conducted a similar review of facilities
that submitted confidential business
information (CBI) concerning TC soil
generation rates. When assuming a 100
percent of mixtures were TC soils, these
facilities were estimated to generate an
additional 53,000 tons of TC soils for a
total of 143,000 tons.
To verify the accuracy of the upper
bound estimate, the Agency contacted
individual facilities to determine actual
TC soil generation rates. Based on these
contacts, the TC data base overestimated
TC soil generation from routine and
sporadic activities. Many facilities
stated that actual generation rates were
lower or that the estimate included one
time wastes from surface impoundment
closures that already occurred.
Therefore, when the Agency revised the
upper bound estimates, TC soil
generation rates for routine and sporadic
activities at all facilities (non-CBI and
CBI facilities) were approximately
114,000 tons. After adding the 5,300
tons of TC soils generated by surface
impoundment closures, the estimated
upper bound quantity of TC soil
requiring additional treatment is
approximately 120,000 tons per year.
Due to reduced generation of TC soils
from surface impoundment closures in
1994 and 1995 and overestimations of
TC soil generation rates from routine
and sporadic activities, the Agency
estimates that between 70,000 and
120,000 tons per year of TC soils will
require off-site treatment.
At the time of the proposed
rulemaking, the Agency was uncertain
concerning the quantities of TC soil
generated from manufactured gas plants
(MGP). Most of the soil generated at
these plants is expected to be
contaminated with benzene. EPA
requested 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. No
comments were received that specified
quantities of soil generated or discussed
-------
48034 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
commercial capacity for contaminated
soils. While EPA acknowledges that
generation of TC-contaminated soil from
MGP will occur, the Agency expects
that most of this quantity will be
managed on-site and will not require
off-site or commercial treatment
capacity. Therefore, EPA has concluded
that TC-contaminated soil from MGPs
will not significantly affect the required
treatment capacity for soil.
Similarly, 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
incorporated these data in its analysis of
the required capacity for hazardous soil.
In the proposed rule, EPA requested
comments on the use of innovative
technologies for hazardous soil.
Specifically, EPA requested 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
and scheduling. One commenter noted
that to treat soil on-site requires
permitting and approval by local, state,
and federal agencies, which may be a
problem for some innovative
technologies. Another said that the
chemical concentration to which a soil
can be biotreated is influenced by the
particular chemical, the soil type, the
age of the contaminated media, and the
bioremediation process. EPA has taken
these comments into account in
estimating the available capacity
provided by innovative technologies for
the treatment of hazardous soil.
b. Hazardous Debris
This rule covers debris contaminated
with the newly listed and identified
wastes covered in this rule. As shown
in Table 7, data from the TC Survey
indicates that approximately 34,000
tons of debris contaminated with D018-
D043 wastes may be currently land
disposed.
TABLE 7.—QUANTITIES OF TC-CON-
TAMINATED DEBRIS REQUIRING OFF-
SITE TREATMENT
[Surface disposed wastes in tons]
TABLE 7.—QUANTITIES OF TC-CON-
TAMINATED DEBRIS REQUIRING OFF-
SITE TREATMENT—Continued
[Surface disposed wastes in tons]
Code
D025
D026
D027
0028
0029
D030
D031
D032
0033
D034
0035
0036
D037
D038
D039
D040
0041
DQ42
D043
Total '
Debris
60
700
290
280
330
90
10
70
110
40
300
70
130
570
970
890
20
20
1,700
34,000
Code
0018
0019
0020
0021
0022
0023
D024
Debris
26,400
220
20
210
80
60
60
1 Total may not sum due to rounding.
2. Current Management Practices
Waste generators and TSDFs report
that most of the soils contaminated with
D018-D043 newly identified organic TC
wastes are currently landfilled without
prior treatment. Incineration is the
commercial off-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 ANPRM mentioned
bioremediation as an alternative to
incineration for the treatment of TC-
contaminated soils, rib commenter
provided facility specific information on
commercially available off-site
treatment capacity for this technology.
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 (VISITT). At the time of
the proposed rule, EPA had received no
information that special-handling
problems may limit the quantity of
hazardous soil that currently can be
treated by incineration, and EPA
requested information on special-
handling concerns with managing these
wastes. No comments were received on
this issue. Thus, EPA has concluded
that the quantity of hazardous soil that
can be treated by incineration will not
be limited by special-handling
problems.
3. Available Capacity and Capacity
Implications
a. Hazardous Soil
EPA is requiring that hazardous soil
be treated prior to land disposal. EPA
has determined that available
destruction (e.g., incineration) and
immobilization (e.g., stabilization)
capacity exists. Some additional
capacity also exists from many of the
technologies in the extraction family
(e.g., soil washing, chemical extraction).
However, some of the capacity of
extraction technologies currently used
to decontaminate soils, such as soil
washing, may not have received
requisite permits by the effective date of
this rule, although EPA is exploring the
various opportunities for these
technologies to become operational in
an expedited manner. (Please contact
the appropriate EPA regional office or
the state hazardous waste program.)
Thus, 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. Performance of these
technologies also may be the basis for
treatability variances pursuant to
§ 268.44(h). EPA requested comments
on the practicality and current
availability of these technologies. EPA
received comments that the proposed
soil standards cannot be met by
bioremediation, but may be met by
innovative technologies such as thermal
desorption and soil vapor extraction.
However, EPA did not receive any
comments on the current availability of
these technologies. Thus, EPA has
concluded that the off-site treatment
capacity for hazardous soils will
initially be limited to incineration and
stabilization.
The Agency also solicited comments
on the need for a capacity variance and
on estimates of available treatment
capacity. One cpmmenter opposed the
proposed capacity variance for soils and
said that EPA should—at the very
least—require treatment of "hot spots."
Several commenters supported the two-
year national capacity variance.
However, EPA has determined that a
national capacity variance is
unnecessary for hazardous soils.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48035
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 n wastes
indicates that sufficient capacity exists
to treat debris contaminated with
organics. Therefore, EPA is not granting
a national capacity variance for
hazardous debris contaminated with
organic TC wastes and other listed
organic wastes covered in this rule.
XV. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008, 3013,
and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are
found in 40 CFR part 271.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program in lieu of EPA administering
the Federal program in that State. The
Federal requirements no longer applied
in the authorized State, and EPA could
not issue permits for any facilities that
the State was authorized to permit.
When new, more stringent Federal
requirements were promulgated or
enacted, the State was obliged to enact
equivalent authority within specified
time frames. New Federal requirements
did not take effect in an authorized State
until the State adopted the requirements
as State law.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is
directed to carry out these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt HSWA-
related provisions as State law to retain
final authorization, HSWA is
implemented Federally in authorized
States in the interim.
Certain portions of today's rule are
being promulgated pursuant to sections
3004 (d) through (k), and (m), of RCRA
(42 U.S.C. 6924 (d) through (k), and
(m)}. These will be added to Table 1 in
40 CFR 271.1(j), which identifies the
Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
that take effect in all States, regardless
of their authorization status. States may
apply for either interim or final
authorization for the HSWA provisions
in Table 1, as discussed in the following
section of this preamble. Table 2 in 40
CFR 271.1(j) is also modified to indicate
that this rule is a self-implementing
provision of HSWA.
B. Effect on State Authorization
As noted above, today's rule, with the
exception of the changes in the
definition of solid waste (see preamble
section IX, and further discussion in
this section, below), will be
implemented in authorized States until
their programs are modified to adopt
these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the rule is
promulgated pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on
the basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described in 40 CFR 271.21. On
December 18,1992, EPA extended the
period allowing interim authorization to
January 1, 2003 (see 40 CFR 271.24(c)
and 57 FR 60129).
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
rule. These State regulations have not
been assessed against the Federal
regulations being promulgated 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 the period between the
effective date of today's rule and the
approval of state program modifications,
the regulated communities in
authorized states generally must comply
with state regulations in addition to the
provisions in today's rule. The regulated
community should continue to consult
with state agencies authorized to
administer LDRs. 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
§ 271.21(e). States that submit official
applications for final authorization 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations must include standards
equivalent to these regulations in their
application. The requirements a state
musfmeet when submitting its final
authorization application are set forth in
40 CFR 271.3.
The regulations promulgated 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).
The modifications to the definition of
solid waste in this rule (see preamble
section IX) are based on non-HSWA
authority. This portion of the rule,
because it is not based on HSWA
authority, will be applicable
immediately only in those States that do
not have final RCRA authorization. In
authorized States, these requirements
will not apply until the States revise
their programs to adopt equivalent
requirements under State law. In
addition, this modification broadens the
"closed-loop" recycling exclusion from
the definition of solid waste. The
modification to this rule is less
stringent, or reduces the scope of, the
Federal program. Therefore, although
EPA strongly encourages timely
adoption, authorized States are not
required to modify their programs to
-------
48036 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
adopt regulations consistent with and
equivalent to this provision.
XVI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant
to Executive Order 12866
Executive Order No. 12866 requires
agencies to determine whether a
regulatory action is "significant." The
Order defines a "significant" regulatory
action as one that "is likely to result in
a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect, in a material
way, the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients; or (4) raise novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal -
mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order."
The Agency estimated the costs of
today's final rule to determine if it is a
significant regulation as defined by the
Executive Order. The incremental
compliance costs for today's rule were
estimated as a range from $194 to $219
million per year. Therefore, today's final
rule is considered an economically
significant rule, having an annual effect
on the economy of over $100 million.
The Agency prepared a regulatory
impact analysis which analyzed the
costs, economic impacts, and benefits of
today's final rule.
This section of the preamble for
today's final rule provides a discussion
of the methodology used for estimating
the costs, economic impacts and the
benefits attributable to today's final rule,
followed by a presentation of the cost,
economic impact and benefit results.
Limitations to these estimates are
described in the results section. More
detailed discussions of the methodology
and results may be found in the
background document, "Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the Land Disposal
Restrictions Final Rule for the Phase 2
Newly Listed and Identified Wastes,"
which has been placed in the docket for
today's final rule.
1. Methodology Section
In today's final rule, the Agency is
establishing treatment standards for
newly identified and listed wastes, as
well as any soils and debris which are
contaminated with such wastes. (The
Agency plans to develop alternative
standards for hazardous soils as a part
of the Hazardous Wastes Identification
Rule (HWIR).) The newly identified
wastes covered under today's rule
include wastes displaying the organic
toxicity characteristic (TC), and
pesticide wastes that were not
previously hazardous by the EP leaching
procedure. The newly listed wastes are
Coke By-product wastes and
Chlorotoluene wastes.
Of the newly regulated hazardous soil
in today's rule, the only existing
volumes are soils contaminated with TC
wastes. (Any volumes of soil
contaminated with F037 and F038 listed
wastes which exist are not covered in
today's rule, but are being covered in a
future Agency rulemaking.) Finally, the
Agency is promulgating new testing and
recordkeeping requirements, as well as
reducing other recordkeeping
requirements.
Furthermore, today's final rule
proposes Universal Treatment
Standards (UTS) for wastes already
regulated under the LDRs. The Agency's
analysis includes an analysis of the
volumes affected by this change in
treatment levels. (In the switch to UTS
levels there are cases where the new
UTS level is less stringent than the
existing listing levels, as well as cases
where the UTS is more stringent than
existing levels. Either of these cases
would have the potential to change the
costs associated with treatment of these
wastes.)
a. Methodology? for Estimating the
Affected Universe
In determining the costs, economic
impacts, and benefits associated with
today's rule, the Agency estimated the
volumes of TC nonwastewaters, Coke
By-Product wastes, and Chlorotoluene
wastes affected by today's rule. For the
TC wastes, the Agency employed the
1995 volume estimates presented for
each affected waste in the Agency's
1992 TC Census Database (hereafter
referred to as the "TC Survey"). (There
are several ways in which the volumes
employed for the capacity
determinations differ from those used in
the RIA.) The capacity determinations
section of the preamble describes the
methods used there to determine
volumes. The scope of the RIA differs
from that of the capacity determination
in the "time window" analyzed. The
RIA examines the short- and long-term
impacts from the rule. Capacity
determinations, on the other hand, are
made for a two year time frame
beginning at the promulgation of today's
rule.
The Agency employed the volumes of
Coke By-Products and Chlorotoluene
wastes estimated in their respective
listing analyses. For Coke By-Products,
current management practices suggest
that no volumes will be land disposed.
b. Cost Methodology
The cost analysis estimates the
national level incremental costs which
will be incurred as a result of today's
rule. The cost estimates for both the
baseline and post-regulatory scenarios
are calculated employing: (i) The facility
wastestream volume, (ii) the
management practice (baseline or post-
regulatory) assigned to that wastestream,
and (iii) the unit cost associated with
that practice. Summing the costs for all
facilities produces the total costs for the
given waste and scenario. Subtracting
the baseline cost from the post-
regulatory cost produces the national
incremental cost associated with today's
rule for the given waste. The unit costs
include costs for Subtitle D and Subtitle
C disposal (as appropriate), and
transportation costs where necessary; all
dollar estimates are in 1993 dollars
(unless otherwise noted.)
Each section below summarizes the
baseline and post-regulatory
management practices assignments for
each waste. The unit costs employed for
the management practices are
summarized in the RIA background
document for today's rule.
The cost methodology section
includes three sub-sections: (i) TC
organic wastes, (ii) Other newly
identified wastes, (iii) Testing, record-
keeping, and permit modification costs.
i. Organic Toxicity Characteristic
Wastes (D018-D043)
The standards established in today's
rule for the organic TC wastes require
the treatment of all underlying
hazardous constituents. The affected TC
wastes can be divided into three groups:
TC nonwastewaters, TC soils, and TC
debris. While TC wastewaters which are
not managed in CWA or CWA-
equivalent units are being regulated in
today's rule, the current management
practices for these volumes do not
trigger land disposal (RCRA exempt
tanks, etc.), and therefore are not subject
to the LDRs. Below, EPA describes the
method of estimating the costs incurred
in complying with the TC standards in
today's rule.
hi establishing a baseline for the TC
nonwastewaters, TC hazardous soils,
and TC hazardous debris affected by
today's rule, the Agency assumed
Subtitle C landfilling as the current
management practice. The Agency
believes that there are TC wastes which
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48037
are not affected by today's rule because
they are already being treated to comply
with the standards established in
today's rule (e.g.: wastes with high BTU
value which are being used as fuel, etc.).
The Agency assumed that landfilling
was occurring on-site for
noncommercial (company captive)
facilities, and off-site for commercial
facilities. Employing today's
requirement of treating for all
underlying constituents reasonably
expected to be present, the Agency
developed technology assignments for
the wastes at each facility. The
assignments include a treatment
technology (or treatment train where
required), and subsequent Subtitle D
disposal. These assignments were based
on waste characterization and
constituent concentration data. Where
little or no such data were available for
a wastestream, the weighted average
unit cost was assigned (the weighted
average unit cost was calculated
separately for nonwastewaters, soils,
and debris).
The Agency allows a generator of
hazardous soil to apply for a treatability
variance. The Agency, however, has not
analyzed the potential short-term
savings which could be realized in the
management of hazardous soil, and
therefore may have overestimated the
cost impacts of the rule in the short-
term. There is also some uncertainty
where certain technologies will be
available to treat TC nonwastewaters.
The Agency performed a sensitivity
analysis to characterize this uncertainty,
which is included in the RIA
Background Document.
//. Other Newly Identified Wastes
In addition to organic TC wastes, the
wastes affected by today's final rule
include coke by-product and
chlorotoluene wastes. Based on an
economic analysis conducted by the
Agency for the listing of coke by-
product waste, generators recycle these
wastes rather than disposing of them in
Subtitle C landfills. Therefore, EPA
estimates that negligible volumes of
coke by-product wastes would be
affected by this rule. For the
chlorotoluene waste volumes, EPA
conducted a detailed cost analysis using
site specific data.
Hi. Testing, Recordkeeping, and Permit
Modification Costs
In addition to the costs for treatment
of wastes, EPA estimated the
incremental costs of the testing and
recordkeeping requirements in today's
rule. Testing and recordkeeping costs
were developed for all wastes addressed
in today's rule.
The Agency examined the
incremental cost of the testing
requirements under today's rule. The
Agency considered the baseline scenario
to include testing for waste
identification. The post-regulatory
scenario would include testing for waste
identification, testing to determine the
number and concentration of
constituents requiring treatment, and
testing following treatment to ensure
compliance with the standards.
For the analysis of recordkeeping
costs, the Agency employed the
estimates developed in the Information
Collection Request (ICR) for today's
rule. These estimates were employed in
a facility specific analysis to develop a
total incremental cost associated with
the testing and recordkeeping
requirements in today's rule.
The Agency also performed a
sensitivity analysis on potential permit
modification costs for facilities which
may switch to on-site treatment. EPA
applied a schedule of payments based
on the costs of permit modifications to
a group of nine facilities. The results of
this analysis are provided in the
Background Document RIA.
c. Waste Minimization Methodology
Since reducing waste generation may
be less costly than treating these wastes
to LDR standards, the Agency performed
an analysis examining the potential
waste minimization alternatives
available to facilities. The analysis
followed a multi-step methodology
which included: (1) Develop a profile of
the industries which indicated plans for
waste minimization in the 1992 TC
Survey Database, (2) select industries to
examine which would be representative
of the TC waste universe, (3) make
telephone data-verification calls to
facilities within these industries, (4)
determine the cost components for the
post-regulatory and Waste minimization
scenarios for all wastestreams for those
facilities, (5) estimate whether potential
total costs/cost savings for the waste
minimization and the post-regulatory
(i.e., without waste minimization)
scenarios would be a profitable
investment for the firms, and (6)
extrapolate results to the TC waste
universe, and determine overall cost/
cost savings.
d. Economic Impact Methodology
The economic effects of today's final
rule are defined as the difference
between the industrial activity under
post-regulatory conditions and the
industrial activity in the absence of
regulation (i.e., baseline conditions). It
should be noted that the volumes used
for the economic impacts analysis do
not include the reduction in volumes,
and thus in costs, from waste
minimization practices.
The Agency has evaluated the
economic impacts for facilities
managing organic TC wastes on a
facility specific basis, limited only by
the extent that data were available. EPA
estimated the economic effects by
comparing incremental annual
compliance costs to 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 believes that no costs will
be associated with the treatment
standards for coke by-products in the
final rule, no economic impacts will be
associated with regulation of these
wastes. Economic impacts of
compliance for facilities currently land
disposing chlorotoluenes were
evaluated in aggregated form, as
information relating to these wastes are
proprietary.
e. Benefits Methodology
This section discusses the benefit
estimates for today's rule. The section
includes: i. Analysis of the universal
treatment standards, ii. hazardous waste
recycling exemption, iii. groundwater
pathway benefits, and iv. air pathway
benefits.
i. Analysis of the Impact of the
Universal Treatment Standards
To determine the cost implications of
the Universal Treatment Standards
(UTS), the Agency compared the UTS
levels for each constituent to those
levels established for each constituent
in each waste code in the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) program to date.
The Agency assumed that there would
only be a cost impact when the levels
were sufficiently different to require a
change in the treatment technology used
in order to meet the new UTS levels.
The comparison of levels rendered three
results: (a) No cost impact because the
constituent levels were the same, (b) no
cost impact because the constituent
levels were within one order of
magnitude of each other, or (c) a
potential cost impact because the
constituent levels were greater than one
order of magnitude apart.
Upon identifying those waste code/
.constituent pairs which were
significantly different (i.e., greater than
one order of magnitude), the Agency
developed an estimate of the costs/cost
savings based on the incremental
difference in the previous technology
-------
48038 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
required and the new technology
required to meet the specified levels.
ii. Hazardous Waste Recycling
Exemption
The Agency also estimated the
potential cost savings resulting from the
hazardous waste recycling exemption
for K069 wastes. Obtaining volumes
data from the Biennial Reporting System
(BRS), and employing unit cost data, the
Agency calculated the cost savings
associated with the change allowed in
management practices. The Agency
limited the analysis to K069
wastestreams that are not mixed with
other hazardous waste codes, since
these mixtures may not be amenable or
legal for recycling.
Hi. Human Health Risk Reduction—
Groundwater Pathway
The Agency evaluated two types of
human health benefits for today's rule:
reduction in human health risks via the
groundwater pathway, and reduction in
human health risks via the air pathway.
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. Moreover, these are the only
wastes for which the Agency had the
data necessary to conduct a benefits
assessment, in terms of attributes such
as constituent concentrations and
facility-specific wastestream volumes.
The fundamental assumption
underlying EPA's approach for assessing.
groundwater risk reduction is that
Subtitle C containment is completely
effective in the short-term, i.e., over a
period of about 30 years, but that in the
longer term, containment systems will
fail. The benefits analysis performed for
today's rule examines this potential
long-term risk which would be avoided
under today's rule (i.e., only occurring
at least 30 years into the future). The
difference in risks from the baseline to
the post-regulatory condition is the
measure of incremental benefit
associated with today's rule.
The basic approach involves the
following steps (which are elaborated
upon 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 TC
Survey to represent waste
concentrations. (2) EPA calculated the
mean concentration of each constituent
at each facility, weighted across the
volume of all TC wastes managed at that
facility. (3) EPA calculated the risk that
would be posed by consumption of
leachate, for both cancer and non-cancer
effects, at each facility. (4) EPA
developed a set of dilution/attenuation
factors (DAF) to represent the effect of
fate and transport processes in a •
homogeneous grbund-water system. For
each facility, the Agency divided the
risk posed by the consumption of
leachate by the DAF (expressed as a •
probability distribution) to yield the risk
posed by predicted concentrations in
water from hypothetical exposure wells.
(5) EPA then summed the predicted
risks across all facilities to develop an
estimate of the distribution of
individual risk at facilities managing
untreated TC wastes. In addition, the
Agency simulated the post-regulatory
scenario, and summed the predicted
risks across facilities, and developed the
incremental risk reduction attributable
to today's rule. (6) EPA subsequently
developed an estimate of the potential
incremental population risk using 1990
population estimates around each site.
The Agency used standard assumptions
for body weight (70 kg) and water intake
(2 liters per day) for 9 years.
v. Human Health Risk Reduction—Air
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 reduces the potential for air
emissions, and the risks pbsed 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 requirements in today's
rule.
The Agency's basic approach for the
air pathway risk analysis involves the
following steps (which are elaborated
upon 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)
the Agency calculated the'mean
concentration of each constituent at
each.facility, weighted across the
volume of all TC wastes managed at that
facility. (3) EPA calculated the unit area
managing TC wastes. (4) EPA estimated
emissions due to volatilization and dust
entrainment for each constituent at each
facility. (5) The Agency evaluated the
atmospheric transport for each
constituent. EPA then estimated
exposure concentrations at several
downwind points corresponding to
potential exposure locations. The
Agency employed standard high-end
assumptions of body weight (70 kg) and
70-year lifetime. (6) The Agency
calculated individual cancer risk and
non-cancer risk across the facilities,
using the modeled exposure
assumptions. (7) EPA calculated
population risk for exposed
populations. (8) The Agency then
simulated the risk under the regulatory
requirements in today's rule, and
determined the incremental risk
reduction.
2. Results Section
a. Volume Results
The Agency has estimated the
volumes affected by today's rule. A total
of 295,000 tons per year of organic TC
wastes (D018-D043) are affected by
today's rule; this volume includes
167,000 tons per year of
nonwastewaters, 94,000 tons per year of
hazardous soil, and 34,000 tons per year
of hazardous debris. The volume
estimates used in the capacity analysis
differ, as described above, from those
estimates employed in the regulatory
analysis. See the regulatory analysis
background document for a more
detailed discussion of these differences.
In addition, there are 30 tons per year
of Chlorotoluene wastes affected by
today's rule. The Agency also estimates
that 9,760 tons per year of K069 waste
will be affected as a result of the
hazardous waste recycling exemption.
b. Cost Results
Exhibit XVI—1 summarizes the results
of the cost analysis for today's final rule.
hi total, today's final rule would have an
incremental annual cost of between
$194 and $219 million. The lower
bound cost estimate represents the
effects of waste minimization
compliance cost savings, hi addition,
there is a potential cost savings
associated with the UTS standards and
the hazardous waste recycling
exemption of $2.1 million per year.
EXHIBIT XVl-1 .—SUMMARY OF COST
IMPACTS
Waste type
Organic TC
Wastes (D018-
D043):
Nonwastewaters
Soil
Debris
Waste Mini-
mization
Chlorotoluenes ....
Test & Record-
keeoina
Post-
regu-
latory
cost
(million
S/yr)
175
52
44
0.1
Base-
line
cost
(million
$/yr)
30
17
8
<0.1
Incre-
mental
cost
(million
$/yr)
145
35
36
(25)
<0.1
3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48039
EXHIBIT XVI-1.—SUMMARY OF COST
IMPACTS—Continued
Waste type
Subtotal for
AH Newly
Regulated
Wastes
Previously Regu-
lated Wastes
Affected by
Rule:
K069 Recycling
Wastes
Cyanide Wastes
(UTS Analy-
sis)
Subtotal for
All Pre-
viously
Regulated
Wastes
Post-
regu-
latory
cost
(million
S/yr)
272
0
66.5
66.5
Base-
line
cost
(million
s/yr)
56
2.0
66.6
68.6
Incre-
mental
cost
(million
S/yr)
194
to 21 9
(2.0)
(0.1)
(2.1)
Note: The cost impact shown for waste
minimization reflects a potential compliance
cost savings, and therefore is shown as a
range. See the write up of the waste minimiza-
tion results for more details.
i. Organic TC Wastes
As described above, EPA conducted a
facility specific cost analysis for those
facilities managing organic TC waste.
Tho incremental costs for the TC wastes,
presented in Exhibit XVI—1, are between
S191 and S216 million per year. Sixty-
seven percent of the total cost, in the
upper bound, is for the treatment of
organic TC nonwastewaters, and 16
percent and 17 percent is for the
treatment of organic TC contaminated
soil and debris, respectively.
ii. Other Newly Regulated Wastes
Since current management practices
show that no coke by-product wastes are
landfilled, as a result of the coke by-
product listing rule (August 18,1992, at
57 FR 37284), EPA estimates that there
are no cost impacts associated with the
treatment standards for coke by-product
wastes. The incremental cost for
chlorinated toluenes is estimated to be
less than $0.1 million annually.
I'M. Testing, Recordkeeping, Permit
Modification Costs
The analysis of the testing
requirements in today's rule estimates
incremental costs of approximately $3
million per year. The costs for the
recordkeeping requirements were
estimated to be approximately $490,000
per year. These costs are described in
more detail in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis background document
developed for today's rule, which has
been placed in the Agency's docket.
c. Waste Minimization
Through the methodology outlined
above, the Agency analyzed the cost
implications of waste management
alternatives involving waste
minimization in today's rule. The
analysis shows that there is a potential
savings of $25 million per year
quantifiable in comparing current
management practices to waste
minimization activities which could be
implemented. The Agency presents the
cost impact of today's rule as a range
from $0 to $25 million per year,
representing the cost savings possible
through waste minimization activities.
In performing the waste minimization
analysis, the Agency focused on specific
process for two industries for which
data were available. This approach
allowed the analysis to be detailed in
nature, providing a close examination of
facility compliance alternatives.
However, in doing so, the Agency
believes it has underestimated the
potential savings due to waste
minimization. In addition, the Agency
has not attempted to address any further
source reduction, waste minimization,
or innovative technology development
which may result from today's rule.
d. Economic Impact Results
For the 14 companies with non-
commercial, or captive, landfills that
receive the company's waste (from the
TC Survey), only one company would
have a ratio of incremental compliance
cost to cost of operations greater than
one-half percent; all other facilities
would experience even lower economic
impacts resulting from today's rule.
Since no costs are associated with the
treatment standards for coke by-
products, no economic impacts are
expected. Based on a ratio analysis of
incremental cost to total sales, none of
the chlorinated toluene generating
facilities is expected to experience
significant impacts as a result of the
final rule.
e. Benefit Estimate Results
The benefit estimates for today's rule
include both reduction in risk to human
health, as well as incremental cost
savings. Cost savings are estimated for
the Universal Treatment Standards
(UTS), cost savings resulting from
changes to the hazardous waste
recycling exemptions. Human health
benefits are estimated for cancer and
non-cancer risks.
However, there are some benefits
which the Agency has not attempted to
quantify which are potentially
attributable to today's rule. For example,
the Agency has not attempted to
quantify any potential non-use value
benefits from protection of resources
through treatment of hazardous wastes.
Furthermore, the risk analysis
performed by the Agency for today's
rule does not account for many other
potential benefits from today's rule.
Ecological risk reduction from treatment
of wastes under today's rule has not
been quantified. Nor do the Agency's air
and groundwater benefit estimates
account for karst terrain, complex flow
situations, or other factors which could
contribute to underestimates of benefits.
These unqualified benefits are
discussed at greater length in the
regulatory impact background document
for today's rule.
i. Universal Treatment Standards
Analysis
The Agency's analysis of the cost
impacts realized due to the Universal
Treatment Standards requiring/allowing
a change in treatment technology from
that required under the existing
standards produced a cost savings of
approximately $100,000 per year. The
only wastes for which the Agency found
that the UTS standards required/
allowed a change in treatment were the
cyanide wastes.
The Agency received a number of
favorable comments on the adoption of
the UTS standards. These commenters
stated that the UTS would allow them
to save much more in operation costs
than the Agency has quantified in the
above analysis. One commenter stated
that they would save approximately
$366,000 annually and 1736 hours per
year in manhour savings associated with
the UTS for F024. And another
commenter stated that they would save
approximately $740,000 per year as a
result of the UTS. A more thorough
description of these cost savings is
shown in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis background document
developed for today's rule, which has
been placed in the Agency's docket.
ii. Hazardous Waste Recycling
Exemption
The analysis performed by the Agency
for the cost impacts associated with the
recycling exemption for K069 produced
a savings of approximately $2 million
per year. A detailed description of the
cost savings for K069 is shown in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis background
document developed for today's rule,
which has been placed in the Agency's
docket.
-------
48040
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
Hi. Results—Groundwater Pathway
This section presents results for the
baseline and post-regulatory risk
analyses. For each case, results for
individual cancer and non-cancer risk
are presented for both high end (i.e. the
90th percentile of the distribution) and
central tendency (i.e. 50th percentile of
the distribution) risk estimates. 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 that the central tendency cancer
risk estimate is expected to be zero. The
high-end individual cancer risk is 4 x
10~7. For the post-regulatory scenario,
EPA assumed that all constituents
would be treated to universal standards.
For the post-regulatory case, the central
tendency risk estimate is zero, and the
high-end risk estimate is 3 x 10 ~6.
Using the distribution of individual
risks, the Agency calculated baseline
and post-regulatory cancer population
risks. Based on these assumptions, EPA
estimates the baseline population cancer
risk to be 0.24 cases per year in the
central tendency. The post-regulatory
population cancer risk is about 0.02
cases per year in the central tendency.
In other words, the regulatory option
reduces 0.22 cases per year in the
central tendency.
For the non-cancer risks, the analysis
shows that the 99th percentile baseline
exposure level is less than the reference
dose, using central tendency
assumptions. The population risk
estimates show 2000 people, in the
central tendency scenario, who are
exposed to non-cancer risk above the
threshold.
There are a number of limitations to
the groundwater pathway analysis. The
timeframe to which these benefits are
attributable begins 30 years following
promulgation of the rule. The analysis
does not account for any existing
regulations which would mitigate risks
from groundwater (e.g., Clean Water
Act). In addition, one of the
wastestreams which contributes a large
proportion of the groundwater
population risk is made up primarily of
PCBs, which are not expected to migrate
any appreciable distance in
groundwater. The DAF used in the
analysis was calculated based on
drinking wells being within one mile of
the facility, and was not adjusted to
accord with the population estimates
used in the analysis which are based on
a two-mile distance. The DAF
distribution is not constituent-specific
and accounts only for homogeneous
flow situations.
iv. Results—Air Pathway
This section provides results for the
air pathway, for the baseline and post-
regulatory scenarios.
It should be noted that the high end
scenario models hypothetical receptors.
Approximately 26 of the 35 modeled
facilities (74 percent) have individual
cancer risks exceeding 10~6 for the high
end scenario in the baseline. For the
high end scenario, the non-cancer risk
ratio exceeds one at one facility.
In the post-regulatory scenario,
individual cancer risk is lowered
considerably, indicating that at most of
the facilities risk is driven by TC
constituents. In the high end scenario,
eight facility(s) have risks exceeding
10 ~6. Doses of all non-carcinogens are
well below reference doses.
For the population risk estimates, the
Agency determined that the central
tendency incremental benefits are
approximately 0.037. For the
incremental benefits of today's rule, the
Agency performed a sensitivity analysis,
described in the RIA background
document, which examines the risk
implications of changing volatilization
rates under different assumptions of
landfill cover and frequency of waste
placement.
There are a number of limitations to
the air pathway analysis. Facilities
which were modeled in the analysis
were assumed to continue to dispose of
treated waste on-site, which, for some
facilities, may not be the case. In
addition, due to limitations in the
model employed, wastes were assumed
to be disposed of only one time per year.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted
and is included in the RIA Background
Document, which examines the effect
on the emissions rate from this
assumption. Finally, only wastestreams
with all the necessary information were
analyzed. This limitation could have the
effect of either under- or overestimating
the risks from the air pathway.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., when
an agency publishes a notice of
rulemaking, for a rule that will have a
significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities, the agency
must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that considers the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e.: small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions).
Under the Agency's Revised Guidelines
for Implementing The Regulatory
Flexibility Act, dated May 4,1992, the
Agency committed to considering
regulatory alternatives in rulemakings
when there were any economic impacts
estimated on any small entities.
Previous guidance required regulatory
alternatives to be examined only when
significant economic effects were
estimated on a substantial number of
small entities.
In assessing the regulatory approach
for dealing with small entities in today's
final rule, for both surface disposal of
wastes and underground injection
control, the Agency considered two
factors. First, data on potentially
affected small entities are unavailable.
Second, due to the statutory
requirements of the RCRA LDR program,
no legal avenues exist for the Agency to
provide relief from the LDR's for small
entities. The only relief available for
small entities is the existing small
quantity generator provisions and
conditionally exempt small quantity
generator exemptions found in 40 CFR
262.11-12, 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
was unable to frame a series of small
entity options from which to select the
lowest cost approach; rather, the Agency
was legally bound to regulate the land
disposal of the hazardous wastes
covered in today's rule without regard
to the size of the entity being regulated.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this rule have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and have been assigned control number
2050-0085. This rule will reduce the
average reporting burden an estimated
0.75 hours per response, due to
decreased paperwork requirements.
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; EPA;
401 M St., S.W. (Mail Code 2138);
Washington, DC 20460; and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 148
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Hazardous waste, Reporting and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48041
recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
40 CFR Part 260
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous waste.
40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 264
Hazardous waste, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 265
Hazardous waste, Packaging and
containers.
I
40 CFR Part 266
Hazardous waste, 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: July 29,1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 14S—HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 148
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 3004, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901, et seq.
2. Section 148.17 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (b) as (d),
redesignating paragraph (c) as (e), and
by adding paragraphs (b) and (c) to read
as follows:
§ 148.17 Waste specific prohibitions;
newly listed wastes.
*****
(b) Effective December 19,1994 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.
(c) Effective September 19,1995 the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.23 as
D001 (High TOG Subcategory as
specified at 40 CFR 268.40), and in 40
CFR 261.24 as EPA Hazardous waste
numbers D012, D013, D014, D015,
D016, and D017 are prohibited from
underground injection.
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
3. The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921-
6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939,
and 6974.
4. In § 260.30, the introductory text
and paragraph (b) are revised to read as
follows:
§ 260.30 Variances from classification as a
solid waste.
In accordance with the standards and
criteria in § 260.31 and the procedures
in § 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 § 260.31, the introductory text of
both paragraph (a) and (b), is revised to
read as follows:
§ 260.31 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,
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 which 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:
*****
6. In § 260.32, the introductory text is
revised to read as follows:
§ 260.32 Variance to be classified as a
boiler.
In accordance with the standards and
criteria in § 260.10 (definition of
"boiler"), and the procedures in
§ 260.33, the Administrator may
determine on a case-by-case basis that
certain enclosed devices using
controlled flame combustion are boilers,
even though they do not otherwise meet
the definition of boiler contained in
§ 260.10, after considering the following
criteria:
*****
7. § 260.33 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 260.33 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 § 260.31 or
§260.32.
(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).
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
8. The authority citation for Part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, and 6938.
9. Section 261.2 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(l)(iii) to read as
follows:
§ 261.2 Definition of solid waste.
*****
{e)* * *
(1)* * *
(iii) Returned to the original process
from which they are generated, without
first being reclaimed or land disposed.
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
-------
48042 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
secondary process, the materials must
be managed such that there is no
placement on the land.
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
10. The authority citation for Part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
and 6925.
11. In § 264.1, paragraph (g)(6) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 264.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
*****
(g) * * *
(6) The owner or operator of an
elementary neutralization unit or a
wastewater treatment unit as defined in
§ 260.10 of this chapter, provided that if
the owner or operator is diluting
hazardous ignitable (D001) wastes (other
than the D001 High TOG Subcategory
defined in § 268.40 of this chapter,
Table Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Wastes), or reactive (D003)
waste, to remove the characteristic
before land disposal, the owner/operator
must comply with the requirements set
outin§264.17(b).
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
12. The authority citation for part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
6925, 6935, and 6936.
13. In § 265.1, paragraph (c)(10) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 265.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
*****
(c) * * *
(10) The owner or operator of an
elementary neutralization unit or a
wastewater treatment unit as defined in
§ 260.10 of this chapter, provided that if
the owner or operator is diluting
hazardous ignitable (D001) wastes (other
than the D001 High TOC Subcategory
defined in § 268.40 of this chapter,
Table Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Wastes), or reactive (D003)
waste, to remove the characteristic
before land disposal, the owner/operator
must comply with the requirements set
outin§265.17(b).
PART 266—STANDARDS FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC
TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
14. The authority citation for part 266
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
and 6934.
Subpart C—Recyclable Materials Used
in a Manner Constituting Disposal
15. In § 266.23, paragraph (a) is
revised to read as follows:
§ 266.23 Standards applicable to users of
materials that are used in a manner that
constitutes disposal.
(a) Owners or operators of facilities
that use recyclable materials in a
manner that constitutes disposal are
regulated under all applicable
provisions of subparts A through N of
parts 124, 264, 265, 268, and 270 of this
chapter and the notification requirement
under section 3010 of RCRA. (These
requirements do not apply to products
which contain these recyclable
materials under the provisions of
§ 266.20(b) of this chapter.)
Subpart H—Hazardous Waste Burned
in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
16. In § 266.100, the introductory text
in paragraphs (c)(l), (c)(3), (c)(3)(i), and
(c)(3)(ii); and paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) are
revised to read as follows:
§266.100 Applicability
*****
(c) * * *
(1) To be exempt from §§ 266.102
through 266.111, an owner or operator
of a metal recovery furnace or mercury
recovery furnace, must comply with the
following requirements, except that an
owner or operator of a lead or a nickel-
chromium recovery furnace, or a metal
recovery furnace that burns baghouse
bags used to capture metallic dusts
emitted by steel manufacturing, must
comply with the requirements of
paragraph (c)(3) of this section:
*****
(3) To be exempt from §§ 266.102
through 266.111, an owner or operator
of a lead or nickel-chromium or mercury
recovery furnace, or a metal recovery
furnace that burns baghouse bags used
to capture metallic dusts emitted by
steel manufacturing, must provide a
one-time written notice to the Director
identifying each hazardous waste
burned and specifying whether the
owner or operator claims an exemption
for each waste under this paragraph or
paragraph (c)(l) of this section. The
owner or operator must comply with the
requirements of paragraph (c)(l) of this
section for those wastes claimed to be
exempt under that paragraph and must
comply with the requirements below for
those wastes claimed to be exempt
under this paragraph (c)(3).
(i) The hazardous wastes listed in
appendices XI, XII, and XIII, part 266,
and baghouse bags used to capture
metallic dusts emitted by steel
manufacturing are exempt from the
requirements of paragraph (c)(l) of this
section, provided that:
(A) A waste listed in appendix IX of
this part must contain recoverable levels
of lead, a waste listed in appendix XII
of this part must contain recoverable
levels of nickel or chromium, a waste
listed in appendix XIII of this part must
contain recoverable levels of mercury
and contain less than 500 ppm of 40
CFR part 261, appendix VIII organic
constituents, and baghouse bags used to
capture metallic dusts emitted by steel
manufacturing must contain recoverable
levels of metal; and
*****
(ii) The Director may decide on a
case-by-case basis that the toxic organic
constituents in a material listed in
appendix XI, XII, or XIII of this part that
contains a total concentration of more
than 500 ppm toxic organic compounds
listed in appendix VIII, part 261 of this
chapter, may pose a hazard to human
health and the environment when
burned in a metal recovery furnace
exempt from the requirements of this
subpart. In that situation, after adequate
notice and opportunity for comment,
the metal recovery furnace will become
subject to the requirements of this
subpart when burning that material. In
making the hazard determination, the
Director will consider the following
factors:
*****
Appendix XIII to Part 266 [Added]
17. Appendix XIII is added to read as
follows:
Appendix XrH to Part 266—Mercury Bearing
Wastes That May Be Processed in Exempt
Mercury Recovery Units
These are exempt mercury-bearing
materials with less than 500 ppm of 40 CFR
Part 261, appendix VIII organic constituents
when generated by manufacturers or users of
mercury or mercury products.
1. Activated carbon
2. Decomposer graphite
3. Wood
4. Paper
5. Protective clothing
6. Sweepings
7. Respiratory cartridge filters
8. Cleanup articles
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48043
9. Plastic bags and other contaminated
containers
10. Laboratory and process control samples
11. K106 and other wastewater treatment
plant sludge and filter cake
12. Mercury cell sump and tank sludge
13. Mercury cell process solids
14. Recoverable levels or mercury contained
in soil
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
18. The authority citation for Part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
and 6924.
Subpart A—General
19. In § 268.1, paragraphs (c)(3)(ii),
(e)(4), and (e)(5) are revised, and
paragraph (c)(3)(iii) is added, to read as
follows:
§ 268.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
*****
(c) * * •
(3) * * *
(ii) Do not exhibit any prohibited
characteristic of hazardous waste at the
point of injection; and
(iii) If at the point of generation the
injected wastes include D001 High TOG
subcategory wastes or D012-D017
pesticide wastes that are prohibited
under § 148.17(c) of this chapter, those
wastes have been treated to meet the
treatment standards of § 268.40 before
injection.
*****
(e) * * «
(4) De minimis losses to wastewater
treatment systems of commercial
chemical product or chemical
intermediates that are ignitable (DOOl),
corrosive (D002), or are organic
constituents that exhibit the
characteristic of toxicity (D012-D043),
and that contain underlying hazardous
constituents as defined in § 268.2(i), are
not considered to be prohibited wastes.
De minimis is defined as losses from
normal material handling operations
(e.g. spills from the unloading or
transfer of materials from bins or other
containers, leaks from pipes, valves or
other devices used to transfer materials);
minor leaks of process equipment,
storage tanks or containers; leaks from
well-maintained pump packings and
seals; sample purgings; and relief device
discharges; discharges from safety
showers and rinsing and cleaning of
personal safety equipment; and rinsate
from empty containers or from
containers that are rendered empty by
that rinsing; or
(5) Land disposal prohibitions for
hazardous characteristic wastes do not
apply to laboratory wastes displaying
the characteristic of ignitability (DOOl),
corrosivity (D002), or organic toxicity
(D012—D043), 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
headwords does not exceed one per
cent, or provided that the laboratory
wastes' combined annualized average
concentration does not exceed one part
per million in the facility's headwords.
20. In § 268.2, paragraphs (g) and (i)
are revised to read as follows:
§ 268.2 Definitions applicable in this part
*****
(g) Debris means solid material
exceeding a 60 mm particle size that is
intended for disposal and that is: A
manufactured object; or plant or animal
matter; or natural geologic material.
However, the following materials are
not debris: Any material for which a
specific treatment standard is provided
in Subpart D, Part 268, namely lead acid
batteries, cadmium batteries, and
radioactive lead solids; Process
residuals such as smelter slag and
residues from the treatment of waste,
wastewater, sludges, or air emission
residues; and Intact containers of
hazardous waste that are not ruptured
and that retain at least 75% of their
original volume. A mixture of debris
that has not been treated to the
standards provided by § 268.45 and
other material is subject to regulation as
debris if the mixture is comprised
primarily of debris, by volume, based on
visual inspection.
*****
(i) Underlying hazardous constituent
means any constituent listed in
§ 268.48, Table UTS—Universal
Treatment Standards, except zinc,
which can reasonably be expected to be
present at the point of generation of the
hazardous waste, at a concentration
above the constituent-specific UTS
treatment standard.
21. Section 268.7 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a) and (b)(4)(ii),
and by adding paragraph (b)(5)(iv) to
read as follows:
§ 268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeeping.
(a) Except as specified in § 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
§ 260.11 of this chapter), or use
knowledge of the waste, to determine if
the waste is restricted from land
disposal under this part. Except as
specified in § 268.32, if a generator's
waste exhibits one or more of the
characteristics set out at 40 CFR part
261, subpart C, 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 the
characteristic of ignitability (DOOl) (and
is not in the High TOC Ignitable Liquids
Subcategory or is not treated by CMBST
or RORGS of § 268.42, Table 1), or the
characteristic of corrosivity (D002), and
is prohibited under § 268.37; and/or the
characteristic of organic toxicity (D012-
D043), and is prohibited under § 268.38,
the generator must determine the
underlying hazardous constituents (as
defined in § 268.2, in the DOOl, D002, or
D012-D043 wastes.
(1) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part and the waste does not meet the
applicable treatment standards set forth
in Subpart D of this part or exceeds the
applicable prohibition levels set forth in
§ 268.32 or RCRA section 3004(d), with
each shipment of waste the generator
must notify the treatment or storage
facility in writing of the appropriate
treatment standards set forth in Subpart
D of this part and any applicable
prohibition levels set forth in § 268.32
or RCRA section 3004(d). The notice
must include the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The waste constituents that the
treater will monitor, if monitoring will
not include all regulated constituents,
for wastes F001-F005, F039, DOOl,
D002, and D012-D043. Generators must
also include whether the waste is a
nonwastewater or wastewater (as
defined in § 268.2(d) and (f), and
indicate the subcategory of the waste
(such as "D003 reactive cyanide"), if
applicable;
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste;
(iv) For hazardous debris when using
the alternative treatment technologies
provided by § 268.45:
(A) The contaminants subject to
treatment, as described in § 268.45(b);
and
(B) An indication that these
contaminants are being treated to
comply with § 268.45.
-------
48044 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
(v) For hazardous debris when using
the treatment standards for the
contaminating waste(s) in § 268.40: the
requirements described in paragraphs
(a)(l) (i), (ii), (iii), and (vi) of this
section.
(2) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
Part, and determines that the waste can
be land disposed without further
treatment, with each shipment of waste
he must submit, to the treatment,
storage, or land disposal facility, a
notice and a certification stating that the
waste meets the applicable treatment
standards set forth in subpart D of this
part and the applicable prohibition
levels set forth in § 268.32 or RCRA
section 3004(d). Generators of
hazardous debris that is excluded from
the definition of hazardous waste under
§ 261.3(e)(2) of this chapter (i.e., debris
that the Director has determined does
not contain hazardous waste), however,
are not subject to these notification and
certification requirements.
(i) The notice must include the
following information:
(A) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(B) The waste constituents that the
treater will monitor, if monitoring will
not include all regulated constituents,
for wastes F001-F005, F039, D001,
D002, and D012-D043. Generators must
also include whether the waste is a
nonwastewater or wastewater (as
defined in § 268.2 (d) and (f)), and
indicate the subcategory of the waste
(such as "D003 reactive cyanide"), if
applicable;
(C) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste;
(D) Waste analysis data, where
available.
(ii) The certification must be signed
by an authorized representative and
must state the following:
I certify under penalty of law that I
personally have examined and am familiar
with the waste through analysis and testing
or through knowledge of the waste to support
this certification that the waste complies
with the treatment standards specified in 40
CFR Part 268 Subpart D and all applicable
prohibitions set forth in 40 CFR 268.32 or
RCRA section 3004(d). I believe that the
information I submitted is true, accurate and
complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including the possibility of a
fine and imprisonment.
(3) If a generator's waste is subject to
an exemption from a prohibition on the
type of land disposal method utilized
for the waste (such as, but not limited
to, a case-by-case extension under
§ 268.5, an exemption under § 268.6, or
a nationwide capacity variance under
subpart C of this part), with each
shipment of waste he must submit a
notice to the facility receiving his waste
stating that the waste is not prohibited
from land disposal. The notice must
include the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The waste constituents that the
treater will monitor, if monitoring will
not include all regulated constituents,
for wastes F001-F005, F039, D001,
D002, and D012-D043. Generators must
also include whether the waste is a
nonwastewater or wastewater (as
defined in § 268.2 (d) and (f)), and
indicate the subcategory of the waste
(such as "D003 reactive cyanide"), if
applicable;
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste;
(iv) Waste analysis data, where
available;
(v) For hazardous debris when using
the alternative treatment technologies
provided by § 268.45:
(A) The contaminants subject to
treatment, as described in § 268.45(b);
and
(B) An indication that these
contaminants are being treated to
comply with § 268.45.
(vi) For hazardous debris when using
the treatment standards for the
contaminating waste(s) in § 268.40: the
requirements described in paragraphs
(a)(l) (i), (ii), (iii), and (vi) of this
section.
(4) If a generator is managing
prohibited waste in tanks, containers, or
containment buildings regulated under
40 CFR 262.34, and is treating such
waste in such tanks, containers, or
containment buildings to meet
applicable treatment standards under
subpart D of this part, the generator
must develop and follow a written
waste analysis plan which describes the
procedures the generator will carry out
to comply with the treatment standards.
(Generators treating hazardous debris
under the alternative treatment
standards of Table 1, § 268.45, however,
are not subject to these waste analysis
requirements.) The plan must be kept on
site in the generator's records, and the
following requirements must be met:
(i) The waste analysis plan must be
based on a detailed chemical and
physical analysis of a representative
sample of the prohibited waste(s) being
treated, and contain all information
necessary to treat the waste(s) in
accordance with the requirements of
this Part, including the selected testing
frequency.
(ii) Such plan must be filed with the
EPA Regional Administrator (or his
designated representative) or State
authorized to implement Part 268
requirements a minimum of 30 days
prior to the treatment activity, with
delivery verified.
(iii) Wastes shipped off-site pursuant
to this paragraph must comply with the
notification requirements of
§268.7(a)(2).
(5) If a generator determines whether
the waste is restricted based solely on
his knowledge of the waste, all
supporting data used to make this
determination must be retained on-site
in the generator's files. If a generator
determines whether the waste is
restricted based on testing this waste or
an extract developed using the test
method described in Appendix I of this
part, all waste analysis data must be
retained on-site in the generator's files.
(6) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste that is
excluded from the definition of
hazardous or solid waste or exempt
from Subtitle C regulation, under 40
.CFR 261.2 through 261.6 subsequent to
the point of generation, he must place
a one-time notice stating such
generation, subsequent exclusion from
the definition of hazardous or solid
waste or exemption from RCRA Subtitle
C regulation, and the disposition of the
waste, in the facility's file.
(7) Generators must retain on-site a
copy of all notices, certifications,
demonstrations, waste analysis data,
and other documentation produced
pursuant to this section for at least five
years from the date that the waste that
is the subject of such documentation
was last sent to on-site or off-site
treatment, storage, or disposal. The five
year record retention period is
automatically extended during the
course of any unresolved enforcement
action regarding the regulated activity or
as requested by the Administrator. The
requirements of this paragraph apply to
solid wastes even when the hazardous
characteristic is removed prior to
disposal, or when the waste is excluded
from the definition of hazardous or solid
waste under 40 CFR 261.2 through
261.6, or exempted from RCRA Subtitle
C regulation, subsequent to the point of
generation.
(8) If a generator is managing a lab
pack waste and wishes to use the
alternative treatment standard under
§ 268.42(c), with each shipment of waste
the generator must submit a notice to
the treatment facility in accordance with
paragraph (a)(l) of this section, except
that underlying hazardous constituents
need not be determined. The generator
must also comply with the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) of this
section and must submit the following
certification, which must be signed by
an authorized representative:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48045
I certify under penalty of law that I
personally have examined and am familiar
with the waste and that the lab pack contains
only wastes which have not been excluded
under appendix IV to 40 CFR part 268 or
solid wastes not subject to regulation under
40 CFR part 261.1 am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including the possibility of fine
or imprisonment.
(9) [Reserved]
(10) Small quantity generators with
tolling agreements pursuant to 40 CFR
262.20(e) must comply with the
applicable notification and certification
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section for the initial shipment of the
waste subject to the agreement. Such
generators must retain on-site a copy of
the notification and certification,
together with the tolling agreement, for
at least three years after termination or
expiration of the agreement. The three-
year record retention period is
automatically extended during the
course of any unresolved enforcement
action regarding the regulated activity or
as requested by the Administrator.
fof* * *
4) * * *
(ii) The waste constituents to be
monitored, if monitoring will not
Include all regulated constituents, for
wastes F001-F005, F039, D001, D002,
and D012-D043. Generators must also
include whether the waste is a
nonwastewater or wastewater (as
defined in § 268.2 (d) and (f), and
indicate the subcategory of the waste
(such as D003 reactive cyanide), if
applicable.
*****
(5) * * *
(iv) For characteristic wastes D001,
D002, and D012-D043 that are: subject
to the treatment standards in § 268.40
(other than those expressed as a
required method of treatment); that are
reasonably expected to contain
underlying hazardous constituents as
defined in §268.2(i); are treated on-site
to remove the hazardous characteristic;
and are then sent off-site for treatment
of underlying hazardous constituents,
the certification must state the
following:
I certify under penalty of law that the
waste has been treated in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR 268.40 to remove
the hazardous characteristic. This
dccharacterizcd waste contains underlying
hazardous constituents that require further
treatment to meet universal treatment
standards. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment.
*****
22. In §268.9, paragraph (a), (d)(l)(i),
and (d)(l)(ii) are revised, (d)(l)(iii) is
removed and (d)(2) (i) and (ii) are added
to read as follows:
§ 268.9 Special rules regarding wastes that
exhibit a characteristic.
(a) The initial generator of a solid
waste must determine each EPA
Hazardous Waste Number (waste code)
applicable to the waste in order to
determine the applicable treatment
standards under subpart D of this part.
For purposes of part 268, the waste will
carry the waste code for any applicable
listing under 40 CFR part 261, subpart
D. In addition, the waste will carry one
or more of the waste codes under 40
CFR part 261, subpart C, where the
waste exhibits a characteristic, except in
the case when the treatment standard
for the waste code listed in 40 CFR part
261, subpart D operates in lieu of the
treatment standard for the waste code
under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, as
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section. If the generator determines that
his waste displays the characteristic of
ignitability (D001) (and is not in the
High TOG Ignitable Liquids Subcategory
or is not treated by CMBST, or RORGS),
or the waste code listed in 40 CFR part
261, subpart D operates in lieu of the
treatment standard for the waste code
under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C, as
specified in paragraph (b) of this
section. If the generator determines that
his waste displays the characteristic of
ignitability (D001) (and is not in the
High TOG Ignitable Liquids Subcategory
or is not treated by CMBST, or RORGS),
or the characteristic of corrosivity
(D002), and is prohibited under
§ 268.37; or that his waste displays the
characteristic of toxicity (D012-D043),
and is prohibited under § 268.38, the
generator must determine the
underlying hazardous constituents (as
defined in § 268.2), in the D001, D002,
or D012-D043 wastes.
*****
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Name and address of the RCRA
Subtitle D facility receiving the waste
shipment; and
(ii) A description of the waste as
initially generated, including the
applicable EPA Hazardous Waste
Number(s), treatability group(s), and
underlying hazardous constituents (as
defined in § 268.2(i) in D001 and D002
wastes prohibited under § 268.37, or
D012-D043 wastes under § 268.38.
(2) * * *
(i) If treatment removes the
characteristic but does not treat
underlying hazardous constituents, then
the certification found in § 268.7
(b)(5)(v) apply.
(ii) [Reserved]
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land
Disposal
23. In subpart C, § 268.38 is added to
read as follows:
§268.38 Waste specific prohibitions—
newly identified organic toxicity
characteristic wastes and newly listed coke
by-product and chlorotoluene production
wastes.
(a) Effective December 19,1994, 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 land disposal. In addition, debris
contaminated with EPA Hazardous
Waste numbers F037, F038, K107-K112,
K117, K118, K123-K126, K131, K132,
K136, U328, U353, U359, and soil and
debris contaminated with D012-D043,
K141-K145, and K147-K151 are
prohibited from land disposal. The
following wastes that are specified in 40
CFR 261.24, Table 1 as EPA Hazardous
Waste numbers: D012, D013, D014,
D015, D016, D017, D018, D019, D020,
D021, D022, D023, D024, D025, D026,
D027, D028, D029, D030, D031, D032,
D033, D034, D035, D036, D037, D038,
D039, D040, D041, D042, D043 that are
not radioactive, or that are managed in
systems other than those whose
discharge is regulated under the Clean
Water Act (CWA), or that are zero
dischargers that do not engage in CWA-
equivalent treatment before ultimate
land disposal, or that are injected in
Class I deep wells regulated under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), are
prohibited from land disposal. CWA-
equivalent treatment means biological
treatment for organics, alkaline
chlorination or ferrous sulfate
precipitation for cyanide, precipitation/
sedimentation for metals, reduction of
hexavalent chromium, or other
treatment technology that can be
demonstrated to perform equally or
better than these technologies.
(b) On September 19,1996,
radioactive wastes that are mixed with
D018-D043 that are managed in systems
other than those whose discharge is
regulated under the Clean Water Act
(CWA), or that inject in Class I deep
wells regulated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), or that are zero
dischargers that engage in CWA-
equivalent treatment before ultimate
land disposal, are prohibited from land
disposal. CWA-equivalent treatment
means biological treatment for organics,
alkaline chlorination or ferrous sulfate
precipitation for cyanide, precipitation/
sedimentation for metals, reduction of
hexavalent chromium, or other
treatment technology that can be
-------
48046 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
demonstrated to perform equally or
greater than these technologies.
Radioactive wastes mixed with K141-
K145, and K147-K151 are also
prohibited from land disposal. In
addition, soil and debris contaminated
with these radioactive mixed wastes are
prohibited from land disposal.
(c) Between December 19,1994 and
September 19,1996, the wastes
included in paragraphs (b) of this
section may be disposed in a landfill or
surface impoundment, only if such unit
is in compliance with the requirements
specified in § 268.5(h)(2) of this Part.
(d) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b), and (c) of this section do not
apply if:
(1) The wastes meet the applicable
treatment standards specified in Subpart
D of this part;
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 268.6, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by the
petition;
(3) The wastes meet the applicable
alternate treatment standards
established pursuant to a petition
granted under § 268.44;
(4) Persons have been granted an
extension to the effective date of a
prohibition pursuant to § 268.5, with
respect to these wastes covered by the
extension.
(e) To determine whether a hazardous
waste identified in this section exceeds
the applicable treatment standards
specified in § 268.40, the initial
generator must test a 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 levels, the waste is
prohibited from land disposal, and all
requirements of part 268 are applicable,
except as otherwise specified.
Subpart D—Treatment Standards
24. Section 268.40 is revised to read
as follows:
§268.40 Applicability of Treatment
Standards.
(a) A waste identified in the table
"Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Wastes" 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 treatment
standard requirements:
(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"), which are
described in detail in § 268.42, Table
1—Technology Codes and Description
of Technology-Based Standards.
(b) For wastewaters, compliance with
concentration level standards is based
on maximums for any one day, except
for D004 through D011 wastes for which
the previously promulgated treatment
standards based on grab samples remain
in effect. For all nonwastewaters,
compliance with concentration level
standards is based on grab sampling. For
wastes covered by the waste extract
standards, the test Method 1311, the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure found in "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods", EPA Publication
SW-846, as incorporated by reference in
§ 260.11, must be used to measure
compliance. An exception is made for
D004 and D008, for which either of two
test methods may be used: Method
1311, or Method 1310, the Extraction
Procedure Toxicity Test. For wastes
covered by a technology standard, the
wastes may be land disposed after being
treated using that specified technology
or an equivalent treatment technology
approved by the Administrator under
the procedures set forth in § 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.
(d) Notwithstanding the prohibitions
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, treatment and disposal facilities
may demonstrate (and certify pursuant
to 40 CFR 268.7(b)(5)) compliance with
the treatment standards for organic
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 O, 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 (d)(l) of this section to treat
the organic constituents; and
(3) The treatment or disposal facility
may demonstrate compliance with
organic constituents if good-faith
analytical efforts achieve detection
limits for the regulated organic
constituents that do not exceed the
treatment standards specified in this
section by an order of magnitude.
(e) For characteristic wastes (D001,
D002, and D012-D043 that are subject to
treatment standards in the following
table "Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Wastes," all underlying
hazardous constituents (as defined in
§ 268.2(i)) must meet Universal
Treatment Standards, found in § 268.48,
Table UTS, prior to land disposal.
(f) The treatment standards for F001-
F005 nonwastewater constituents
carbon disulfide, cyclohexanone, and/or
methanol apply to wastes which contain
only one, two, or three of these
constituents. Compliance is measured
for these constituents in the waste
extract from test Method 1311, the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure found in "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods", EPA Publication
SW-846, as incorporated by reference in
§ 260.11. If the waste contains any of
these three constituents along with any
of the other 25 constituents found in
F001-F005, then compliance with
treatment standards for carbon
disulfide, cyclohexanone, and/or
methanol are not required.
Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Wastes
Note: The treatment standards that
heretofore appeared in tables in §§ 268.41,
268.42, and 268.43 of this part have been
consolidated into the table "Treatment
Standards for Hazardous Wastes" in this
section.
BILLING CODE 6560-60-P
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48047
S
ASTEWATf
i
1
3
I
1
S
$
I
tn
§
U
1
3
o
a
.'•
^1
f!
if,
Jj
ft
e ca
0 •
S
1
1
j
I
o
U
|
1
j
u
•
I
¥
5
Is
0 U
IO t.
i §
n
u
i
-8
CO m
SB
2 °
c o
•D e
Is
O
$
m
3
u °
O c
t!
Igrvttble Characlemtic Waatei, except (or the J281.21
SubcJtegoiy. thai tie muugcd m non-CWA/ mrvCWA
1 SOWA lyilcmi
§
3
1
1
j
" <
if
li
Ijratible CharaclKiilic Wallet, except lor Ihe 1261,2
Subcategoiy, thai ale managed m CWA/CWA-equivilen
•yatemt
t:
S; or CMBS
o
§
z
2
CC
U
lasad on 40
uc cwbon.
nly.l
rltgtiTOC Igralablo Characteristic Liquids Subcalegory 1
231.21(1)11) • Graater than or aqual to 10% total orgar
(Note: This subcategory corvsntB ol no nwaite waters o
DEACT
268.48 sl4
""
•j
< °
UJ *l
;
I
i
t
3
u
j
Corrosive Characteristic Wastes that a*« managsd in nc
•qulvalant/non- Class 1 SDWA •ystems.
i
o
CJ
Q
I-
U
O
z
z
.VA, CWA-
CorroaivB Characteristic Wastes that are managed in C'
equivalent, or Class I SDWA systems.
X
^
z
-Sr
&
1
__
§
Dcessing of I
Radioactive high level wastes generated during the repr
3 C
88
o o
a a
t
X
z
CO
o
TT
5
i
i
:
i
we"
So
a o
8" 8"
o o
to a
t
i
z
*?
0)
O
r-
E
•i
m
o
a
X
z
O)
ci
o
P
I Cadmiui
l—
5
z
Jj
o
g
o
£
1
1
X
z
CM
O)
s
1
1
z
to
ri
I
i
i
^
(N
en
Cl
00
1
)
z
N
C
1
DEACT
z
£
CO
O4
e
o
|
•o
1
tr
i
a
DEACT
Z
S
1
m
c*
CO
c
1
s
i
j
<3
|
2
a.
1—
(,
C
Z
2<
^
£
$
m
s
c
o
1
1
I
o
1
I
U)
u
|
j
"•
>
U
a
1
o
q
CO
0
•u-
Arsenic
,.,.
•- (
I;
acteriBtic of
Wutes that exhibit, or ire expected to exhibit, the char
s
3
mgyi TCLP
q
ui
S
CN
CO
2
£
|
•3 M
1 S
«
Arsenic;
nonwasl
!
'
i
. .
mg/l TCLP
o
o
o
o
{*)
en
o
1
^-d
•- n
2 S
o|
1 *
Waatee that exhibit, or are expected to exhibit, the char
(or bariurn baaed on the extraction procedure (EP) in SVI
ft
3
-------
48048 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
f?
5
NONWAS
(/)
ir
i"
1
<
•?
UJ
Z
o
u
in
3
HAZARD
n
D
£
£
«tt
Hi
S!-
0 -5
a
fl
if
S S
\\
3s
3
Z
In
o
1
I
E
o
"|
1
"5
V
i
c
1
E
o
S
i
s
5
"5>
E
q
o
a>
6
5
r~+
\
1
U
Wastes that exhibit, or are expected to exhibit, the characteristic of toxicity
for cadmium baaed on the extraction procedure (EP) in SW846 Method
1310.
(O
o
2
X
£
z
tn
n
?
o
5*
E
o
Cadmium Containing Batteries Subcategr
(Note: This subcategory consists of no n^-aste waters only.)
a
o
S
o
ui
0
in
n
6
*r
2
t
1
Wattes that exhibit, or ire expected to exhibit, the characteristic of toxicity
for chromium based on the extraction procedure (EP) in SW846 Method
1310.
§
o
F
o
in
O
U)
T
e>
^r
"8
•j
£
01
0
in
I
N
OS
3
i
1
d for nonv
s
J*
1
°
To
II
Waste* that exhibit, or «r* expected to exhibit, the characteristic of toxicity
for lead bwed on the extraction procedure lEPI in SW846 Method 1310.
i
Q
UJ
tc
Z
•7
at
|
Lead Acid Batteries Subcategory (Note: This standard only applies to lead
ecid batteries that are identified a* RCRA hazardous wastes and that are not
excluded elsewhere from regulation under the land disposal restrictions of
40 CFR 268 or exempted'under other EPA regulations (see 40 CFR
266.80).).
(Note: This subcategory consists of nonwastewatere only.)
o
cc
z
7*
at
I
Rsdiosctivs Lssd Solids Subcategory (Note: these lead solids include, but
ate not limited to, all forms of lead shielding and other elemental forms of
lead. These lead solids do not include tteatment residuals such as hydroxide
sludget, other wastewater treatment residuals, or incinerator ashes that can
undergo conventional pozzolanic stablization, nor do they include organo-
load materials that can be incinerated and stablized as ash.l.
(Note: This subcategory consists of nonwastewaters only.)
Q
S
0
o
(E
LLJ
*
(O
J^
1
e
s
Nonwastewaters that exhibit, or are expected to exhibit, the characteristic
of toxicity for mercury based on the extraction procedure (EPI in SW846
Method 1310; and contain greater than or equal to 260 mgftg total mercury
that alto contain oiganics and are not incinerator res'tduss.
(Hiqh Mercury-Organic Subcategorvl
oi
5
*
(0
P^
n
r-
a
Nonwastewaters that exhibit, or are expected to exhibit, the characteristic
of toxicity for mercury based on the extraction procedure (EP) in SW846
Method 1310; and contain greater than or equal to 260 mg/kg total mercury
that that are inorganic, including incinerator residues and residues from
RMERC.
(Hiqh Mercury-Inorganic Subcategory}
o
i—
E
S
o"
z
(-,
5
i
Nonwastewaters that exhibit, or are expec- J to exhibit, the characteristic
of toxicity for mercury based on the extraction procedure (EP} in SW846
Method 1310; and contain less than 260 mg/kg total mercury.
(Low Mercury Subcategory}
<
2
01
O
CD
O)
OJ
r*.
i;
G
«
i
S
S
Z
at
n
t->
3
s
S
Elemental mercury, contaminated with radioactive materials.
(Note: This subcategory consists of nonwastewaters only.)
o
(C
2
Z
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48049
i
i—
i
5
s
|
S
a
1
a*
n m mg;%g*
'mod TCIP';
ill
|ii
6 *• C
|1
j:
1
S
i
s
z
c
3
1
1
Q
1
|
c
[ J
t
Hi
O
702-40-2
~
i
^
WMIM that exhrtxi, or aro expected to exhitxt, Uw cnaiactemuc of tow
for aelemum bwed on the extraction procedure (EPJ MI SWB46 Method
1310.
o
0
o
u
t-
t
°.
in
9
Ul
140-22-4
fN,
|
a- .
Wastes that exhibit, ot are expected » exhibll, the dunctwntic of lex!
fot silvet based on Ihe extraction ptocedute (EPI in SW846 Method 131
S
O
\
s
6"
8
m
I
CVC
1
Cl
1
CO
1
-S
c
o
3
i
0
3
1
1
„
o
a
•
0
C-) *
— o
0?
{
Z
U
5
a"
5
Endrin aide
>
i
t
i °
4 O
z
u
z
o
z
m
tr
2
op
alprw-BHC
-*
i
CO
-------
48050 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
en
i-
o
z
(A
H
5
z
LLI
J-
C/l
z
o
u
c
n
CC
r
r
o
LU
c
I
"3$
It
Is
* -a
Concent
unless note
or Tec
11
c at
1 ^
S «
S ,2
a 5
a
E
z
w
o
0
i
z
c
j
i
3
i
t
I
I
.5
0
O
3
•o
O
— r
•a
i
CD
and meet S
d
o>
o-Cresol
Wastes that are TC for o-Cresol based on the TCLP in SW846 Method 131 1
and that are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equivalent/non-class 1 SDWA
CO
3
a
— r
.
i
CO
CM
1
^
c>
f
n
s
|
u
s
?
m-Cresol
(difficult to
Wastes that are TC (or m-Cresol based on the TCLP in SW846 Method
131 1 and that are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equivalent/non-class I
i
• — r
„
;
s
09
<". ai
U*) CO
and meet
^
d
in
f
o
i
£
E
o
!
.a
p-Cresol
(difficult to
Wastes that are TC for p-Cre«ol based on the TCLP in SW846 Method 1311
and that are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equivalent/non-class I SDWA
LN
O
a
-S
1
03
^ co'
and meet
CO
0
CO
CO
a
s
l!
* 8
5 «
SI
11
^ E
li
Wastes that are TC lor Cresoto (Totall based on the TCLP in SW848 Method
1 31 1 and that ate managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equivalenUnon-Class I
s
0
— r
.
•o
c
i
to
°- 00
co co
and meet
O
0
o"
CO
T
0
|l
1 o
p-Dichlorob
(1,4-Dichlo
Wastes that are TC for p-DichJoroberuene based on tho TCLP in SW848
Method 1311 and that are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equivalent/non-
o
a
•D
1
09
o 2
(d to
and meet
M
o
M
CO
?
o
i
£
1.2-Dichlo
Wastes that a«e TC lor 1,2-Dichloroethane based on the TCLP in SW848
Method 131 1 and that are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equivalent/non-
OAM l SDWA svstems onlv.
3
a
•a
1
03
CO (O
and meet
in
3
o
If)
1
«
o
1
Wastes that are TC for 1.1-Dichloroethylena based on the TCLP in SW846
Method 131 1 and that are managed in non-CWA/non-CWA equivalent/norv
3
a
M
I
CO
Sis
r- CO
and meat
c*
CO
0
3
^
£1
I
I
2,4-Dinitro
Wastes that are TC for 2,4-Dinitrotoluene baaed on the TCLP in SW846
Method 1311 and that ar« managed in non-CWA/non-CWA •quivalant/non-
riM« i anwA •vstems onlv.
o
Q
5
•"
CO
to •
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48051
w
e
*
'i
t,
i
K
2
o
U
§
I
o
<
s
it;
S c
fi-
ll;
°1
ft
C g*
i|
i *
i
5
1
c
i
3
t
i
f
1
|
l
s
|
1 1
• to
" •> 5
1 s
• I
1
&
o
o"
*?
in
09
03
Nitrobenzene
Wastes thai aro TC for Nmobenreo* based on ih« Tap in SW848 Method
1 31 1 and th4t are mwwged tn non-CWA/non-CWA e
o
a
•B
j
'i
CM
S
1
tn
o
0
01
(6
o
CO
CO
t"
.H
-------
48052 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rulesand Regulations
01
LU
1
H
<
5
O
Z
tc
31VM31S*
5
Z
en
z
o
o
tn
D
O
a
1
REGULATED
JL
1* *= ^
|i|
« 5 £
C n "~
a|-
"* »
f o
s "
If
c u
§0 |—
oS
s
"
1
1
o
1"
I
o
3
3
S
|
i
c
5
Q
s
i
o
O
S
q
to
09
§
d
95-50-1 |
o-Dichlorobenzene
C1
pi
d
CO
Ethyl acetate
0
o
d
100-41-4 |
Ethyl benzene
2
CM
d
60-29-7 1
}
0
CO
m*
78-B3-1 1
3
1
z
(0
in
67-56-1 |
g
£
O
P)
Oi
to
o
d
75-9-2 j
Methytene chloride
CO
PJ
CO
CM
d
78-93-3
Methyl ethyl ketone
pi
Tf
d
108-10-1
S
«
to
§
d
98-95-3
Nitrobenzene
to
0
d
110-86-1 !
I
q
S
o
d
127-18-4
|
I
<
;
H
O
O
CD
O
d
108-88-3
"t
1-
q
to
s
d
o
d
79-01-6
I Trichloroethylene
o
m
o
(M
q
d
75-69-4
ethane
I Trichtoromonofluorom
0
pi
n
d
1330-20-7
I
a
|
u
.1
Ixylenes-mixed isomer
(turn of o-, m-, and p-
CL
d
H
co
*T
CD
pi
75-15-0
I Carbon disulf ide
U
1
s
d
to
PI
d
108-94-1
S
O
u
S
in
d
CO
tn
CO
to
|
5 .. „
*- > 5
~ >n oi
li!
l!§
ill
II i
i;i
Mi
IP
in 5 &
0=0"
III
S s 1
£ 1 S
Z
u
ARBN; or
o
£
or CHOXD)
INCIN
X
o
1
O)
CO
en
1 2- Nitro propane
o
o
i
ana AS the only
li
2
I
I
I
8
g
|
|
in
o '
u.
Z
CJ
Z
u
Z
5
6"
Q
i
110-80-5
2-Ethoxyethanol
in
§*~
I
.Z
I
1
1
X
S
1
1
s
I
1 ~
O
£ S
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48053
1
I
I
1
•
I
5
f fa E * S
S g * ? S g
5 S * 6 "3
i § s i £S
! II ill
mill
lilsil
^
|
ji
s
J3
•f
i
&
s
*
r«-
g
cc
J 5
1 -
i!
n
§
o
u.
II
fl
I »
ll
(/) S
o
£
-------
48054 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday. September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
V)
cc
H
3
1
Z
z
U)
1
y
CONSTITl
M
C
Q
cc
ULATED HA
CC
- £
g =,0
ill
S l<-
d 8 °
ration in mg/l1;
inology Code*
H
\
U
o
E
c
1
Waste Description and Treatment/Regulatory Subcategory1
"S
1
o
en
5 7-1 2-S 1
t
|
o
a
1
CO
CO
d
in
I
<
t
'c
5
Quenching bath residues from oil balhs from metal heat treating operat
where cyanides are used in the process.
£
O
E
7440-43-9 1
'E
t
0
1
d
C4
7440-47-3 1
,«
'i
<.
0
m
57-12-5 |
S
i
o
0
CO
3
in
in
"i
2
c
g
<
t
0
a.
O
E
o
en
CO
o"
7439-92-1
"B
i
O
I-
E
o
m
to
pi
7440-02-0
z
O
o
o
7440-22-4
t
(7
£
Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot cleaning from metal heal tre
operationa.
£
a.
O
1
0
z
en
6
F
£
U
o_
U
"Si
E
CD
CO
O
r-
r-«
6
|2
E
E
u
o
en
in
CM
57-12-5
0
S
c
6
o
CO
CO
CO
d
57-12-5
1
1
E
S
c
U
D_
U
£
(O
o
O)
to
d
7439-92-1
"S
•^
0
E
o
u>
CO
CD
OJ
7440-02-0
1
*
n.
u
1
o
0
•z.
7440-22-4
5
«
Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from metal heat treating
operations where cyanides are used in the process.
CM
o
u_
o.
O
E
O
^
7440-47-3
—
t-
e
|
o
a
in
M
in
in
,2
S
•;
u
0
CO
CO
d
57-12-5
i
i
'E
o
W«t»w«t»r treatment iludgci from th« chemical eonvinion coating
•luminum txcopt from itrcortum phosphating in aluminum can washir
whon tuch phoiphating w an cxclusiv* con *rsion coating procasa.
m
o
§
d
000063
o
-
1
.<
9-
O
c
-lexachlorod
=
i
g
X
o
o
o"
CO
o
0
.
i
c
t
Hexachlorodi
—
—
c
X
o
o
d
000063
o
z
I
'x
6
c
i
1
—
~
8
i
d
in
o
0
•i
S
£
3entacNorod
_
n
a
c
a.
o
o
d
000063
o
-
$
o
1
2
etrachlorodib
<
§
o
o
d
000063
o
z
1
s
*
etrachlorodib
<
c
(j
^
CD
d
95-95-4
1
c
^
i.
£
u
1.
^
CO
o
d
88-06-2
I
5
|=
(0
•^
o
CO
o
d
58-90-2
cWoropheno
t
^
F.
1 LI I i!
Wastes (except wastewater and spent carbon from hydrogen chloride
purificationl from tha production or manufacturing use (as a reactant,
chemical intermediate, or component in a formulating process) of: (1)
tetrachlorophenol, or of intermediates used to produce their pesticide
derivatives, excluding wastes from the production of Hexachlorophen
highly purified 2,4,5-trtchlorophenol (F020); 121 pentachloro phenol, o
intermediates used to produce its derivatives (i.e., F021); (3) tetra-, p
or hexachlorobenzene* under alkaline conditions |i.e..-F022).
Wastes (except wastewater and spent carbon from hydrogen chtorid
purification) from the production of materials on equipment previously
for the production or manufacturing use (as a reactant, chemical
intermediate, or component in a formulating process) of: (1) tri- or
tetrachloro phenols, excluding wastes from equipment used only for t
production of Hexachlorophene from highly purified 2,4,5-trichloroph'
(F023); (2) tetra-, penta-, or hexachlorobenzenea under alkaline cond
(U., F026).
££g
o w £
SS
u. u.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48055
I
j
1
o
i
I
1
|
5
fill
jjfj
il^i
* 1 1 f 1
Q 5 1 I 1
r*
£
k. H
o S
II
1 i
11
II
E <
11
Ms,
lli
1
ifliflf
{fifii);
| 1 f | .| | .-£
1 ". ,E o S .9 1 -
IIIIIIll
^
£
-------
48056 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
i
t-
<
fc
^
z
o
z
(ft
cc
STEWATE
<
i
z
o
u
w
o
1
REGULATED
>s.
£ ^> w
c g >.
| 3 |
5 £ ""
8 8 i2
C " 0
"1
..
ft
.2 5
S|
1 £
O o
0 "
|
j
O
z
!
o
g>
IS
i
|
i
u
;
|
C
•1
'3
i
3
O
O
U
3
CO
CO
s
d
20-190
o
1
>ichloropropyl<
S
T
c
CO
CO
CM
d
op
'
t
re
1
4
1
n
in
O
d
CM
p".
ti
|
j
J
}
U
f-
1
to
d
oi
d
**"
Ti
t
t
i
c.
u
^
Ol
E
0
in
CO
o>
ci
o
i
p»
•
2
o
CD
O
d
56-23-S
irachloride
0
c
<
t
id aliphatic 1
«
1
|
"o
c
<
1
S
i
1
g
;
|
t
1
i
j
u
r
S
q
(O
to
q
d
»
pi.
E
c
S
u
E
o
•H
1 s.
I!
p- C
gl
O it
E J
*J
£ i
H
I !
: <
j> !
"si
ll
s i
ii
>
4
i
O
«J
(N
d
?
o
|
]
2
."
O
™
of chlorine
S
I
•
O
s
1
s
>
?
•- c
"ll
s •=
Ll!
o
i
!
J
"
O
**
6
o
U)
a
£
'
:
o
CO*
10
O
d
r*
CD
in
1
,
J
C
th« croduotlon
\
^
i
\
•
\
s
s
]
•
1
j
i
•
i
',
o
(O
(D
O
d
(O
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48057
\
1 WASTEWATERS
6
1
I
i
Q
£
O
fii
s r >
ill
I -
C D)
!
i
c
I
|
s
i
d
1 83-32-9
|
<
(
c
| 120-12-7
g
1
d
!
t Benzine
<
c
f 56-55-3
j
c
c
»
(N
i
j BonzoUJpyr&na
c
ee
t
£
biii|2-Ethv{hexyl| pT
EB
d
1 218-01-9
9
5
I
d
cc
1 Oi-n-butyl phthalate
d
T
6
a
| Ethylbenzene
= S " S"
IIIIII!
H^l^l
!!l!!^
= " « -S 2 TI A
!|5'i'i
fls |l
-
Ilflll
lill
-------
48058 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
(/)
cc
1
W
<
z.
W
cc
STEWATE
i
~z.
UJ
H
2
O
O
Ul
0
o
cc
<
r
Q
t—
-REGULA
f Q.
£ O W
lt>
S S i
S-B 1
§ If-
C *» 0
(3 «
E £
s J=
l£
5 5
I
o
0
1
c
E
E
o
>
8-
*
£
^
1,
f
|
4)
£
1
c
I
s
a
S
I
tj
S
£
i!
3
at
s
O
03
O
in
CD
1
1
1
a.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48059
! 1 |
; ~ u
S
I
Ji
II
illi
iV!)
I!
(g,h.i
&
s
•9
I
phthalat
I
-------
48060 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations^
(/)
cr
3
1
o
STE WATER
5
3)
t-
S
O
o
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48061
s
I
i
$
a
m
S
I?
II
5
s
I
•5
.81
I!
It
I
-------
48062 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
«
NWASTEWATEF
O
WASTEWATERS |
z
i-
fe
z
o
o
0
1
<
r
REGULATED
a.
5* u w
centration in mg;
noted as "mg/l 1
Technology Cod
S a s
u S
1
Concentration in mg/l';
or Technology Code4
i
«
o
u
i
z
Common
Subcategory1
o
1"
i
c
O
£
I
S
€
3
o
CO
CO
CM
d
o
o
•jj
~=
Q.
I
o
q
d
100-41-4 1
Ethyl benzene
o
Famphur
co
CD
O
d
206-44-0 1
Fluoranthene
5
en
in
o
d
86-73-7
Fluorene
CO
§
d
0.0012
IT
CO
Keptachlor
CO
§
d
CO
q
d
1024-57-3
1
X
o
o
d
118-74-1
1 Hexachlorobenzene
CO
uri
o
d
87-68-3
1 KexacNorobutadiene
CN"
r»-
tn
o
d
:
0
E
Hexachlorocyclopentadi<
o
o
d
| 0.000063
i
1
1
1
.S
•s
HxCDDs IAII Hcxachlorc
i
d
1 0.000063
^
1
«5
3
1
-5
HxCDFs (All Hexachlorc
o
CO
0
d
67-72-1
I Hexachloroethana
0
CO
tn
CO
o
d
r*
CO
CO
CO
•3
0
o
1
s
| 0.0055
193-39-5
s
ex
CO
CN
(0
en
d
CO
CO
1 lodomethane
0
CO
78-83-1
I Isobutyi alcohol
CO
s
o'
q
d
465-73-6
o
CN
O
d
120-58-1
J2
£
1
CO
d
§
d
143-50-8
I
CO
CN
o"
126-98-7
Methacrylonitnle
§
CO
CO
0
c
1
"
m
o
d
6
CO
I Methapynlane
a
d
in
CM
d
72-43-5
2
S
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48063
i-
i
w
e
s
>•
vt
S
COHSTI
s
g
§
I KOUUTED HA!
$*
^PS
£ fa *•
c • f
S S f
!!
1!
JS
1
!
1
I
in
C
1
tn
1 3'MethylchoUnihiene
u
O
o
*
4,4-Methykf.a M2-ch.oro.wiil
o
§
d
i
1
i
p
d
n
m
ee
o
£
s
o
S
to
| Mothyl fsobutyl kotona
d
to
to
6.
00
| Mathyl rnethacrylai*
o
d
n
CM
to
S
i
o
d
01
| Methyl parathion
0
d
1 91-20-3
f
d
CO
GO
.1
j
f
0
d
100-01-6
p-Nnfoani!ina
°
c
98-95-3
1
i
c
S
at
o>
1
r
I
d
100-02-7
p-Nitrophenol
o
d
in
CO
in
J
.S
•o
z
z
c
62-75-9
J
1
Z
r-.
C
CO
o>
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamina
c
d
10595-95-6
.i
S.
I
d
CN
CO
Ul
N-Nitrosomorpholine
i
c
0
i
N-Nitrosopiperidina
i
0
d
930-55-2
N-Nitroaopyrrolidine
c
0
56-38-2
c
.2
1
0.
O
o
d
1336-36-3
C
o
13
Total PCB a
(sum of atl PCB iaomers, or ill
c
0
608-93-5 |
I
CO
o
o.
o
o
z
?
'X
•o
a
I
I
1
1
I
a
o
S.
tl
o
o
o
o
'
„. .
s
s
PeCDFs (All Pentachlorodibora
c
d
82-68-8 |
i
s
1
i
I
r-'
CO
C
d
87-B6-5 |
Pentachloro phenol
-------
48064 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday,. September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
CC
t-
1
\
o
z
(0
WASTEWATEF
t-
Z
tu
CO
O
o
CO
o
§
REGULATED HAZy
irL
PI
III
s I £
Is5
1
"'" »
ncentralton in r
Technology Cc
(3 5
CAS1 Number
Z
c
o
E
CJ
latory Subcategory'
I
|
i
.i
i
I
£
1
£
S
s
09
O
d
62-44-2 1
S
cn
0
d
CD
0
tf»
CD
Phenanthrene
en
en
o
d
108-95-2 1
Q.
8
d
298-02-2 1
I
in
o
d
en
CD
•5
(X
en
s
d
23950-58-5
Pronamide
r-
to
o
d
| 129-00-0
S
£.
a.
0
d
to
I
s
3
a.
i
d
1 94-59-7
CO
CM
d
| 93-72-1
I Silvex (2,4,5-TPl
CM
f-
O*
| 93-76-5
CM"
m
o
d
cn
0)
o
£
0.000063
Z
___
»
o
7
a
6
I TCDDs (All Tetrachtorodibero
o
0.000063
z
1
3
o
z
1
u.
O
O
4-
m
o
d
| 630-20-6
|
o
*
C4
O
d
| 79-34-6
I
CM
CM
CD
O
d
CD
CM
I Tetrachloroethylene
"
O
8
d
6
cn
|
i
s
^
1
to
tn
CM
O
CD
O
d
| 108-88-3
1 Toluene
0.0095
CM
in
cn
i
CO
1 Toxaphene
cn
CD
d
in
—
1 Bromoform (Tribromomethan
tn
tn
o
d
| 120-82-1
S
i
d
CD
in
| 1,1,1-Tnchloroethane
i
d
| 79-00-5
I 1 .1 ,2-Ttichloroethane
tn
o
d
| 79-01-6
| Trichloroethyleno
o
CM
q
d
| 75-69-4
I Trichloro mono fluoro methane
CO
d
en
en
1
f
1
in
CO
q
d
| 88-06-2
I 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48065
II
S S
IS
* a
if
11
6 S
ii
s
J
I a
ir
11
-------
48066 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
oz
I
IU
1-
in
1
z
o
z
tf)
(C
i
1
t-
z
w
i
CJ
~>
0
|
Q
t—
<
Z)
o
IL
I »f
^ o *
S e >;
S S °
1
o» •§
= i
c S,
11
Concentr
or Techi
J
0
1
c
£
E
' Subcategory1
5
1)
i
c
5-
5
Waste Oe:
o
•o
o
O
£
3
0
o
d
1330-20-7
I
S
i
u
s
s
J!
u H
E -n
'tenes-mixed iso
jm of o-, m-, an
X S.
0.
i1
n
d
en
(D
d
7439-92-1 1
"S
2
Q.
"en
E
CD
GO
d
S
7440-47-3 |
iromium (Total)
u
chrome yellow and 1
am the production of i
at
i
Wastewater treatm
i
I
PI
d
(D
(O
d
7439-02-1
*
orange pigments.
i1
(O
CD
d
r-
CN
7440-47-3 |
o
t
E
(J
molybdato orange 1
om the production of i
i
N
i
Wastewater treatm
o
o
E
0
d
at
to
d
7439-92-1 |
°
OS
'5.
o_
E
m.
o
CN
|
[vomium (Total)
u
zinc yellow pigments.
om the production of
o
en
1
Waetewatei- treatm
o
o
Q.
t
r*.
cn
d
en
(0
d
en
-1
Q.
f
CO
CO
d
r«.
CN
*?
6
hromium (Total)
0
1
chrome green
om the production of
J,
i
Wastewater treatm
i
CL
E
p>
d
en
CO
d
7439-92-1
pigments.
en
in
CN
57-12-5
yanides (Total)'
Q.
u
1
CD
CD
d
r*.
p>
1
r*.
hromium (Total]
1
chrome oxide green
om the production of
1
o
Wastewater treatm
CD
O
O
Q.
CJ
E
n
d
O)
CO
d
1
7439-92-1 i
•=
pigments (anhydroi
Q_
CJ
If
PI
I pigments (hydrated
Q.
1
S
d
CN
7440-47-3
hromium (Total]
iron blue pigments. \
"o
1
E
0
I
H
s
1 Wastewater treatrr
S
a.
d
1
r»
d
a
a
d
7430-82-1
o
01
CN
57-12-5
•5
I
TJ
O.
(J
£
CO
cq.
o
CN
7440-47-3
hromium (Total!
een pigments.
an of chrome oxide gr
1
I
J Oven residue from
ea
|
d
h-
px
d
en
CO
d
7439-92-1
o
CO
CD
O
d
CT
CO
CO
e
o
1
yde from ethylene.
oduction of acitiatdeh
a.
1
1
1
c
a
tn
o
o
0
CO
CO
0
d
67-66-3
Ihlorolorm
lyde from ethylene.
roductton of acetaldet
a.
1
E
m
1 Distillation side cul
o
o
0
'P.
75-05-8
1
1
(roductton of
water stripper in the f
1
1
E
1 Bottom atream fro
s
CO
d
107-13-1
tcrylonitrile
I acrylonitrile.
en
CN
en
I
en
j
o
d
71-43-2
§
0
en
^
57-12-5
I
°
CO
(0
75-05-8
z
*
oduction of acrylonitrile.
5.
1
_c
s
£
S
I
E
1 Bottom stream fro
p>
S
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48067
t
5
_
r*ni
)flu
olklfl
m benz
m (T
i
£
If
bottoms from the di
II
!•§
ll
i 2
S
s
-------
48068 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
a
t-
i
3
z
o
z
cc
1VM31S'
5
i-
z
i—
en
z
o
|
s
s
'•5
S
E
o
I f
i 5.
to
o
o
CO
o*
107-06-2
1,2-Dichloroethane
0
CO
r-
o
d
79-34-6
e
| 1,1,2,2-TetrachIoroethan
t
o
o
127-18-4
o
1
1
g
s
i
o
1
j
c
1
1
1
"o
1
15
0
"*
g
ll
!l
I S.
S
O
0
10
\r>
o
d
56-23-5
Cirbon tetrachlorido
O
CD
o
d
67-66-3
Chloroform
en
'440-36-0
Antimony
c
B
•i
i
|
i
g
i
i
s
c
.1
c
^
1
1
•*
CN
O
0
o
CO
o
d
108-88-3
Toluene
1
en
0
o
d
96-S6-2 |
i
E
e
_2
S
1
I
*J
5
|
1
E
^
H
3
g
O
1
|
S
M
S
M
O
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48069
5,
I
WASTE WA
REGUIATII
Phthalic anhydride
ackl)
£
S
illation li
thalene.
11
!
i
Ii
3 °
si
-------
48070 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
a
<
LL
l-
1
Z
o
z
(n
0-
S
,VM3j^
3
V-
z
i-
z
o
(J
s
0
§
5
s
REGULATED
0 Q.
fu
s: /
a» "-1
~ f t»
i s i
T
OS -o
O
If
C U
AS3 Number
U
2
z
c
U
>
I
I
1
6
H
1
c
.2
Waste Descrtpl
|
0
0
tc
co
0
d
67-66-3
e
"o
O
:ion of 1,1,
1
o
0.
c
Q.
I
I
1 Waste from the product
i
q
cc
CM
d
107-06-2
i
i
q
cc
in
0
d
75-35-4
1 1,1-Dichtoroethylene
q
CD
O
d
CO
in
in
1
1
o
2
O
d
o
q
1 Vinyl chloride
z
o
d
95-50-1
I o-Dichloroberueno
0
c
S
a.
•o
"b
o
I
ii
"~
11
1 Column bodies or heavy
0
o
z
o
en
q
d
106-46-7
I p-Dichlorobenzene
i
i
i
i
!
:
!
i
>
;
CD
ifi
in
s
d
87-68-3
.1
|
1
o
m
o
d
CO
|
|
o
en
z
1888-71-7
| Hexachloropropylene
0
*
608-93-5
J Pen tachloro benzene
q
•z.
o
CO
1 Pentachtoroethane
•t
in
O
o"
95-94-3
I
\ 1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenz<
O
to
o
d
CO
fi
CN
| Tetrachloroethylene
t
u
c
0
120-82-1 i
| 1 ,2,4-TricHorobenzene
j_
I
*
1
o
•*
M40-38-2
|
TJ
S
1
*. «nd c«co
V)
5
"o
c
.2
S
|
Q.
|
.E
•s
\ By-product ••!» gtrwriti
i
•r
0
d
1
s
| Hexachlorocyclopentidio:
chlord
O
d
o
CD
O
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48071
1
1
1
1
1
|=
I
i
§
*
s™
1
Concentration tn mg/kg*
urtoii rated *» "mgfl TCLP*;
of Technology Code
|!
c e»
l|
ii
I
5
a
Z
c
i
"?
I
>.
0
^B
DMCftpUon and Tieatmi
1
i
u
1
to
in
b
95-48-7
i
u
6
S
b
en
p»
i
|.
a
a
g
0
s
1
nvCreiol
(difficult to di:
(0
p-
b
it
ID
o
1
i
2
JC
I
•1
2
11
ii
CM
CO
Z
S3-70-3
s
Dibenz(a,h)an
n
1
b
o
o
j Fhjoramhene
pi
z
86-73-7
|
1
pi
i
en
en
|
lndenoll.2.3
CO
in
s
o
b
i
j
z
CO
tn
S
O
b
09
O
J)
CO
1
o.
«
(O
n
o
b
108-95-;
Q.
CM
CO
O
b
129-00-C
1
£
CN
(O
O
b
298-04- 4
Disulfoton
"o
I
z
•g
0
.g
c
I
c
.2
o
E
Still bottoms fr<
diaulfoton.
I
(M
£.
CO
O
o
298-02-:
1 Phorate
1
•s
c
.2
j
|
| Waetawatar tra
o
CO
CN
tn
b
CN
P)
1
f.
s
1
I
*O
C
o
3.
1
1
I1
i
o
1
O
CO
CO
o
b
95-50-1
I
1 o-Dichlorobe
1
1
s
'S
•s
1
1
distillation reaiduea from
1 Heavy ends or >
CM
1
O
00
o
CO
1
1
•1
;
o
b
*?
en
o>
S
i
5
|
5
CM
2
O
b
CN
CO
6
CN
o
1
| 1,2.4-Trichlc
J
O
b
120-83-:
8
| 2,4-DichIoro
Q
4
CN
"o
c
.2
H
1
j
5
1
9
CO
CN
1
2
O
b
187-6S-I
8
| 2,6-Dichloro,
r*
03
b
en
o>
"5
0
| 2.4.5-Trichk
-------
48072 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
en
tr
1-
s
r
en
<
Z
o
z
in
VASTEWATER!
>
Z
Z
8
1
tc
LATED HAZA
U
c
u* d o
|£ o
i at
| -g |
g I *-
0 .
3
-"" <•
"5i •§
centration in m
Technology Co
3 s
1
3
z
0)
O
immon Name
u
i
1
2
>
|
1
€
E
1
V
i
Waste Description
1
1
J
in
8
d
,
§
CO
CO
,
Q.
O
1
(0
2
0
PI
d
Ol
CO
in
irophenol
1
2,3,4,6-T(
J
en
S
d
•
CO
CO
CD
Q.
1
1
0
CO
CO
in
o
d
CO
p
en
s
|
|
i
1
§
0
0.000063
*
I
O
I
O
achlorodibenz
a
8
r
I
d
0.000063
*
I
3
s
TJ
5
1
1
8
I
o
O
d
0.000063
z
1
9
•n
Q.
6
lachlorodibenz
1
|
o
o
d
0.000035
Z
1
o
achlorodibenz
1
8
o
o
d
CO
CO
d
z
I
X
2
ti
9-
ichlorodlbenzo
1
1 TCDDsIA
i
d
0.000063
z
c
chlorodlbenzo
•q
| TCDFslA1
o
a
DEACT
Z
I
"o
*n
S
0
a.
|
f
I
|
E
1
E
0
1,
iter treatment slud
!9.
s >
If
5
O
CJ
o
H-
O
Q
<
,
I
£
f?
'c
S
8
5
S
,^.
I
rbon from the treal
s
I
CO
If)
o
a.
o
t-
*-.
d
o»
d
V
3
I
C
.2
£
5
?
|
! .
E ^
II
E ?
o c
I?
iter treatment skid
1 lead-buftd initial
Wwtewj
loading o
CO
o
t-
u
<
O
DEACT
Z
<
m
s
water form TNT o|
1
^
O
0
d
CM
T
Benzene
t
3
?
;g
|
|
|
a
6
S
1
1 «r flotation (DAF
o
CD
O
ft
i
d
to
6
in
|
1
|
CO
CO
Of
d
r-
£
phthalate
1
| bi>(2-Ethy
ri
at
O
d
en
CO
CM
O
CO
CM
O
d
CM
XT
CO
O
1
O
o
in
O
d
*
6
o
I
|
UJ
<
in
O
d
^
CO
I
1
u.
<£>
en
in
a
o*
CO
S
g
1 Naphthale
(O
en
in
O
o"
CO
CO
1
1
I
I
to
o>
CO
o
d
•?
CO
o
0.
2
r^
O
d
o
en
c
1
o
0
§
d
CO
I
1 Toluene
o
CO
CM
co
d
6
6
en
CO
_
1
I
omers
nd p-xylene c<
.2 **
I Xylenes-n
I (sum of o
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48073
B
I
thyth«
§
i
z
=
ll
1 s"
I 4'
&
2
-------
48074 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
S
I
g
\
tn
cc
TEWATI
(n
1
1
O
O
W
o
Q
CC
M
I
Q
{if
REGULA
•*L
.s- f i
| a j
| s i
Ji5
^v
o
c S,
1 »
C u
J*
.S1 Number
«*
u
S
z
c
E
E
o
O
Jubeategory1
f3
_
«
i
c
.S
a.
|
0
J
u
s
s
s
2
en
o
o
83-32-9
Acenaphthene
C)
n
o
o"
120-12-7
Anthracene
pi
o
d
56-55-3 I
Benz( a) anthracene
o
6
PI
s
1
CO
n
i
d
50-32-8
S
a.
«
CO
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48075
NONWASTEWATERS
tn
5
5
1
S
1
1
U
i
s
»-
|
§
ConcentiAtMn tn mg/fcg*
unteM no ltd M "rogfl TCLP";
or Technology Cod«
U
II
13
J *
1
I
1
|
C
§
I
J
I
p
|
a
5
|
£
3
a
in
5
o
o
i
Q
I
S
o
o
d
CD
o
in
CO
1
(D
0)
I
in
e>
s
2
o
d
o
CO
s
"1
0
CJ
f4
S
6
6
I
O
|
M X*
S a
II
Xyl«nei-mixed i
(turn of o*, m-.
| 0.86 mg/l TCLP
r»
04
r,
6
S
t Chromium (Ton
0
o>
tn
CM
in
CM
fc
| Cynnidai (Total
z
CQ
(O
d
CM
cn
1
5,0 mg/l TCLP
2
o
8
6
"o
Z
O
•q-
d
CM
1
5
.2
S
1
I
8
E
o
o
E
2
i
1
O
0
-ff
ri
S
§
00
m
5
o
o
OJ
0
d
w
6
CM
|
Q.
Z
«
CO
0
d
o>
I
o
01
—
in
fc
I
1
5
a.
z
p
6
1 Antimony
•5
S
M
"o
a.
>•
1
I
E
^
a
•o
c
'g
1.
o
Q.
H-
O
in
Z
N
a
6
'5
!
a.
-
en
d
a>
to
d
0,
o
T
o
| Cadmium
| 0.86 mg/l TCLP
r*.
04
P>
6
—
1 Chromium (Tot,
| 0.37 mg/ITCLP
at
-------
48076 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
cc
t-
<
s
1
z
i
STEWATERS |
5
t-
z
ONSTIT
U
CO
o
Q
S
IM
I
Q
O
|||
c E >•
S S g
2 *** £
s s *~
Si*
1
itration tn mg/l1;
ihnology Code4
I-
u °
|
E
ul
U
1
Z
1
S
f
Waste Description and Treatment/Regulatory Subc
1
s
z
3
Q.
J-
E
CO
O9
0*
^
6
Chromium (Totdl)
litiea within 1
0
Spent pickle liquor generated by steel finishing operations o
i
i—
E
n
o
CD
o
7439-92-1 |
5
the iron and steel industry (SIC Codes 331 and 332).
z
CO
7440-02-0 1
|
t-
I1
CD
O
CD
to
O
7440-43-9 |
Cadmium
f
CJ
Emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting,
n
•
chlorine
fastawater*
a 1
K071 (Brine purification muds from the msrcury cell procei
production, where separately prepurified brine is not used)
that are residues from RMERC.
|
Q.
u
t-
E
o
o
CO
I
Mercury
il
c c
K071 [Brine purification muds from the mercury cell procei
production, where separately prepurified brine is not used.)
that are not residues from RMERC,
z
o
7439-97-6
I
o
S
| All K071 wastewaters.
u>
in
o
6
56-23-5
o
s
U
diaphragm
1
1 Chlorinated hydrocarbon waste from the purification step a
n
o
2
CD
O
d
(O
1 Chloroform
cell process ustng graphite anodes tn chlorine production.
s
tn
in
o
o
67-72-1
S
1
o>
|
z
to
o"
•4-
CD
i
1 Cyclohexanone
"
(M
2
22-39-4
E
Z
i
1
s
II
Diphenylamine (di
diphenylnitrosami
"
(M
O)
0*
86-30-6
j_
1
2
±;
••s
I
.11
1 Diphenylnitrosami
from diphenylamll
~
CD
to
O
o
98-95-3
5
to
CD
8
o
108-95-2
S
I
^
01
e
o
irt
S
7440-02-0
1
i
0
r-
f
q
ui
^
7440-3B-2
1
of veterinary
| .
Wastewater treatment sludges generated during tho produ
Pharmaceuticals from arsenic or orgono-arsanic compound
^
0
°
0
71-43-2
m
"o
1
«
1 Distillation or fracttonation column bottoms from the prodc
is
o
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48077
i
G
t-
1
i
s
u
1
i
3
H
I
|||
1 M
I'i
£ >
1 *"
0 S
S
|
§
1
£
§
V
I
1
«
1
I
r»
u
C
d
„
8
0
1
1
U
«
C
d
ri
5
O
6
E
c
d
6
in
in
en
1
1
o
o
c
d
„
0
I
1
a.
in
in
c
d
4-
|
o
1
o
O
d
n
*~
0
\
m
C
Total PCBt
(cum of all PCB not
u
c
d
in
CD
0
1
u
c
c
4
en
I
a
s
1,2,4,5-Tetrachloio
o
o*
s
§
I
a
c
s
1 Acetone
I1
a ^
||
o £
; J
f c
5 ^
" 1
i !
jl
I1
0
c
b
to
£
S
1
1
1
1
f
's
i
j
a
d
CD
S
1
| bis(2-Ethylhexyl) ph
to
in
6
O)
Naphthalene
a
to
c
d
in
CO
CO
o)
Nit/o benzene
Iff
ffi
• o -
^| i
-------
48078 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
-
VATERS
UJ
t-
cn
I
Z
o
z
STEWATERS |
<
5
H
Z
UJ
ONSTIT
o
o
X
<
X
Q
REGULATE
Q.
It!
c *M |*
S " g
E ~ I!
S S >-
aj-
it ration in mg/l1;
:hnology Code*
c *3
0 °
i
w
o
z
g
CJ
i.
u
15
1
|
B1
5
c
1
I
1
0
1
o
O
U
£
0
o
§
d
CO
CO
I
1
"5
0
<6
0
d
in
8
1
o
I
q
OJ
o
d
to
o
CO
1
0
E
09
CO
d
r-
CM
6
•«*•
1
O
2
o
O>
,
to
m
o
U
0
1—
I
r*
n
d
a>
CO
r*-
,
ri
en
q
d
CO
<6
0)
1
|
1
0
d
CO
1
£
5
i
d
en
9
03
O
co"
CO
(O
o
d
o
to
o
(N
S
1
o
3
a:
pi
in
i
d
in
O)
CO
CO
01
S
1 lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrer
0
d
9
(O
1
I
q
•to'
r-.
9
d
CO
6
CM
6
CT
I
1 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroel
O
CO*
0
d
CO
CO
Cf>
1
1 1,1,2,2-TetrachIoroet
o
<£>
CO
0
d
CD
I Tetrachloroethylene
i
f
s
r
^
^
"o
1
1
i
E
O
|
S
c
o
1
5
in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48079
h
1
V
§
ASTEWAl
5
5.
U
M
I
REGULATED HAZA
:!
S E
I 5
||l
If
I*
If
X H*
J-
CAS'Nurobw
Common Nam«
•^
f
a
|
f
f
i
i
2
1
2
3
S
C
S
d
| 78-00-5
o
CM
1
«
<
C
I
-"£
C
S
d
Ul
j
|
e
^r
•B
|
1
3
|
1
«ndt from th« haavy enda
rotthana.
if 4
S-s
*
O
I
d
r*
o
j
D.
O
tr
c
o"
1 630-20-6
|
o
|
CM
O
Ul
a
d
e
"g
1
£
rinttor
1
•o
j
TI tuippor dwcharge from t
rdarw.
||
£•5
i
(1
C
o
0.0012
CO
,
c
0
«J
a
d
1 1024-57-3
leptachlor epoxida
j.
<
»
i
c
?
X
]
c
c
o
CO
1
!
i
X
s
^
c
1
I
E
(•d proc«H wutowilar frc
j
i
CD
|
0
CM
d
i
!,4-Dichloropharvoxv»cetic acid
CM
*?
*•
C
s
!
lad wattawatar from tha pi
<•
3
o»
§
c
c
c
n
0.00006
z
1
1
1
a
X
^
X
C
c
c
C")
0.00006
s
1
IxCDFt (All H«xachlorodit»nzo
j_
c
c
c
0.00006
'
,
f
1
1
I
3
i
8
c
c
c
in
0.00003
*
|
1
3
Q.
C
C
O
0.00006
*
I
,s
TJ
a.
O
'•S
o
a
o
*~
i
2
]
c
!
C
t
5
c
c
a.
j_
*
1
c
0
o
-------
48080 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
(ft
or
S
i
1
•z
o
•z.
cc
1
(—
z
D
I
O
o
en
D
O
N
a
H
REGULA
a a.
tf ~ o
s " S
III
5 2 hi
O jo
3
EO
2 "S
u «
1 s
,SJ Number
S
E
Z
e
|
o
U
_
'Regulatory Subcategoi
r organo-arsenic com
I
5
iticals froi
g
t
of veterinary
CM
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48081
t
{
5
£
5
i
7
V
a
H
|
S
S
i
U
g
g
1
g
1
§
-4"
If,,
Ii
i 1 '
2 ^
o S
n
if
il
\ "3
o °
1
S
1
I
1
I
J
s
1
a.
t-
1
o
M
6
|
r»
**
£•
S
I
K10S (w«tcw*icr treatment sludge from lha mercury ceM process in
chlorine production] nonwestewaters ttut eomain ten (run 260 mg/kg
mercury that a/o residues from RMERC.
Q.
U
i
U)
§***
^
?
G)
e>
o
**
J
s
1 Other K10S nonwMiewater* that contain .»*• Uiw. 260 mg/kg total
mercury tnd art not residues from RMERC.
!
c
c
c
e
***
>•
s
1 All K108 wastawatais.
\
fb CARBN; or
AHBH
Sa
o .
5:
5 i
2
~
<
z
1 Column bottoms from product separallon from the production of 1,1-
dtmamylhydfaiine IUDMHI from carboxylic acid hydrajidcs.
3
Z
U
z
fb CARBN; ar
ARBN
X "
o a
5§
O CO
s
~
2
z
X
Condsnied column overheads from product separation and condensed
reactor vent gases from the production of 1,1-dirnethyJhydrazine {UOM
from carboxylic «cid hydrazjdes.
3
Z
U
z
Ib CARBN; or
ARBN
x £
o \
o f
Z
O
z
<
z
/.
Spent filter cartridges from product purification from the production of
dimethylhydraiine (UDMH) from carboxylic acid hydrazides.
2
Z
o
z
o
Z
ll
£ <
Q «
1 o
5§
z
0
z
,
^
Condensed column overheads from intermodiate sopafation from the
production of 1,1-dimethylhydruine (UDMH) from carboxylic acid
hydraztdes.
o
c
PI
d
CM
S
J
s
c
a
^
N
•s
Product washwatera from the production of dinitrotoluene via nitration <
toluene
JI
i
u
°
0
c
(i
c
<0
fi
j
£
0
•£
Q
CO
CN
z
y
Ib CARBN; or
ARBN
Q"
X ;
II
o c
Z
U
z
z
z
Reaction by-product water from the drying column in the production of
toluenedlamine via hydrogenation of dinitroto!uene.
c*
s
ffi
U
z
U
z
CC
o
z
O)
U
<
z
9
Condensed liquid light ends from the purification of toluanediamine in th
production of toluenediamine via hydrogenation of dinitrotoluene.
2
Ol
S
O
z
U
z
Q
z
U
<
z
Vfcinali from the purification of tolu«nediamine in the production of
loruenQdlimine via hydrogenetion of dinitrotolune.
;
Q.
|
0
in
CO
en
pi
9
o
0
•*
1
Heavy ends from the purificition of toluenediamine in the production of
i tohjcnediamine via hvdroaenation of dir.ttrotQkj.irMi.
U)
j
;
<
z
1-
(/)
03
s
U
z
y
5
z
CD
or
2
Z
Z
fc
Organic condensate from the solvent recovery column in the production
toluene diisocyanale via phosgenation of toktenediarnir-e.
(O
.2
,1
d
?
1
1
m
«
£
Q
-Q
I
i Wesjewatsr from tha raactor vent gas scrubber in the production of
ethytone dibromide via brominatior. of ntharv.
£
C
CO
S
d
CO
CO
(O
E
^
g
1
c
°
e
«
C
1
c
if
.1
E
o
T
s
0
1
Ul
u.
^
d
en
]
E
o
o
I
C
0
JO
"£
"n
S
Spent absorbent solids from purification of ethytene dibromida in the
production of ethvlene dibromi-:« via bromiMttan af «th«n*
D
0
CO
(O
d
pi
(O
CO
(O
E
,2
0
1
•
(
°'
16-93-4 |
t
1
£
C
I
1
E
G
•n
I
-------
48082 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
if
cc
WASTEWATE
5
t
z
u
3
y
REGULATED HAZARE
S u v
1= °
S 01"
\ f |
H!
s i <-
5 5 5
U V
1
f 0
ncentration in
r Technology C
0 °
i
o
z
E
o
O
i,
«
s
1
t
1
^
|
c
.2
"a.
1
S
«
3
3
5
o
CD
or CHOXD fb
CARBNI
2
O
Z
z
z
Process wastewater (including supernates, filtrates, and washwaters) from
the production of ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid and its salts.
o
a
Q
o
m
or CHOXD fb
CARBN)
z
o
z
J
z
Reactor vent scrubber water from the production of
ethytenebisdtthiocarbamic acid and its salts.
z
*•
s
o
Q
O
03
or CHOXD fb
CARBNI
z
"
Z
z
Filtration, evaporation, and centrifugation solids from the production of
ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid and its salts.
w
Z
=
0
O
a
o
e
or CHOXD fb
CARBN)
z
o
"
z
2
Baghouse duit and floor tWMpings in milling and packaging operations from
the production or formulation of ethylsnabisdittuocarbamic acid and its salts.
d
at
n
CO
Methyl bromide (Bromomethane}
Wastew*t*f from the reactor and spent vulfuric acid from in* acid drysr
from the production of methyl bromide.
CT
d
at
n
op
Methyl bromide (Bromomo thane)
Spent absorbent and wastewater separator Bonds from the production of
methyl bromide.
vc
d
en
n
to
Methyl bromide {Bromomethane)
Still bottoms from the purification of ethylene dibromido in the production of
o
d
7-66-3
CO
Chloroform
I
>
3
C
)
;
!
i
I
I
i
j
I
>
CO
CM
O
d
CT
9
?
•5
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-Dibromo
0*
N
I
CD
Process residues from the recovery of coal tar, including, but not limited to.
at
m
o
d
m
in
in
1
1
coke by-products produced from coal. This listing does not include KOB7
CO
o
d
op
S
f
I
d
I
«
P
S
•o
Benzotblfruoranthene (difficult to
from benzo(lc)fluoranthene)
d
1
j.
3
••o
Benzo[k)fkioranthene (difficult to
from benzo(b)fluoranthene)
o>
m
o
d
at
9
S
in
in
O
d
m
6
S
a
1
a
Ui
1
0
O)
lndeno{1,2,3*cd)pyrene
d
tN
|
Tar storage tank residues from the production of coke from coa) or from the
CM
at
in
O
d
6-55-3
I
I
£
3
i
1
L
5
j
3
D
i
>
j
CD
O
d
0-32-B
a,
a
CD
CO
d
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48083
1
i
i
i
w
e
t-
1 WASTEWJ
3
s
z
o
u
1
§
I
7VH 031W103U
Pi
Is]
i 1 j
J|°
||
i *~
i
1
m
1
"l
«
i
i
i
£
1
I
1
I
5
s
a
3
fM
CO
in
tn
c
o
6
j
°
*i
r
tfi
i
o
n
o
|
2
••
o
5
I
*
|"jj
I j
S ?
}
*§ J
1 !
ii
& j
it
ii
e m
* S
1^2
i S
£ S
S °
s s
II
3
(
o
in
in
CO
Ul
1
s
"
1
|
j
.&
I
"5
|
*
C
I
c
CM
CO
6
tn
1
1
!
s
C9
O
O
a
a
f
s
V
2
molb)tluor>nlht
a
<
o"
n
1
s
i
|
o
ii
li
Si
|j
1 j
1 5
: ^
B £"
5 >
II
»
c
n
in
ta
to
ru(a)anthracan«
&
S
0*
S
S
U)
s
^5
1
e-
c
o
CO
§
CJ
«
CO
c
CT
6
>enz(a,h)inthrAcene
b
<
1
X
3
0
3
5
I
|
"3
8
|
j
i
|
s,
?
3
B
t
c
G
m
03
u>
i
*
1
n
a
c
0
CO
(N
S
in
"5
m
00
(O
o
CM
en
9
o
CM
^
1
~
a
izo(b)fkior«nth«na (difficult 1
tn benzo(Mftuoranthene)
ss
!
-------
48084 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
1
1
N
CC
s.
tn
|
I
g
i
<
S
c
<
5
1J
/I
5
z
o
z
CO
TEWATER
CO
1
5
a
4
X
c
H
S
L
i-g «
E E |
S "° £
o 2 o
O .«
..
ii
- i
1 1
1 s
I
1
C
C
J
y
c
i
o
u
>
1
f
!
J
1
5
^
e
&
S
I
!
|
S
as
(O*
d
207-08-9 1
i
§>
1
s
I -
•5 J
g S
^ s
s 1
a i
2 I
Ii
pi
1
o*
ta
o
CO
«
I
!
;
t,
CO
tn
tn
o
d
53-70-3 1
<
i
j
1
J
•|
o
ri
O.OOS5
tn
CD
n
n
a
i
i
j
p
t
*
\
pi
o
d
56-55-3 1
|
.1
-
i
a
i
"
d
SO-32-8 1
|
j
K
i
to
d
205-99-2
t
I
3
8 „
Is
1i
I ]
— j
11
o
to
o
207-08-9
1
,«
8
1?
S <
"js 1
% '•
= i
~~ j
S 1
s ~
m
»
s
d
218-01-9
g
i
i
t
CD
in
in
o
o"
53-70-3 j
i
i
j
J
*
^
p»
0.0055
193-39-5 1
i
;
\
,,
\
s
*
s
i
i
1
1
i
c
2
1
S
1-
E
O
J
1
CD
*
O
to
in
o
d
1 1 08-90-7 1
!
i
i
3
i
o
id
:
j
j 106-46-7
i
«
;
j
\
O
tn
tn
O
d
a
!
j
i
o
in
d
1 608-93-5
<
1
J
f
,
s
o
d
1 95-94-3
s
1
ewfcchlo
A
•a
(M
O
o
s
d
1 108-88-3
S
j
•j
l||
il|
Is -
i C * "•
1|!J
•I 1 fc 1
i • 55
| I | =
ilil
Illl
Ilil
fni
S " S •
111!
s
0
to
tn
o
d
| 56-23-5
«
1
•
>
i
O
to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48085
-------
48086 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
I
U)
3
o
WASTEWATERS |
z
z
0
o
noaavz>
X
o
REGULATE
„ O.
f >; |
\? S
Iff
Its
i
Concentration in mg/l1;
or Technology Code4
z
U)
U
„
z
c
1
1
ff
I
5
S1
1
s
1
|
I
o
3
5
z
Z
OX or CHOXD) fb CARBN; or 1
INCIN 1
1
'Ul
s
i
?
•s
i
e
CD
K
=
s
Thiophenol (Benze
•*
o
o.
|
O
i
cc
RMETt; or RTHRM |
1
c
CO
1
e
i
o.
Z
u
OX or CHOXD) fb CARBN; or 1
INCIN |
i
542-88-1 1
Dichloromethyl ether
1
1
(Bislchlorometh
1
i
o
O
in
O4
57-12-5
^
O
0
I WETOX;
s
o
u
CHOXD; WETOX; or INCIN
506-77-4
V
•a
a
U
<
•;
\
i
i
o"
p
c
z
i
TOX or CHOXD) Ib CARBN; or
INCIN
I
131-89-5
S
a
S
•f
2-CycIohexyl-4.6-dii
nitrophenol
to
I 2-Cyclohexyl-4,'
o
a.
o.
t-
1
q
:
7440-38-2
1
t
'2
Dlchlorophenyla
c
Q.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48087
.
V
u
1
t
I
WASTEVMTrfRS
fe
u
i
1
£
g
2
§
'Sa .
M
I'll'
S g H-
°1
•£•_
ConctfttMtion m mgJl
or Technology Code'
0.017
& H
<
|
£
I
1
1
r
*
O,
5 .
r «
o
th
* 5
O
CD '
« 0
* «
Anerac
Oisulfoion
jg
u
CARBN; or INCIN
297-97-2
I
1
}
i
a
1
?
10.0'DielhyI O-pyr
1
o
t- — h
yj Z t
S 5 §
O
i"
CAflBN: or INCIN
TOX or CHOXDI fb CAI
INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
$•
in „. „
T ? 5
1 I
? I
I a 1
r f f
i S 1
1-
w z
I i
o -
o
z
m
CARBN; or INCIN
TOX or CHOXD) fb CAf
INCIN
1
60-51-5
39196-18-4
I I
1 I
U
z
S
m
TOX or CHOXDI fb CAf
INCIN
i
122-09-8
;
I
_
S
I
1 1
o 5
(D O
** S
o
00
0.28
POX or CHOXDI fb CAR
INCIN
1
N
fl <
in
i
;
i
i <
r z c
o z
V O
- z
S
z
m
0.12
rOX or CHOXO) fb CAR
INCIN
i
in t"
! s
"* U)
[ 1
r J
•B
* 0
<
O
0}
to
?
a
a
i
A
O)
C
O
33213-6-5
: Endotulfan II
m n
d o
» 3
I 1
a
5 6
I H
—
<
.!
•j i
— i — r
0 Z
~. u
<= S
m
0.025
'OX or CHOXD) fb CARI
INCIN
I
1 I
S 5
Aziridino
1
AS fb NEUTR
INCIN
§
z
35
OX or CHOXDI fb CARI
INCIN
1
16964-48-8
640-19-7
E
o
I
i
S
I
i
5
| |
! I
i q
•z
O
- Z,
0
z
OX or CHOXDI fb CAR[
INCIN
h-
62-74-8 I
""3
|
o
1
s
s
o
3
u.
c
§
d
76-44-8 |
Heptachtor
I
9
I
-------
48088 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday. September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
in
VASTEWATI
z
o
z
tn
EWATER
S
1
5
H
U
C
0
*!
C
c.
c
r
c
t
L
u
a
l
fu o
^,3
1 «E 1 S S
2 S | 9 9
= ll ° °
5 g K
o n o
3
„" ,
Q) "S
It ? §
— £
^
1 !° I
i i i
o
i
c
o
E o
S"
I 1
o
f
a
>.
0
i
1
E
I
Waste Description and
o
5
5 0 0
1 S 8
U
z
u
i = 3
1
•» u> in
m O4 tN
V
1
Hexaethyl tetraphoap
Cyanides (Total)7
Cyanides (Amenable!
Isodrin
Hexaethyl tetraphosphate
Hydrogen cyanide
p M S
§00
0.0.0.
z
(J
5
^
o
a
5 5
X (J
u
5
|
—
624-83-9 1
i
liocyanic acid, ethyl
lioeyarec acid. «thyl e«ar
1!
s
UJ
Z
7439-97-6 1
Mercury
lo
i ""
i §
1 *
~ -
N '*
S E
11
S o
S 5
s 4
|1
POOS (mercury fulminatal non1
tn
RMERC
z
7339-97-6
Mercury
2
s!
H
•3 a
c •y
S £
•5 E
S c
| §
H
S o
S £
3 •£
P065 (mercury fulminate) non
residues or are residues from 1
Q.
o
h-
1
S
0
1
7439-97-6
Mercury
g
i
E
0
s
'g
1
I :
ii
s •=
II
P065 (mercury fulminate) non
Q.
(J
t-
f<
Z
tn
O
0
z c
7439-97-6
£
1
J
1
o
s
1
.1
O
•*
I
Si
« 3
J 3
i * "5
? o
P065 (mercury fulminate) non
contain IBM than 260 mg/kg i
o
o
<
j3
55
' P
3
X
o
1
16752-77-5
Mercury
Methomyl
2
i
5
AH P06S (mercury fulminate)
Methomyl
CO
11
u
X
o
1
fr-88-98
•a
Methyl parathion
l-Naphthyl-2-thioL
Methyl parathion
1 -Naphthyl-2-thiourea
o o
0. 0.
0.
o
_ <
en •
e i
0
in
CD
en
pi
| 7440-02-0
Z
| Nickel carbonyl
n
£
8 8
«. S
— d
in in
M P
in in
~-
1 ;
Nickel cyanide
o
0.
.,
Q.
u
r-
f
o
U)
CO
1 7440-02-0
•5
Z
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48089
i3
3?
1
M
I
I
&
TREATMENT
-
t
ll
l>
U
c
I
I
6
j
S
I
§
. o.
uj«uon m mgAg1
udM-mg/ITCl
1 S
u S
loneeouitwninrog/l1:
of Technology Code*
CAS1 Number
z
§
|
"^
I1
j
f
S
S
i
i
s
3
1
|
I
r s 3
i u u
! * S
i
>X or CHOXDI tb CARBN; or
INCIN
ADOAS
f.
I
u> n
4 S
" I
a
M
1 j
1 I
1 I
j
i ! 1
1 1 !
U) (O fx
i is
s
u
a s 2
•3 p
Q
X
o
u
0.02B
AOGAS
; CHflED; CARBN; BIODO; or
INCIN
§
0
X
u
•P 5 o
° S "
1 I s
.
. 1 L
| i 1
f f ,
i. z z :
^ i
I i 1
1 1 1
iii
CO *• N
00 0
0, 0. 0.
— 1 1 —
Z
" 0
N z
~
0.40
X or CHOXDI Ib CARBN; or
INCIN
CARBN: or INCIM
o
t-
i
s I s
"2s
s s s
B 1 j
1 1 I
1 ^ l
! I i
I 1 I
! Z 0
«,
s i
} f
1 f
I i
^ Ul
o o
0. 0.
1 1
— t t~
n c 01
I ?. 1
J jJ O
E
a:
RMETL; or RTHRM
< or CHOXDI Ib CARBN; or
INCIN
0
1
20816-12-0
145-73-3
„
I
§
-------
48Q90 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulation^
NWASTEWATERS
O
WASTEWATERS
I—
•D
t
tfl
0
U
=>
C
C
EC
r
c
t
i
:entration in mg/kgs
noted as "mg/l TCLP"
Technology Code
s 1s
Concentration in mg/l1;
or Technology Code*
AS1 Number
O
Common Name
£*
•9
I
1
.2
3.
Waste Descr
o
o
3
S
0
"
to
CO
d
57-12-5
!
|
J 0
s <•>
~ s
*~ o
in in
CM CM
in a
%
t c
-S
Potassium silver cyan
ro
o
Q.
o.
o
~ c
E c*
o
5 ;
d c
7440-22-4
1
U)
CMBST
o
Z
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARB
INCIN
4 «
5 o
nida (Propancnitnlo)
1 alcohol
" I-
i I
UJ Q.
'E
Ethyl cyanide (Proparv
Propargyl alcohol
5 o
u
k-
~ c
1 :
a
CJ
CO
d
7762-49-2 ]
1
Selenourea
0
Q.
8 °
-. to
". 08
*~ d
57-12-5 1
57-12-5
t ;
Silver cyanide
z
0.30 mg/l TCLP
d
7440-22-4
I
ft
XD; CHRED; 01 CMBS
o
X
o
5
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN; BIO
INCIN
26628-22-8
2
E
S
Sodium uide
0
a
s °
«. s
•~ d
57-1 2-S
57-12-5
I S
i I
u" o
Sodium cyanide
§
Q.
a.
C
H- •"
Z w 1=:
i i i
- o ,._
p
0
i,
o
Z
(WETOX or CHOXDl fb CAR
INCIN
CARBN; or INCIN
in
4 M
r^ CD
o
ne and aalts
nyldithiopyro phosphate
•5 S
i 1
s
1
Strychnine and talu
TetraethyldithiopyrOF
CO 0»
0. 0.
S
CMBST
XD; CHRED; or CMB
X
o
o
0
S
CARBN; or INCIN
CHOXD; CHRED; CARBN; Bl(
INCIN
7. •? "?
2 5 2
i S o,
t 2 S
hylpyrophotphate
tromathano
i S !
s
t i
I 1 1
!!!
o - «
RTHRM; or STABL
0.16 mg/l TCLP
_. (N
". CO
*• d
7440-28-0
7782-49-2
">.
^
E
TI (measured in wastev
m
1 I
Thallic oxide
n ^
RTHRM; or STABL
INCIN
o
z"
5 .
1.4
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CAP
INCIN
7440-28-0
79-19-6
»-
£
m (measured in wastev
micarbazide
.2 S
•« .2
Thallium (It aulfate
Thiosemicafbuide
in to
.0.0.
z
o
z
5
z
IIWETOX or CHOXDl Ib CAP
INCIN
6
£
J
i
15
Trichtoromethaneth
00
STABL
n
7440-62-2
~
c
s
'Ji
um (measured in wast
1
£
c
;
£
:
E
j
a
STABL
n
7440-62-2
•^
c
—
£
I
•o
e
3
c
1 Vanadium pentoxid
0
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19. 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48091
-------
48092 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
TEWATE
NONWAS
WASTEWATERS
5
i
8
C
CC
X
REGUtATED
-o>^
^- t— TJ
Iff
HI
JIB
i
Concentration in mg/l';
or Technology Code*
S1 Number
u
z
J
1
t
5
»-
?
c
1
|
.
u
S
3
z
ATETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN; o
INCIN
o>
§
CO
Benzenesutfonyl chloride
e
1
I
s
o
s
3
WETOX or CHOXDI Ib CARBN; o
INCIN
~
92-87-5 1
1
|S
&
§
,
CO
o
0
50-32-8 1
Benzo(a)pyrene
i
S
5
a
c
u
I
u
S
HOXD; CHRED; CARBN; BIOOQ;
INCIN
u
98-07-7 1
Benzotrichloride
otri chloride
1
CT
1
tN
•Chlorottho
i
e
£
q
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48093
s
3
1SVMN
i
V
i
5
1
u
S
|
S
4
g1 P "8
s£s
Hi
f i£
5 <•>
|f
g H-
0 *
i
3
i
|
i
1
f
5
i
1
"
c
O
o
o
1
1
s
j
1
!
i
|
u
in
i
z
-
CARBN; or
a
CHOXD)
INCIN
S
X
o
I
s
1
Chloromathyl rn
I
1
j
3
at
o
d
"
0
1
1
CO
r-
co
O
d
9
o
O
*~
I
*"
0
CD
O
d
8-88-3
*~
1
r>
ri
d
6
CM
I
O
5
S
8
lomert
and p-xyl
Xyl«nei-mixed
(turn of o-, m-.
o.
i
i
S
0
9
[^
s
if
d
CO
o-Cresol
S
0
a
o
in
o
V)
r*.
d '
I
-
m p-creso
£
m-Crosol
(difficult to dist
ui
d
Ifl
4-
o
_
m m-creso
nguith frc
p-Cresol
(difficult to diit
'
CO
CO
d
n
9-77-3
m
¥
a
s
esylic acid
sol concen
imers (C
and p-cre
Cresol-mixed is
(sum of o-, m-.
h-
CO
CARBN; or
£
CHOXDJ
INCIN
5
g
1
CO
6
CO
d
5
Crotonaldehyde
.e
|
c
O
c*>
S
m
U
CARBN; or
a
Q Z
P
O
5
§
1
CO
CO
CD
Cumena
I
3
ift
O
S
u
CARBN; or
£
II
O Z
I —
u
5
X
o
1
fN
CO
O
i
o
CO
in
S
Q
t
CC
d
at
O
§
g
1
U
Ul
O
a
Q.
U
r
in
r-
o
z
en
0
o
stand aid
It
Cyclohexanone;
nonwaatewateri
o
:
<
0
a
u>
•s
Cyclophoapham
.•i
a.
i
O
CD
-------
'48094 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
S
£
<
WASTEW
z
ISTEWATERS
3
f-
z
H
•z.
O
(J
U)
o
o
5
REGULATED
"gu „
f t '
c E' >•
1 s g
ill
g S H
3
intention in mg/l';
ichnology Code4
Is
CAS' Number
I
C
i
o
' Subcategory1 I
I
a
u
s
a
i
c
o
•1
I
1
1
o
V
z
o
z
s
CHOXDI fb CARBI
INCIN
X
£
1
20830-81-3
Daunomycin
.g
if
S
a
C)
o
Z>
s
d
3
d
o
in
C
"a
0
§
o
cc
c
CO
o
d
c*>
04
d
72-54-8 1
p,p'-DDD
CO
o
d
0.0039
789-02-6 |
"o.
6
V-
O
a
1
o
d
0.0039
50-29-3 1
t-
a
a
\
o
d
CN
o
d
53-19-0 |
o,p'-DDD
s
d
o
d
72-54-8 I
, p.p'-DDD
o
d
i
d
3424-82-6
UJ
C
e
o
d
o
d
72-55-9 '
u
"o.
<3
z
r CHOXD) fb CARE
INCIN
0
X
0
1
'
0
d
s
| 1,1-Oichloroethina
j
i
(
-
1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48095
-------
48096 Federal Register / Vol. 59. No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
SU31VM3J.SVA
|
WASTEWATERS \
$
P
(A
Z
O
(j
U)
o
ii
N
1
o
%
Q.
it rat ion in mg/kg1
led as "mg/l TCL
:chnology C de
Concer
unless noi
or Te
Concentration in mg/l1;
or Technology Code*
1
z
5
o
Z
C
1
1
I
3
i
i
S
i
c
0
Waste Descriptl
I
u
i
CHREO; or CMB
CHOXD;
HOXO; CHRED; CARBN; BIODG; or 1
INCIN |
o
op
P)
S
IP
S
'§
1
i
Q
1 ,2-Dimethylhydraiine
T
CO
3
d
en
o
i
j
2,4-Dimethylphenol
o
3
CO
CM
O
o"
*?
CO
£
Dimethyl phthal.
•;
I
b
c
3
S
CHRED; or CME
CHOXD;
:HOXD; CHRED; CARBN; BIODG; or 1
INCIN |
u
00
r*
fi
Dimethyl sulfate
Dimethyl sulfate
o
3
0
CM
m
d
CM
CM
g
2
1
2, 4-Dinitro toluene
c
CO
CM
Ul
in
O
6
CM
i
£
2,6-Diniuotolue
4
I
"
C
c
<
J
CO
O
d
o
00
r*.
s
S
i
;
<
<
Q
r»>
O
CMBST
(WETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN; or
INCIN
o>
1 , 4-Dioxane
1,4-Dioxano
o
o
5
o
1
m
en
CM
=
•o
1
£ •
1 ,4-D'roxaoe; alt
nonwastewater
S
o
0
Q
1
| CHOXD
1
:HOXD; CHRED; CARBN; BIODG; or
INCIN
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48097
-------
48098 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
ASTEWATERS 1
I
o
z
WASTEWATERS |
fe
O
CJ
w
3
O
§
N
tf
GULATED H,
[ration in mg/kg1
sd as "mg/l TCLP";
:hnology Code
C — v
c w >-
Concentration in mg/l1;
or Technology Code4
|
01
o
z
c
1
"t
O)
£
t
|
O)
1
1
c
I
s
O
o
1
O
1
u
z
3X or CHOXD) Ib CARBN; or
INCIN |
1-
I
S
Laaio car pine
1
f
o
s
1
o.
"in
E
d
O)
-
c ;
•a ^
|i
i-
1
i:
§
•j,
s
u>
3
25 mg/ITCLP 1
0
d
z
7439-97-6
Mercury
2
I
E
o
(O
1
:
= !
£ !
!'
i.
c
>
I
U)
3
Z
Ml
7439-97-9
i
AMLQM
z
7439-97-0
| Mircury
B
j
!
•
t
:
,
:
Ul
CO
d
126-98-7
.
I Methicryloni
:
•
2
TC
U
rOX or CHOXDI Ib CARBN; or
INCIN
1
74-93-1
1
|
\
§
E
n
Ul
S
CMBST
FOX Or CHOXDI Ib CARBN; or
INCIN
1
CO
in
to
1 Methanol
|
1
S
m
5
75 mg/ITCLP
d
CO
to
in
CO
_o
£
1 ;
1|
ternate* set (
i and nonwa:
1 Methanol; all
1 wastewatera
in
00
o
d
6
CD
«
S
j Methapyriler
•
'
^
i
3
\
TOX or CHOXDI Ib CARBN; or
INCIN
1
79-22-1
ocarbonate
1 Methyl chlor
S
|
O
1
f
E
CO
in
5
in
m
d
56-49-5
'lanthrene
1 3-Methylcho
|
j
•|
"
n
t
3
O
0
d
o
i
1
a
W-ZI'N «"
!
j
'i
c
•j
;
.
'
i
3
to
CM
d
CO
o>
CO
1
| Methyl ethyl
i
J
•j
J
<
-1
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48099
|
i
i
<
=
M
a
'ASTEWA
S
I
1
5
1 HEOUIATEO HAZ,
..
ffi
Is**
u |
n
If
J*
.S' Numb«
3
_
1
V
N
|
c
i
*§
!
|
-—
s
s
; 1
u
o
X
1
u
e
1
f
a
1
o
338-23-4
i
J
2
|
O
i
s
I
5
n
n
o
6
I
i
s
t
3
1
1 Methyl uobutyl k<
to
3
L
§
o
80-62-6
I Malhyl mefhaerylafe
|
1
i
(M
1 Naphthilena
| Naphthalana
3
3
1
en
cc
2
£
r
I
5
130-1 5-4
I 1 ,4-N«phthoquinone
?
1,4-N«phihoquino
CO
CO
3
Z
U
z
5
CO
cc
O
^
• CHOXD)
INCIN
o
I
UJ
134-32-7
1 1-Naphthlyamine
g
|
i
f
IN.
CO
3
z
1
6
CD
in
CO
1 2-NaphtbIyamirw
z
m
D
5
— L
i
1
t
c
Z
Z
n
5
a
(M
O
00-02-7
1 p-Nitropheno!
p-Nitfophenol
3
5
I
o
cc
o
e.
CHOXD)
INCIN
o
1
1
o>
•V
o
z
2-Nitropfopanc
^
5
<
CB
| N-NitrotodJ-n-butyUminc
1
N-Nit/oaodi-n-txjtyl
(N
5
z
0
z
o
cc
o
£
fo
O :
u
o
|
1
ID
CO
*~
N-NHroiodiothinoUmirw
I
I
•
\
z
n
S
1
I
;
t
Z
Z
i
N-Nitroiodj«ihyl«nr
^
3
Z
O
o
Z
ec
U
55
X 0
o z
r —
o
o
1
1
59-73-9
N-Nitf oio -N-e thy Jura*
S
N-Niiroio-N-othylu
3
5
z
u
z
o
1
u
J3
ie
0 Z
r —
o
o
g
UJ
in
CO
£
z
I
z
z
Jj
N-Nitroio-N-methy
P.
5
z
u
5
z
o
CHOXD)
INCIN
X
i
15-S3-2
5
_
p
o
6
M
U)
6
CO
A
g
"o
Z
•a
N-Nitrocopyrroljdirx
0
CD
3
_
a
S
CO
U)
o>
CD
|
s
i
A
|
0
o
fc
CO
3
_
1
Z
m
cc
2
J3
CHOXD) 1
INCIN
5
X
O
1
IN.
3
n
'
P«ald«hyd>
}
cy
3
t
CO
c
<
c
?
a
3
1
s
5
-------
48100 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
W
CC
WASTEWA
Z
o
w
cc
WASTEWATI
Z
IIISNO;
OT
§3
N
I
REGULATED
>s.
It"
i-I
E | 1
g S t
1
^
<5
Concentration ir
or Technology
,S' Number
S
0
Common
o
f
1
I
D
|
U
|
1
1
a
I
i
s
s
z
o
i
FOX or CHOXDI f
INCIN
1
0
(O
Pentachtoroethane
Pentachtoroethane
CO
D
O
CO*
m
s
d
9
(O
o
•S 5
1!
££
s i
Pentachloroethane; altern
both wastewaters and no
CO
in
o
d
82-68-8
Pentachloro nitrobenzene
£
i
Pentachloronitrobi
CO
D
CMBST
5
Jl
rOX or CHOXDI f
INCIN
ui
504-80-9
I
.»
n
CO
CO
3
CO
I
d
62-44-2 |
Phenicttin
_c
o
Q.
r-
GO
D
fM
CO
CM
in
0
d
en
CD
f Phthalic anhydride
z
u
z
o
Z
CO
u
£
TOX or CHOXD)
INCIN
1
109-06-8
| 2-Picoline
1
[ 2-Picolino
1
o>
3
in
m
s
d
3950-58-5
CM
1 Pronamide
1 Pronamide
S
5
z
u
z
CARBN; or
J3
TOX or CHOXD)
INCIN
1
1120-71-4
S.
I
CO
s
1,3-Propan* tulle
S
3
u
CARBN; or
-0
TOX or CHOXD)
INCIN
E
107-10-8
I n-Propylamina
n-Propylamine
CD
D
to
o
d
110-86-1
o.
|
D.
O>
f»
3
1
CARBN; or
S
TOX or CHOXDI
INCIN
Uf
106-51-4
I p-B*nzoquinona
I p-Banioquinon*
t*
3
i
CARBN; or
£
TOX or CHOXDI
INCIN
-
A
6
Ui
Reaerpine
.1
1
o
D
CMBST
CARBN; or
£
TOX or CHOXDI
INCIN
1
CT
I
I Reaorcinol
Resorcinol
o
3
z
o
z
CARBN; or
a
TOX or CHOXD)
INCIN
1
81-07-2
Saccharin
2
Saccharin and «a
CM
O
3
CM
CD
O
d
94-59-7
| Safrole
!
1
3
Cu
U
I-
t
(O
d
CO
d
7782-49-2
1 Selenium
I
°
3
o
• t
CD
d
CM
CO
d
7782-49-2
1 Selenium
1 Selenium sulfide
§
=
z
u
CARBN; or
£
TOX or CHOXDI
INCIN
g
8883-66-4
Streptozotocin
Streptozotocin
o
3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations 48101
Uf
§
£
1
g
«£
S
H SOWVONV1S IN
I
fl
e
i
1
i
g
H
i
5
1
2
§
1
U
Q
1
REGULATED HA
|f
SJP'
1 s
lit
"i'-s
||
I i
c *-
5 *
01
3
I
i
1
i
|
&
1
1
^
s
t
<
o
n
e
u
ta
1
c
1
J
Ul
(N
i
o
1
Ul
V
1
".
c
«a
C
to
|
|
|
(N
S
i
1.1.1.2-T«lrachtoioell
S
3
0
c
c
78-34-5 ]
*
C
1
cs
S
1
1,1,2,2-TettacNorOEU
§
3
4
o
i
*~
s
"o
3
j
o
3
:
i
»
440-28-0
^
_
^
O
2
1
i (meaaured in waste
J
| Thallium (!) acetate
§
:
i
•»
440-26-0
r-
•5
•a
o
2
1
i (measured in waste
E
^
Thallium (t) carbonate
Ul
l
:
i
"
440-28-0
^
_
•j
c
j
1
. (meaaured in waste
1
o
|
h-
(O
1
;
i
*
440-26-0
c-
_
"c
0
E
c
1
(measured in waste
[ Thallium
Thallium 11} nitrate
§
Z
o
z
u
£
II
u
0
X
0
1
in
in
CM
to
,
1
m
o
CD
CM
3
Z
O
Z
0
i".
CC
o
£
Q 5
X J
I —
CJ
o
x
o
1
to
<0
dj
Thiourea
o
§
c
c
08-8B-3
*~
1
1
1
0
OJ
1
i
;
C
5
0
G
(.
a
u
u
CM
S
1
J
1
1
1
(N
z
U
z
0
m
u
11
u
0
X
o
1
10
"f
rm ITribromomethan
i
|
1
Blomoform (Tribromoi
U)
CM
3
c
(O
o
6
71-55-6
|
1
«
^
i
1
s
3
L
0
79-00-5
s
c
c
•7
CM
1 , 1 ,2-TricWoroethane
3
L
0
O
a
S
1
a
1
h1
CD
3
z
U
Z
o
z
CD
CC
5
£
5 5
x o
o z
z ~
o
0
X
o
t-
1
in
en
I
in
1
1
I
CO
M
3
£
^
c
0
_
s
j
1
1
a
[ trii-12.3-
S
f
•2
=
tria-(2,3-Oibromapropv
in
(N
3
U
Z
z
1
o
5 Z
X 0
o z
z —
u
o
§
i
i?
j
CD
C
.a
m
-------
48102 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 180 / Monday, September 19, 1994 / Rules and Regulations
£
i-
ASTEWA
NONW
WASTEWATERS
5
I
O
o
tn
o
Q
EC
S
<
REGULATED
*!*
i" !=L o
lil
3
Concentration in mg/l';
or Technology Code*
i
"
„
z
1
o
§,
•§
«
>.
3
S*
S
Waste Description and '
o
o
u
3
z
u
z
IWETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN; 01
INCIN
(0
en
Ul
1
Urethane (Ethyl carbarn)
Urethane (Ethyl car bam ate)
CD
i
o
d
30-20-7
n
1
f*"
ij
£
Xylenes-mtxed isomers
(sum of o-, m-, and p-x^
x"
1
o
d
r-
0
r*
a*
S'
\
9
S
2,4-D (2,4-DicNorophei
5
;
z
u
(WETOX or CHOXDI (b CARBN; o
INCIN
z
1
"
2.4-D (2.4-Dichloroprwnoxvacoti
salts and esters
0
o
S
o
d
r^
ai
m
| Hexachloropropylena
;
z
o
z
1 IWETOX or CHOXD) fb CARBN; o
INCIN
37-26-8
i
1
1
z
g
o
WETOX;
CHOXD;
1 CHOXD; WETOX; or INCIN
06-68-3
U)
| Cyanogen bromide
•
\
1
CM
1
I
^
c.
CMBST
S
1 IWETOX or CHOXDI fb CARBN; c
INCIN
?
Warfarin
1
o
*
w
d
I
'i
E
1
s
Warfarin, & salts, when present
5
O
o
a
u
CHOXD
j CHOXD; CKF&D; or INCIN
r^-
•91
00
-T
| Zinc Phosphide
i
!
if-
o
C
,
]
'i
i
1
j
;
i
t
i
i
|
c
1
•9
a
Thermal
5
z
u
z
1 INCIN; or CHOXD fb (BIODG or
CARBN); or BIODG fb CARBN.
v
p>
u>
in
1 o-Tokiidino
1 o-TohJidino
00
2
S
0
t-
s
i
1 INCIN; or CHOXD fb IBIODG or
CARBNI; or BIODQ fb CARBN
I
|
I p-Tokiidine
n
in
5
i
1 INCIN; or CHOXD fb IBIODO or
CARBNI; or BIODQ fb CARBN
110-80-5
2-Ethoxyethanol
I 2-Ethoxyethanol
S
n
i
1 || |
? £ E 5 •-
Z ta ** S g
«i £ o c **
11 „•!! | i
Is | s s »: |
K f « c i — ?
H ?i! ! <
Is- 111 1 c
irovided, as needed, to distinguish bett
or esters, tho CAS number is given for
Codes and Descriptions of Technology'
part, based upon incineration in units <
applicable technical requirements. A 1
atment/Regulatory Subcategory or phy:
olid Waste, Physical/Chemical Method
"3 >. .£ £ £ «
S 5 ? -o S *- ?
II Jj| 1 |
^ ii*p i
I! &iih 1
fi i|l!I 1
S" "** 3» ° C W 8 "S S
8Efc.et^=i3 5 E
|i||||^i if
£*2O * o S fc fl ^ *~
Is &|>s«e]5££'°
•isls°l=!1«
3 -*i2?St5"««l¥
The waste descriptions provided in this
CAS means Chemical Abstract Swvicei
Concentration standards for waetewate
All treatment standards exprsssed as a
Except for Metals IEP or TCLP) and Cyi
requirements of 40 CFfl pan 264, subp
standards according to provisions in 40
Where an alternate treatment standard i
nonwastewater) specified for that alterr
Both Cyanides (Total) and Cyanides (Ar
reference in 40 CFR 260.11, with a sal
— C« « * U> IO f*
1
u
3-
i
8
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-C
-------
-------
|