Thursday
March 2, 1995
• ^•~
^^m
^^m
^mm
^^m
^^
^v
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 148 et al
Land Disposal Restrictions—Phase III:
Decharacterized Wastev/aters, Carbamate
and Organobromine Wastes, and Spent
Potliners; Proposed Rule
-------
-------
11702 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148, 266,268 and 271
[EPA #530-2-95-002, 6 FRL 5160-7]
BIN 2050-AD38
Land Disposal Restrictions—Phase III:
Decharacterized Wastewaters,
Carbamate and Organobromine
Wastes, and Spent Potliners
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Today, the Agency is
proposing treatment standards for
certain hazardous wastes—namely,
wastes from the production of
carbamate pesticides, organobromine
flame-retardants, and aluminum—under
its Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
program. The purpose of the LDR
program, authorized by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
is to minimize short and long-term
threats to human health and the
environment from exposure to
hazardous chemical constituents. The
treatment standards for these wastes
will minimize threats from exposure to
hazardous constituents which may
potentially leach from landfills to
groundwater.
The Agency is also proposing to
revise the treatment standards for other
wastes which are hazardous because
they display the characteristic of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity. These wastes, known as
"characteristic" hazardous wastes, are
sometimes treated in lagoons which are
regulated under the Clean Water Act,
and sometimes injected into deepwells
which are regulated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Currently, these
wastes are no longer regulated under
RCRA once the characteristic property is
removed. Today's revised treatment
standards require treatment, not only to
remove the characteristic, but also to
treat any underlying hazardous
constituents which may be present in
the wastes, even though they are not
what causes the characteristic property
(i.e., a corrosive waste could have
underlying hazardous constituents that,
although not corrosive, are nevertheless
toxic to human health). Therefore, these
revised treatment standards will
minimize threats from exposure to
hazardous constituents which may
potentially migrate from these lagoons
or wells.
Finally, EPA is proposing today to
forbid the use of hazardous wastes to fill
in holes in the ground. EPA proposes
that this practice is illegal disposal of
hazardous wastes. EPA is also proposing
to add to the regulations an existing
policy which states that hazardous
wastes which are predominantly metal
should not be burned.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be submitted by May 1,1995.
ADDRESSES: The public must send an
original and two copies (and a voluntary
copy on computer diskette) of their
comments to: RCRA Information Center
(5305), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Place the docket number F-
95-PH3P-FFFFF on your comments.
The official record for the proposed
rulemaking 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 a.m. to 4 p.m.
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 $0.15
per page. The mailing address is EPA
RCRA Docket (5305), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
For additional information on
submitting computer diskettes please
see the heading "Paperless Office
Effort" in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information on the LDR
program, contact the RCRA Hotline at
800-424-9346 (toll-free) or 703^112-
9810 locally. For information on today's
proposed rule, contact Peggy Vyas in the
Office of Solid Waste, phone 703-308-
8594. For specific information on the
treatment standards for carbamates and/
or organobromine wastes, contact Shaun
McGarvey at 703-308-8603; for specific
information on the treatment standards
for K088 wastes, contact Mary
Cunningham at 703-308-8453; for
specific information on the Universal
Treatment Standards, contact Lisa Jones
at 703-308-8451. For information on
the capacity analyses, contact Les Otte
at 703-308-8440. For information on
the regulatory impact analyses, contact
Linda Martin at 202-260-2791.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperless Office Effort
EPA is asking prospective
commenters to voluntarily submit one
additional copy of their comments on
labeled personal computer diskettes in
ASCII (TEXT) format or a word
processing format that can be converted
to ASCII (TEXT). It is essential to
specify on the disk label the word
processing software and version/edition
as well as the commenter's name. This
will allow EPA to convert the comments
into one of the word processing formats
utilized by the Agency. Please use
mailing envelopes designed to
physically protect the submitted
diskettes. EPA emphasizes that
submission of comments on diskettes is
not mandatory, nor will it result in any
advantage or disadvantage to any
commenter. Rather, EPA is
experimenting with this procedure as an
attempt to expedite our internal review
and response to comments. This
expedited procedure is in conjunction
with the Agency "Paperless Office
Effort" campaign. For further
information on the submission of
diskettes, contact the Waste Treatment
Branch at 703-308-8434.
Glossary of Acronyms
BAT—Best Available Technology
BOAT—Best Demonstrated Available
Technology
BIFs—Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
CAA—Clean Air Act
CWA—Clean Water Act
EP—Extraction Procedure
HON—Hazardous Organic NESHAPs
HSWA—Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments
HWIR—Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule
ICR—Igriitable, Corrosive, and Reactive
wastes, or, Information Collection
Request (in section XI.D.)
ICRT—Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive,
and TC Wastes
LDR—Land Disposal Restrictions
NESHAPs—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
POTW—Publically-Owned Treatment
Works
PSES—Pretreatment Standards for
Existing Sources
PSNS—Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources
RCRA—Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
RIA—Regulatory Impact Analysis
SOW A—Safe Drinking Water Act
TC—Toxicity Characteristic
TCLP—Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure
TRI—Toxic Release Inventory
UIC—Underground Injection Control
UTS—Universal Treatment Standards
Outline
I. Background
A. Summary of the Statutory Requirements
of th{! 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11703
Amendments, and Requirements of the
1993 Proposed Consent Decree with the
Environmental Defense Fund
B. Summary of the D.C. Circuit's Opinion
on the Third Third Standards for
Ignitablo, Corrosive, Reactive, and Toxic
Characteristic Wastes and EPA's
Implementation of the Opinion to Date
1. Summary of the Third Third Standards
2. The Court's Decision
3. Options Prepared for the Notice of Data
Availability
4. Contents of the Interim Final Rule
5. Regulation of Toxicity Characteristic
(TC) Wastes in the LDR Phase II Rule
6. Requirements of 1993 Settlement
Agreement with CWM, et al.
II. EPA's Interpretation of the Third Third
Opinion
A. Statutory Language
B. Legislative History
C. judicial Opinions
III. Integration of BOAT with Other Agency
Actions
A. Phase IV LDRs—Cross-Media Transfer
and Equivalency Issues
1. Cross-Media Implications
2. Background of Equivalency Issues EPA
is Considering for LDR Phase IV
a. Sludges
b. Leaking Surface Impoundments
c. Air Emissions
B. The Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule (HWIR)
C Water Rules—the Pulp and Paper and
Pharmaceutical Industries Rules
IV. End-Of-Pipe Treatment Standards
A. EPA's General Approach to Setting
Treatment Standards and its Relation to
tho End-of-Pipe Standards Proposed
Today
B. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards for
Clean Water Act and Equivalent
Wastewater Treatment Systems
1. CVVA Standards and Limitations as
RCRA Section 3004(m) Treatment
Standards
2. Implementation When CWA Standards
and Limitations Will Be the Exclusive
Standard
a. Direct Dischargers
b. Indirect Dischargers
C. Treatment Standards for Class I
Nonhazardous Injection Wells
1. Introduction
2. Compliance Options for Class I
Nonhazardous UIC Wells
3. Pollution Prevention Compliance Option
4. De Minimis Volume Exclusion
D. Point of Generation Discussion
1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Similar Streams Generated by Similar
Processes
4. Streams From a Single Process
5. "Battery Limits"
6. Another Approach on Which EPA Seeks
Comment
7. Situations Where Existing Point of
Generation Determinations May Remain
Appropriate
a. Listed Wastes
b. Prohibited Wastes Whose Treatment
Standard is a Method of Treatment
8. Implications Beyond LDR Rules
V. Discussion of the Potential Prohibition of
Nonamenable Wastes from Land-Based
Biological Treatment Systems
A. Technical Overview
B. Summary of the ETC's Position
C. Summary of the CMA's Position
D. Summary of EPA's Preliminary
Response to CMA's and ETC's Technical
Concerns
1. Feed Limits
2. Technical Concern
3. Constituent Properties of Concern
a. Water solubility
b. TC Metals
c. Toxicity
F. Additional Issues
1. List of Hazardous Constituents
2. Biotreatment as BOAT
3. Toxics Along for the Ride
G. Treatment Standard for Wastes with a
High Concentration of Organics
VI. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed
Wastes
A. Carbamates
1. Proposed Treatment Standards
2. Request for Comments
B. Organobromines
1. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Organobromine Wastes
2. Applicable Technology
C. Aluminum Potliners (K088)
1. Possible Determination of Inherently
Waste-Like
2. Overview of Today's Proposal
a. Proposed Regulated Constituents
b. Specific Companies Investigating K088
Recovery/Treatment Technologies
VII. Improvements to the Existing Land
Disposal Restrictions Program
A. Completion of Universal Treatment
Standards
1. Expansion to Cover All Components of
, Newly Listed Wastes (Carbamates and
Organobromines)
2. UTS Organic Constituents in Wastewater
and Nonwastewater Forms
a. Nonwastewaters
b. Wastewaters
3. Application to Listed Waste
a. Wastewater-nonwastewater pairs
b. Elimination of Redundant Methods of
Treatment
4. Revision to the Acetonitrile Standard
a. The acetonitrile nonwastewater standard
b. Revoking the special wastewater/
nonwastewater definition for
acrylonitrile wastes
5. Aggressive Biological Treatment as
BOAT for Petroleum Refinery Wastes
B. Dilution Prohibition
1. Dilution Prohibited as a Method of
Treatment
2. Permissible Dilution
3. Cyanide-Bearing Wastes and
Combustion
4. Table of Inorganic Metal Bearing Wastes
5. The Addition of Iron Dust to Stabilize
Characteristic Hazardous Wastes:
Potential Classification as Impermissible
Dilution
C. Expansion of Methods Requiring
Incineration
D. Clean Up of 40 CFR Part 268
1. Section 268.8
2. Sections 268.10—268.12
3. Section 268.2(f)
VIII. Proposed Prohibition of Hazardous
Waste as Fill Material
IX. Capacity Determinations
A. Introduction
B. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
C. Requests for Comment
X. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorization
XI. 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. Economic Impact Methodology
d. Benefits Methodology
2. Results
a. Volume Results
b. Cost Results
c. Economic Impact Results
d. Benefit Estimate Results
B. Regulatory Impact Analysis for
Underground Injected Wastes
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Background
A. Summary of the Statutory
Requirements of the 1984 Hazardous
and SoHd Waste Amendments, and
Requirements of the 1993 Proposed
Consent Decree 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).
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)).
-------
11704
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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 that establishes a
schedule for adopting prohibitions and
treatment standards for newly identified
and listed wastes. (EDFv. Reilly, Cir.
No. 89-0598, D.D.C.) This proposed
consent decree was 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); hereafter
referred to as CWM v. EPA, or the Third
Third opinion). Today's proposed rule
fulfills several provisions of the
proposed consent decree. The rule
proposes land disposal restrictions for
characteristic hazardous wastes
managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent
treatment systems, and injected into
underground injection control (UIC)
Class I nonhazardous injection wells
regulated under the SDWA. Today's rule
also proposes treatment standards for
carbamate and organobromine wastes.
The rule also proposes treatment
standards for newly listed spent
aluminum potliners (K088), which
according to the proposed consent
decree need not be proposed until June
30,1995.
B. Summary of the D.C. Circuit's
Opinion on the Third Third Standards
for Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, and
Toxic Characteristic Wastes and EPA's
Implementation of the Opinion to Date
Characteristic hazardous wastes that
are treated or diluted such that they no
longer exhibit the hazardous
characteristic are no longer subject to
RCRA Subtitle C management
standards, and thus may be discharged
into units that are not subject to the
stringent RCRA Subtitle C standards,
such as UIC wells. In CWM v. EPA, 976
F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
interpreted RCRA section 3004(m) as
requiring treatment of underlying
hazardous constituents in
decharacterized hazardous wastes so as
to minimize threats to human health
and the environment. As yet, the
Agency has not set minimize threat
levels under RCRA and therefore must
require treatment.
However, the Agency has a process to
set levels under the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR). If risk-based
minimize threat levels are established
under HWIR, these levels would
implement section 3004(m) and
consequently supersede the technology-
based treatment standards presently
utilized. See HWTC III, 886 F. 2d at
362-63. Wastes treated to these levels
also would not be classified as
hazardous wastes and consequently
could be disposed in units not subject
to subtitle C standards (e.g., landfills not
receiving federal permits.) EPA has
lodged a proposed consent decree with
the U.S. District Court to propose the
HWIR levels not later than August 15,
1995, and finalize by December 15,
1996. As was previously mentioned, the
Agency entered into a consent decree
setting out a schedule for fulfilling the
court's mandate for the wastes
addressed in today's rule. This consent
decree requires the Agency to set
treatment standards for these wastes
before the HWIR rulemaking.
That being said, the risks addressed
by this rule, particularly UIC wells, are
very small relative to the risks presented
by other environmental conditions or
situations. In a time of limited
resources, common sense dictates that
we deal with higher risk activities first,
a principle on which EPA, members of
the regulated community, and the
public can all agree. '
Nevertheless, the Agency is required
to set treatment standards for these
relatively low risk wastes and disposal
practices during the next two years,
although there are other actions and
projects with which the Agency could
provide greater protection of human
health and the environment. At the
same time, however, EPA has sought to
exercise the full extent of its authority
under current law to develop innovative
options designed to significantly lower
the potential cost of these controls while
ensuring protectiveness, such as giving
credit for up-stream reductions in
hazardous constituents, and crafting
limited exemptions for wastewaters
containing de minimis amounts of
hazardous constituents. Through the
public comment process and further
consultation with stakeholders, EPA
expects to obtain guidance for any
future action we may take.
A detailed discussion of the Agency's
interpretation of the opinion in CWMv.
EPA is provided in the next section. For
background information on the relevant ,
portions of the Third Third final rule
(i.e., the treatment standards
promulgated for hazardous wastes
exhibiting the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity), see
55 FR 22653-22659 (June 1,1990).
The Agency's immediate response
following issuance of the opinion can be
found in the January 19,1993
Supplemental Information Report to the
Notice of Data Availability (58 FR 4972).
This report sets out the Agency's
options for complying with the court's
decision. The options discussed in this
report applied to reactive, as well as
ignitable and corrosive wastes, since
EPA knows of no inherent differences
among these wastes with respect to
propensity to contain hazardous
constituents.
1. Summary of the Third Third
Standards
On May 8,1990, EPA promulgated
regulations addressing the last of five
congressionally-mandated prohibitions
on land disposal of hazardous wastes,
which was the third one-third of the
schedule of restricted hazardous wastes,
referred to as the Third Third. Among
other things, the Third Third final rule
promulgated treatment standards and
prohibition effective dates for hazardous
wastes that exhibited one or more of the
following characteristics: ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity (40
CFR 261.21-261.24). The Third Third
rule established treatment standards for
the characteristic wastes in one of four
forms: (1) a concentration level equal to,
or greater than, the characteristic level;
(2) a concentration level less than the
characteristic level; (3) a specified
treatment technology (e.g., for ignitable
wastes containing high levels of total
organic carbon); and (4) a treatment
standard of "deactivation" which
allowed the use of any technology,
including dilution, to remove the
characteristic.
The Agency also evaluated the
applicability of certain provisions of the
land disposal restrictions' framework
with irespect to characteristic wastes,
including wastes regulated under the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) or
pretreatment programs under sections
402 and 307(b) of the CWA and the
SDWA UIC programs to try to ensure
successful integration of these programs
with 'the regulations being promulgated
under RCRA. See generally 55 FR
22653-59 (June 1,1990). Specifically,
the Agency considered the
appropriateness of the dilution
prohibition for each of the characteristic
waste streams, and the applicability of
treatment standards expressed as
specified methods.
The Agency found, generally, that
mixing waste streams to eliminate
certain characteristics was appropriate
and permissible for corrosive
wastewaters, or in some cases, reactive
or ignitable wastewaters. Furthermore,
EPA stated that the dilution prohibition
did not normally apply to characteristic
wastewaters that are managed in
treatment trains including surface
impoundments whose ultimate
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11705
discharge is regulated under the
pretreatment and NPDES programs
under sections 307(b) and 402 of the
CWA, or in Class I underground
injection well systems regulated under
the SDWA. The Agency stated that the
treatment requirements and associated
dilution rules under the CWA are
generally consistent with the dilution
rules under RCRA, and that the Agency
should rely on the existing CWA
provisions. The Agency also singled out
certain particularly toxic wastewaters to
which the dilution prohibition still
applies notwithstanding management in
CWA systems. 40 CFR 268.3(b).
Similarly, EPA stated that a regulatory
program had been established under the
SDWA to prevent underground injection
which endangers drinking water
sources. Class I deep wells inject below
the lowermost geologic formation
containing an underground drinking
water source and are subject to federal
location, construction, and operation
requirements. The Agency stated that
application of the dilution rules to these
wastes would not provide further
protection to human health and the
environment, and that disposal of these
wastes by underground injection at the
characteristic levels was as sound a
practice as treating them.
2. The Court's Decision
On September 25,1992, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit ruled on the various
petitions for review. The principal
holdings of the case with respect to
characteristic wastes are that: (1) EPA
may require treatment under RCRA
section 3004(m) to more stringent levels
than those at which wastes are
identified as hazardous, 976 F. 2d at 12-
14; (2) section 3004(m) requires that
treatment standards address both short-
term and long-term potential harms
posed by hazardous wastes, and
consequently must result in destruction
and removal of hazardous constituents
as well as removal of the characteristic
property, id. at 16,17, 23. As a
consequence, dilution is permissible as
an exclusive method of treatment only
for those characteristic wastes that do
not contain hazardous constituents "in
sufficient concentrations to pose a threat
to human health or the environment"
(i.e., the minimize threat level in section
3004(m)), id. at 16; and (3) situations
where characteristic hazardous wastes
are diluted, lose their characteristic(s)
and are then managed in centralized
wastewater management land disposal
units (i.e., subtitle D surface
impoundments or Class I nonhazardous
injection wells) are legal only if it can
be demonstrated that hazardous
constituents are reduced or destroyed to
the same extent they would be pursuant
to otherwise applicable RCRA treatment
standards, id. at 7.
As a consequence of these holdings,
the court held that the deactivation
standard for ignitable and corrosive
wastes did not fully comply with RCRA
section 3004(m). This was because that
standard could be achieved by dilution,
and dilution fails to destroy or remove
the hazardous constituents that can be
present in the wastes. Id. (A more
detailed analysis of the D.C. Circuit's
Third Third opinion is found in section
II of this notice.)
3. Options Prepared for the Notice of
Data Availability
On January 19,1993, EPA published
a Notice of Data Availability to solicit as
many comments as possible on all
issues in the court opinion (58 FR 4972).
The Agency prepared a Supplemental
Information Report that was distributed
to the public that set out the Agency's
options for complying with the court's
decision. The options discussed in this
report applied to reactive, as well as
ignitable and corrosive wastes, since
EPA knows of no inherent differences
among these wastes with respect to
propensity to contain hazardous
constituents.
The report included options for
establishing treatment standards for the
underlying hazardous constituents in
ignitable, corrosive and reactive (ICR)
wastes that would have to be met prior
to land disposal (including disposal in
UIC wells). (It should be noted that the
Agency also believes that underlying
hazardous constituents can be present
in wastes displaying the toxicity
characteristic.) Two approaches were set
out, along with the Agency's views on
possible advantages and disadvantages
of each.
Under approach one, the Agency
discussed the possibility of adopting
concentration limits for underlying
hazardous constituents. Under approach
two, the Agency discussed specifying
required treatment technologies. The
Agency discussed how these possible
approaches might apply to ICR wastes
that are not managed in CWA
centralized wastewater treatment
systems. Furthermore, the applicability
of LDR treatment standards to CWA
facilities, and possible implementation
scenarios under the CWA, were also
discussed.
The Agency also discussed options for
how to determine the equivalency of
CWA treatment systems with treatment
under RCRA. The "equivalency"
discussion included possible options for
addressing air emissions, leaks, and
sludges from CWA treatment surface
impoundments. Also mentioned were
other Agency efforts such as the
Hazardous Organic NESHAPs (HON) (59
FR 19402, April 22,1994) developed by
the Office of Air. These options will be
developed in a later LDR rulemaking,
but are discussed here and elsewhere in
this preamble in order to inform and
gather comments from all potentially
affected persons.
Approximately 60 public comments
were received in response to the Notice
of Data Availability. Those that pertain
to establishing treatment standards for
characteristic waste managed in CWA,
CWA-equivalent, and Class I
nonhazardous UIC wells have been
considered as this proposed rule was
developed.
4. Contents of the Interim Final Rule
EPA issued an interim final rule on
May 24,1993 (58 FR 29860) to address
those treatment standards that were
vacated (as opposed to remanded) by
the court. Today's rule proposes
treatment standards for some of the
portions of the rule that were remanded.
The distinction between vacated and
remanded rules is that vacated rules are
no longer in effect after the court's
mandate issues, whereas remanded
rules remain in force until the Agency
acts to replace them.
The Agency's opinion at that time was
that the rules dealing with centralized
wastewater management involving land
disposal (§§ 268.1(c)(3) and 268.3(b))
were remanded, not vacated. (See 976 F.
2d at 7,19-26 where these rules are
discussed and not expressly vacated.)
This means that the only wastes to
which the interim final rule applied
were those ignitable and corrosive
wastes for which the treatment standard
was deactivation (since the deactivation
standard for these wastes was vacated)
and which were not managed in the
types of centralized wastewater
management systems covered by the
remanded rules cited above.
The Agency thus promulgated revised
treatment standards for certain ignitable
and corrosive wastes that are managed
in systems other than those managed:
(1) In centralized wastewater treatment
systems subject to the CWA or in Class
I underground injection wells subject to
the SDWA UIC program; or, (2) by a zero
discharger with a wastewater treatment
system equivalent to that utilized by
CWA dischargers prior to land disposal.
The treatment standards retained the
requirement of deactivation to remove
the hazardous characteristic (see DEACT
in Table 1, 40 CFR 268.42); however, the
rule also set numerical treatment
standards for the underlying hazardous
-------
11706 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
constituents that could reasonably be
expected to be present in the wastes.
EPA also promulgated alternative
treatment standards of incineration, fuel
substitution, and recovery of organics
for ignitable wastes. In addition, EPA
established new precautionary measures
to prevent emissions of volatile organic
constituents or violent reactions during
the process of diluting ignitable and
reactive wastes.
5. Regulation of Toxicity Characteristic
(TC) Wastes in the LDR Phase II Rule
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 FR11798). Because these
wastes were identified as hazardous
after the enactment date of HSWA in
1984, they were "newly identified
wastes" for purposes of the LDR
program. Included are wastes identified
with the co'des D012 through D043
based on the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP), i.e., TC
wastes. In the LDR Phase II final rule (59
FR 47982, September 19,1994), EPA
established treatment standards for each
of these constituents if they are
managed in systems other than those
regulated under the CWA, those
engaging in CWA-equivalent treatment
prior to land disposal, and those
injected into Class I deep injection wells
regulated under the SDWA. In addition,
because wastes exhibiting the TC can
contain treatable levels of other
hazardous constituents, EPA established
treatment standards for the underlying
hazardous constituents reasonably
expected to be present in the waste.
These rules are consistent with the
Third Third opinion and adopt the same
approach as the May 24,1993 interim
final rule.
Furthermore, as part of a regulatory
response to implement the court's
ruling, EPA required in the LDR Phase
II final rule 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
into any Class I nonhazardous injection
well that does not have a no-migration
variance. See 59 FR at 48013. Therefore,
these wastes can no longer be legally
diluted to remove the characteristic and
then be injected into Class I
nonhazardous injection wells.
6. Requirements of 1993 Settlement
Agreement With CWM, et al.
This proposed rule continues to fulfill
the requirements of the settlement
agreement with the petitioners in CWM
v. EPA. Today's rule proposes
concentration-based treatment standards
for the underlying hazardous
constituents reasonably expected to be
present in ignitable, corrosive, reactive
and TC wastes managed in CWA and
CWA-equivalent treatment systems, and
injected into UIC Class I nonhazardous
injection wells regulated under the
SDWA. The settlement agreement calls
for developing standards for ignitable
and corrosive wastes only; however, the
Agency believes that underlying
hazardous constituents may also be
present in reactive and toxic wastes, and
is therefore proposing regulations for
these wastestreams as well.
Today's rule also complies with the
settlement agreement by describing and
discussing the following option for
implementing the opinion: the
identification of underlying hazardous
constituents that are not amenable to
treatment in certain CWA centralized
treatment systems, and the subsequent
prohibition on the introduction of such
nonamenable wastes into such systems.
II. EPA's Interpretation of the Third
Third Opinion
EPA's action in this rulemaking is
taken to implement key portions of the
court's mandate in CWMv. EPA, the
opinion vacating and remanding (among
other things) EPA's rules allowing
treatment standards for hazardous
constituents in characteristic hazardous
wastes to be achieved solely by diluting
these constituents. EPA's initial view of
the opinion is that it interprets the
statute to require that hazardous
constituents present in hazardous
wastes at concentrations exceeding a
minimize threat level to be treated so
that they are destroyed, removed, or
immobilized before the waste is land
disposed. Some commenters to the May
24,1993 interim final rule and the LDR
Phase II proposed rule, however, have
argued that dilution nevertheless can be
utilized as the sole means of treating
characteristic hazardous wastes, if
dilution reduces hazardous constituent
concentration levels to levels reflecting
either performance of Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
(BOAT) or minimize threat levels. This
argument is based largely on language in
the court's opinion that treatment of
hazardous constituents is required if,
after dilution, hazardous constituents
are present in concentrations sufficient
to pose a threat to human health and the
environment. See, e.g., 976 F. 2d at 7,
17,18, !19-20, 23. Some commenters
have added the further argument that
section 3004(m) requires that treatment
"substantially reduce the toxicity of the
waste", which is accomplished when
dilution lowers hazardous constituents
to BOAT levels.
If these arguments were accepted, it
would mean that characteristic wastes
could be disposed after dilution,
without further treatment of hazardous
constituents, provided sufficient
dilution had occurred. Although this
argument has been made chiefly by
representatives of facilities engaged in
underground injection, the argument is
not limited to the injection context, or
even to the context of characteristic
wastes. Thus, if EPA accepted this
argument, it would mean that any
hazardous waste could be land disposed
into any type of land disposal unit
provided the waste was sufficiently
diluted before land disposal,
notwithstanding that the same volume
of hazardous constituents as in the
initial waste would be land disposed.
EPA does not accept this
interpretation of the court's opinion or
of the (statute. In the Agency's view, the
statute and opinion are best interpreted
by requiring hazardous constituents in
hazardous wastes to be treated so that
hazardous constituents are destroyed,
removed, or immobilized before land
disposal. The Agency's basis for this
conclusion is set out below.
A. Statutory Language
Section 3004(m)(l) requires EPA to
establish, as a precondition to land
disposal of hazardous waste, treatment
standards "which substantially
diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste so that short-term and
long-term threats to human health and
the environment are minimized."
Although the first prong of the test—
"substantially diminish the toxicity of
the waste"—conceivably is satisfied by
dilution,1 the treatment must not only
diminish the waste's toxicity but also do
so in a manner that minimizes short-
term and long-term harms to human
health and the environment.2
11f, for example, a wastewater starts out with
cadmium concentrations exceeding 100 mg/1 and is
diluted so that cadmium is present at
concentrations below the MCL of 0.1 mg/1, the
toxicity of the waste has been diminished.
2 "Treatment is required not only for purposes of
protecting against the short-term or acute risks
associated with the land disposal of hazardous
wastes, but more importantly focuses on the long-
term hazards associated with migration of the
wastes and subsequent contamination of ground or
surface water." 130 Cong. Rec. S9178 (July 25,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11707
Furthermore, although EPA has
maintained that "minimization" of
threats does not necessarily require
elimination of all possible hazards (see,
e.g.. 55 FR 6641 and n.l (February 26,
1990)), the phrase certainly requires
something more substantial than merely
diluting hazardous constituents.
Allowing the waste's toxicity to be
diminished solely by dilution also is at
odds with RCRA's enumerated goals
and policies. Congress prohibited land
disposal of hazardous waste because of
"long-term uncertainties associated with
land disposal",3 and persistence,
toxicity, mobility, and propensity to
bioaccumulate" of hazardous
constituents in the waste. Sections 3004
(d)(l), (e)(l), (g)(5); Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d
1355,1362-63 (D.C. Cir. 1989), cert.
denied 111 S. Ct. 139 (1990) (upholding
technology-based treatment standards
due to the uncertainties inherent in
determining when land disposal is
protective). Land disposal of untreated
hazardous waste is only allowed in
"protective" land disposal units,
defined as meaning units from which no
hazardous constituents will migrate for
as long as the waste remains
hazardous—to be demonstrated "to a
reasonable degree of certainty". Sections
3004 (d)(l), (e)(l), (g)(5). Allowing
dilution of hazardous constituents fails
to take account of these long-term
uncertainties, propensity to
bioaccumulate, and the like. As a result,
it arguably fails to minimize long-term
threats posed by the wastes.
Another provision indicating that
Congress did not intend for dilution to
be a means of treating toxic hazardous
wastes is section 3004(h). Congress, in
sections 3004(h) (2) and (3), authorized
EPA to postpone LDR prohibition
effective dates for up to two years
(renewable for up to two additional
years for individual facilities) if there is
inadequate available treatment capacity
for a particular waste. This provision
would not have been necessary if
dilution could be used as a means of
treatment, since it would never take two
years (or longer) for a facility to develop
the means (i.e. adding dirt or water) of
diluting wastes to meet a treatment
standard.
B. Legislative History
The legislative history states that
dilution is not to be allowed as a means
of treating hazardous constituents. See
S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 2d sess. 17,
which states that "(t)he dilution of
wastes by the addition of other
hazardous wastes or any other materials
during waste handling, transportation,
treatment, or storage is not an
acceptable method of treatment to
reduce the concentration of hazardous
constituents. Only dilution which
occurs as a normal part of the process
that results in the waste can be taken
into account in establishing
concentration levels."4 The House
Report is similarly explicit.5 The
Conference Report similarly states that
"the Conferees intend that through the
vigorous implementation of the
objectives of this Act, land disposal will
be eliminated for many wastes and
minimized for all others, and that
advanced treatment, recycling,
incineration and other hazardous waste
control technologies should replace
land disposal." H. Rep. No. 1133, 98th
Cong. 2d sess. 80.
Other legislative history indicates that
Congress intended for EPA to adopt
technology-based treatment standards:
"The requisite levels o(r) methods of
treatment established by the Agency
should be the best that has (sic) been
demonstrated to be achievable. This
does not require a BAT-type process
1984) (Statement of Sen. Chaffee introducing the
amendment that became section 3004(m))
'Sea also section 1002[b)(7) which states that
"certain classes of land disposal facilities are not
capable of assuring long-term containment of
certain hazardous wastes, and to avoid substantial
risk to human health and the environment, reliance
on land disposal should be minimized or
eliminated * « «.".
4 The final sentence undoubtedly refers to
situations where dilution occurs as part of the
manufacturing process that generates the waste (see
House Report quoted in the next footnote), not to
dilution that occurs once the waste is generated.
This legislative history was to a bill containing
the predecessor provision to section 3004(m). The
critical provision would have mandated treatment
only of hazardous wastes containing significant
concentrations of hazardous constituents, and
required treatment to levels that would be
"protective", defined as satisfying the no-migration
test. EPA does not view these differences as being
critically different from the enacted section
3004(m), and so views the Senate legislative history
as being relevant to ascertaining Congressional
intent regarding dilution of hazardous constituents
as a means of achieving treatment standards.
5 "The Committee intends that dilution to a
concentration less than the specified thresholds by
the addition of other hazardous waste or any other
material during waste handling, transportation,
treatment, or storage, other than dilution which
occurs as a normal part of a manufacturing process,
will not be allowed. Such hazardous waste would
still be prohibited from land disposal." H. Rep. No.
198, 98th Cong. 1st sess. 34; see also id. at 38 ("(t)he
Administrator may also impose limitations on the
use of waste dilution to avoid disposal restrictions.
The late (sic) is particularly important where
regulations are based on concentrations of
hazardous constituents.")
The House Bill did not expressly require
pretreatment before disposal, the scheme of the
enacted law, but nevertheless illuminates
Congressional intent not to allow dilution as a
means of treating hazardous constituents.
* * *. The intent here is to require
utilization of available technology in
lieu of continued land disposal without
prior treatment." 130 Cong. Rec. S 9178
(daily ed. July 25,1984) (statement of
Sen. Chaffee introducing the
amendment that became section
3004(m)); see also 130 Cong. Rec. 20803
(1984 (statement of Sen. Moynihan on
section 3004(m)): "The requisite levels
o(r) methods of treatment established by
the Agency should be the best that has
been demonstrated to be achievable."
The legislative history also indicates
that Congress intended treatment to
result in destruction of total cyanide
and organic hazardous constituents. 130
Cong. Rec. S 9178 (statement of Sen.
Chaffee). Dilution of hazardous
constituents, of course, is not BDAT,
and does not destroy or remove
hazardous constituents.
The legislative history consequently
strongly supports reading section
3004(m) as not allowing dilution of
hazardous constituents.
C. Judicial Opinions
The D.C. Circuit's position in the
Third Third opinion is potentially
contradictory on this point. At points in
the opinion, as noted above, this court
states that dilution could satisfy section
3004(m) requirements, perhaps even for
hazardous constituents. Elsewhere,
however, the court unequivocally stated
that dilution does not satisfy section
3004(m) because hazardous constituents
are not destroyed, removed, or
immobilized:
We wish to make explicit the impact of our
holding * * *. First, where dilution to
remove the characteristic meets the
definition of treatment under section
3004(m)(l), nothing more is required.
Second, where dilution removes the
characteristic but does not "treat" the waste
by reducing the toxicity of hazardous
constituents, then the decharacterized waste
may be placed in a surface impoundment if
and only if the resulting CWA treatment fully
complies with RCRA section 3004(m)(l).
In other words, the material that
comes out of CWA treatment facilities
that employ surface impoundments
must remove the hazardous constituents
to the same extent that any other
treatment facility that complies with
RCRA does. 976 F. 2d at 23. Dilution
thus cannot be used as the sole means
of treating hazardous constituents
because it does not remove hazardous
constituents from the waste. The court
made this explicit in a footnote
quantifying the above-quoted passage:
To illustrate RCRA's focus on treatment of
the hazardous constituents in a waste,
consider a waste stream hazardous by
characteristic for cadmium. Both the
-------
11708
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
characteristic and treatment levels for the
hazardous waste are 1.0 mg/1. Assume that a
stream of 3.0 mg/1 daily deposits 1000 liters
into a treatment facility. A RCRA treatment
facility would remove at least 2000 mg of
cadmium from the waste stream. A CWA
must do the same—although to do so it will
have to process at least three times as much
water (because dilution of 1000 liters of 3.0
mg/1 to just below the characteristic level
will yield just over 3000 liters). Allowing
dilution alone would decharacterize the
waste, but it would not reduce the total
amount of cadmium entering the
environment. 976 F 2d at 23 n. 8.
Applying this same standard to
injection of decharacterized wastewaters
into Class I nonhazardous injection
wells, the court stated:
(W)e hold that dilution followed by
injection into a deep well is permissible only
where dilution itself fully meets section
3004(m)(l) standards or where the waste will
subsequently meet section 3004(m)(l)
standards. Because deep well injection is
permanent land disposal, our holding in
effect permits diluted decharacterized wastes
to be deep well injected only when dilution
meets the section 3004(m)(l) standard or
where the deep well secures a no-migration
variance. 976 F. 2d at 25. This means that
"any hazardous waste (must) be treated in
such a way that hazardous constituents are
removed from the waste before it enters the
environment." 976 F. 2d at 24 (emphasis
added). Since injection wells are disposal
units and do not engage in treatment, they
are incapable of satisfying this standard. Id.
at 25.
EPA believes that the thrust of the
opinion is to require treatment of
hazardous constituents before land
disposal. The court's explicit and
quantified insistence that treatment
standards are to reduce mass loadings of
hazardous constituents makes this clear.
If the court intended to allow dilution
as the sole means of treating hazardous
constituents, it would at least have
discussed how this squared with
statutory language, goals and objectives,
and legislative history. Thus, the
Agency does not accept the
commenters' reading of the opinion.
Today's rule consequently proposes that
prohibited, decharacterized wastes be
treated so that underlying hazardous
constituents are removed, destroyed, or
immobilized before final disposal into
the environment.
III. Integration of BOAT With Other
Agency Actions
As EPA makes decisions in this LDR
Phase III rule on so-called end-of-pipe
equivalence for direct and indirect
dischargers treating prohibited,
decharacterized wastes in surface
impoundments, there are related
Agency rulemaking activities warranting
mention: The LDR Phase IV rule, which
will consider leaks, sludges, and air
emissions from surface impoundments;
the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR), which provides a risk based
assessment of when wastes are
hazardous, and may result in capping
the extent of treatment of some
hazardous constituents; the Pulp and
Paper and Pharmaceutical Industries
effluent limitations guidelines which
affect industries using impoundment-
based treatment systems to manage
decharacterized wastes; and rules for
control of hazardous air pollutants
issued under the Clean Air Act (CAA),
which regulate similar air emissions.
These interrelationships are explored
below, so that the public can be made
aware of how future regulations may
impact decisions to be made in response
to this rule. Comments and data are
requested on the LDR Phase IV options
discussed in this part.
A. Phase W LDRs—Cross-Media
Transfer and Equivalency Issues
1. Cross-Media Implications
The LDR Phase IV rule will consider
equivalent treatment for centralized
wastewater treatment systems with
impoundments managing wastewaters
that are decharacterized. The principle
potentially at issue is the transfer of
pollutants from one media to another
without being destroyed, removed, or
immobilized. Treatment of the
wastewaters transfers the pollutants , to
groundwater from leaks, or to the air.
The transfer of pollutants from one
media to another is an Agency-wide
concern. The environment is not well
served by piecemeal regulation which
simply transfers pollutants, nor is
industry well-served by piecemeal
regulation. The Agency's preference is
to look at these situations holistically so
that pollutants are not simply
transferred, and so that the Agency
provides industry with a coordinated
understanding of the "environmental
requirements" for all media. How the
Agency pursues this preference has not
been decided, but the following
discussion outlines some of the issues
being examined.
2. Background of Equivalency Issues
EPA is Considering for LDR Phase IV
EPA is considering, in addition to
evaluating equivalence at the point of
ultimate discharge to surface waters or
to a Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) ("end-of-pipe equivalence"),
conditions for determining equivalence
of treatment for decharacterized wastes
managed in nonhazardous waste
(subtitle D) surface impoundments
which would involve consideration of
whether treatment is not equivalent due
to cross-media transfers of untreated
hazardous constituents. In evaluating
the above approaches, EPA is looking
both at RCRA and other Agency
authorities and programs that would
ensure protection and provide control
equivalent to RCRA.
The Agency has not made any
determination as to the best manner to
implement the standard enunciated in
the opinion. It is certain that the
opinion requires at least a
demonstration of end-of-pipe
equivalence, which will be
accomplished when the treatment
standards in today's proposed rule are
finalized. Whether it requires more is
unclear. The opinion appears to focus
on treatment of wastewaters. For
example, the court stated "treatment of
solid wastes in a CWA surface
impoundment must meet RCRA
requirements prior to ultimate discharge
into waters of the United States or
publicly owned treatment works
* * * ." 976 F. 2d at 20, emphasis
added). See also id. at 7, 20 (focus on
treatment of waste "streams", i.e. the
liquids in the impoundment); 23 n. 8
(reduction of mass loadings of
hazardous constituents of waste stream
entering and exiting an impoundment);
24 (court indicates that decharacterized
wastes are not held permanently in
impoundments, a statement that is
uniformly correct for wastewaters but
not wastewater treatment sludges); 24
(court focuses on treatment of "liquids"
in impoundments). At one point, the
court also noted, in distinguishing
between subtitle C and subtitle D
surface impoundments, that sludges in
subtitle C impoundments require further
management in accord with subtitle C,
id. at 24, n. 10, perhaps suggesting by
negative implication that sludges in
subtitle D impoundments do not.
Equally important, the court held that
"RCRA requires some accommodation
with (the) CWA", id. at 20, see also id.
at 23, indicating that to some degree
RCRA need not mandate a wholesale
disruption of existing wastewater
treatment impoundments, provided the
CWA treatment system really achieves
treatment equivalent to RCRA section
3004(m) treatment: "In other words,
what leaves a CWA treatment facility
can be no more toxic than if the waste
streams were individually treated
pursuant to the RCRA treatment
standards." Id.
On the other hand, the opinion can be
read more broadly to encompass
requirements respecting surface
impoundment integrity. The court's
fundamental concern with dilution,
echoing the requirements of section
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
11709
3004(m), is that dilution does not
reduce or destroy hazardous
constituents, and thus does not prevent
those constituents from entering the
environment. Id. at 22,24, 29-30; see
also id. at 23 n. 8 stressing the court's
holding that total mass loadings of
pollutants "entering the environment"
must be reduced in order to comply
with section 3004(m).
Moreover, the court distinguished a
number of times between temporary
placement of diluted wastes in
impoundments for treatment and
permanent disposal in land disposal
units, stating that only the temporary
placement represents a satisfactory
accommodation between RCRA and the
CWA. Id. at 24, 25. To the extent
hazardous constituents leak or volatilize
from impoundments, it can be argued
that permanent disposal of untreated
hazardous constituents is occurring.
The schedule for issuing the LDR
Phase III and IV rules are both subject
to settlement agreement, and, according
to the schedule established by these
settlement agreements, will be proposed
only six months apart. Therefore,
industry will be able to evaluate the
LDR Phase III proposed end-of-pipe
equivalency requirements while keeping
in mind the upcoming LDR Phase IV
rule which must consider sludges, leaks,
and air emissions from treatment
surface impoundments. The Agency has
not yet decided how to pursue the
potential equivalency issues related to
sludges, leaks, or air emissions;
however, the Agency is taking this
opportunity to discuss the issues and
potential options in these three areas.
Furthermore, the Agency solicits data
characterizing sludges, leaks, and air
emissions from surface impoundments,
a. Sludges. Characteristic wastewaters
managed in CWA and CWA-equivalent
impoundment-based systems invariably
are treated to generate a sludge. Under
EPA's existing interpretations of the
rules, such sludges are usually
considered to be prohibited wastes only
if they are themselves hazardous. 55 FR
at 22661. This is because generation of
a new treatability group is considered to
be a new point of generation for
purposes of determining where LDR
prohibitions attach. The Agency has not
determined whether the court decision
could or should be read to invalidate
this interpretation (although the Agency
adopted a "waste code carry through"
approach for the characteristic wastes
addressed in the emergency interim
final rule). This will be an issue that
must be resolved in the LDR Phase IV
rule.
In addressing this issue, it should be
noted that the LDR treatment standards
for nonwastewaters and wastewaters are
by now well established. There are 521
hazardous waste codes subject to LDR
technology-based treatment standards.
In instances where analytical methods
are available, these hazardous wastes
are subject to UTS that were
promulgated in the LDR Phase II final
rule (UTS are, however, based on
treatment standards that have been in
effect, in some cases, since 1986 and
thus are well established). While no
decision has been made on whether to
regulate these sludges, if the Agency
decides to control sludges from CWA
and CWA-equivalent surface
impoundments, the treatment standards
(UTS levels) are already in place.
EPA believes that the likely impact of
such an approach would be mixed—that
is, some facilities will continue to use
surface impoundments and remove and
treat the sludge, if necessary, while
others will move away from the use of
surface impoundments. For example,
aggressive biological treatment, such as
that typically used by the petroleum
refining industry, may achieve UTS
levels as generated. Sludges from
primary treatment in surface
impoundments are more likely to
exceed UTS levels. If the Agency
decides to control sludges, such an
approach may impose significant costs
on the facility. Subjecting sludges to
UTS may encourage pollution
prevention and recycling alternatives to
be used prior to placement of wastes in
the impoundment, so that sludge
treatment standards are not triggered.
Comments are solicited on these issues.
b. Leaking Surface Impoundments.
While hazardous wastes entering
surface impoundments constitute
temporary land disposal (because they
are being placed there for treatment),
leaks from such impoundments
constitute permanent land disposal.
Such permanent land disposal was
clearly a concern of the court. 976 F. 2d
at 25-6.
The Agency is considering the
following additional controls if the
decision is made to address leaking
surface impoundments:
EPA already has UTS limits that
could be applied to the influent into the
surface impoundment when it is
determined that it leaks underlying
hazardous constituents at levels above
UTS. Applying UTS to the influent
would assure that only wastes that have
been treated in a manner equivalent to
RCRA treatment are land disposed.
EPA is also considering applying
some of the subtitle D municipal solid
waste landfill criteria to address leaking
surface impoundments (Municipal
Landfill Rule (56 FR 50978, October 9,
1991). The impacts of such an approach
on aggressive biological surface
impoundments may not be significant.
On the other hand, facilities with
leaking impoundments engaged in
primary treatment could have to
perform some type of action such as
retrofitting, remediating groundwater, or
switching to tank treatment.
A third option being considered is
using triggering controls based on the
potential risk of any leak. The Agency
could require as a performance standard
that owners demonstrate that the
expected leaks would pose a low level
of risk to nearby receptors. Facilities
would have the flexibility to change the
influent, install engineering controls, or
limit potential exposure in order to
comply with this performance standard.
c. Air Emissions. Achieving
wastewater or nonwastewater standards
by merely transferring hazardous
constituents to the air may be
inconsistent with the court opinion in
that excessive, uncontrolled
volatilization could be viewed as
unequivalent treatment, or unsafe
treatment conditions. For example,
treatment of volatile organic compounds
in surface impoundments may achieve
compliance with a wastewater treatment
standard by simply .transferring
pollutants to the air.
If EPA should determine that the
court's opinion should be read to
require control of excessive
volatilization from impoundments to
demonstrate equivalent treatment, one
option is deferral to CAA NESHAP
standards, such as the Benzene'Waste
Operations NESHAPs and the HON. The
Benzene NESHAPs were promulgated
on January 17,1993, and the HON was
promulgated on April 22,1994 (59 FR
19402). The Agency will explore further
whether the CAA standards for
hazardous air pollutants provide
equivalent protection or control of the
hazardous constituents of concern.
Another option is extend the
applicability of existing air emission
controls in RCRA—the recently
promulgated RCRA Air Emission
Standards (59 FR 62585 (Dec. 6,1994)).
The RCRA Air Emission Standards are
self-implementing and are applicable to
90-day units at hazardous waste
generator sites. These standards do not
apply to surface impoundments which
receive waste that was hazardous at the
point of generation but was
"decharacterized" (i.e., rendered
nonhazardous) before being placed in
the surface impoundment.
The approach EPA is considering in
the second option is a "target mass
removal", which would ensure that
hazardous constituents are effectively
-------
11710 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
removed or destroyed and that
standards are not achieved through
dilution or air emissions. A key to this
approach is that all waste streams
commingled with the hazardous waste
streams are accounted for, and
calculations are made to ensure that
dilution is not credited toward
achieving the standard. The target mass
removal approach is to identify a
hazardous waste at its point of
generation and determine the mass of
hazardous constituents that must be
removed to meet UTS. The mass of
constituents removed can be calculated
by comparing a post-treatment waste
determination to the point of generation
waste determination. An alternative is
to calculate the percent reduction of
hazardous constituents that is required
to meet the standard, and ensure that
associated treatment devices operate at
that level of efficiency. Application of
this approach could also address the
issue of nonamenable waste discussed
in Section VI of this preamble.
Comments are solicited on the
application of this approach.
The likely impacts of establishing air
emission requirements are that facilities
will pursue pollution prevention,
recycling, steam stripping or other
treatment to remove volatile organics
prior to treatment in surface
impoundments. Under this approach,
hazardous constituents would either
need to be removed prior to entering the
surface impoundment, or the
impoundment would have to be
retrofitted in a way that prevents escape
of air emissions. ,
Comments and data are solicited on
options for addressing these three areas
of potential cross media transfer from
wastewater treatment surface
impoundments. Comments and data are
also solicited on potential costs and
human health benefits.
B. The Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule (HWIR)
A recurring concern expressed by
many commenters is the relationship
between technology-based and risk-
based RCRA limits. EPA has established
technology-based limits for all LDR
rules and will continue to do so in the
LDR Phase III rule. The Agency is
considering the establishment of risk-
based levels, however, under the HWIR
that is scheduled to be proposed in the
fall of 1995.
The integration of the two approaches
could impact how facilities comply with
all LDR treatment standards. For
example, if the HWIR risk-based limits
are determined to minimize threats to
human health and the environment,
when they are higher than the LDR
standards (less stringent), they will
satisfy RCRA section 3004(m) and the
waste would not have to be treated to
meet the LDR technology-based limits.
HWTC III, 886 F. 2d at 362. Integration
of the LDR and HWIR will be further
addressed in the HWIR rulemaking
process.
C. Water Rules—the Pulp and Paper and
Pharmaceutical Industries Rules
The LDR Phase III end-of-pipe RCRA
wastewater treatment standards (i.e., the
standards which will satisfy the end-of-
pipe equivalence standard enunciated
by the court) being proposed today will
be applied at the same location that
CWA effluent limitation guidelines and
pretreatment standards are currently
applied. EPA is currently amending
effluent limitation guidelines and
standards for two industries that use
surface impoundments extensively: the
pulp and paper and the pharmaceutical
industries. Both of these rules are
considering in-process limitations of the
highly-volatile constituents.
The combined CWA and CAA Pulp
and Paper rule was proposed on
December 17,1993 (58 FR 66077). The
Pharmaceutical Industry effluent
guidelines are scheduled to be proposed
by February 1995. One key issue, with
respect to both of these industry
categories, is the timing of these
amended effluent guidelines and
standards in relation to promulgation of
LDR Phase III standards. EPA believes
that these amended guidelines and
standards should establish end-of-pipe
equivalence. However, these amended
rules may not be promulgated or
effective until after this LDR Phase III
rule takes effect. For reasons discussed
later in today's preamble, however, EPA
is proposing to wait until the amended
rules for these industrial categories take
effect before establishing end-of-pipe
equivalence standards for these
industries.
IV. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards
A. EPA's General Approach to Setting
Treatment Standards and Its Relation to
the End-of-Pipe Standards Proposed
Today
In the recently-promulgated LDR
Phase II rule, EPA significantly
simplified the existing treatment
standards by adopting Universal
Treatment Standards (UTS). 59 FR
47982 (September 19,1994). These
standards apply the same concentration
limit for the same constituent in all
prohibited wastes. The Agency believes
these standards are typically achievable
for all prohibited wastes, and greatly
improve the implementation of the LDR
program by reducing the numbers of
different treatment standards from
thousands to essentially one per
constituent.
That being said, however, the Agency
is nevertheless proposing today that
UTS not apply to hazardous
constituents in decharacterized
wastewaters discharged by CWA
facilities subject to the rule so long as
the facility is subject to an appropriate
CWA technology-based or water quality-
based standard or limitation for that
hazardous constituent. As explained
more fully in section B below, the
Agency believes that such CWA
limitations and standards satisfy RCRA
section 30D4(m) requirements and
therefore that the best means of
integrating RCRA and CWA
requirements is to have the CWA
limitation or standard be the RCRA
treatment standard as well. This choice
by the Agency, should it be finalized,
should not be viewed as any retreat
from general applicability of UTS.
Indeed, as proposed elsewhere in this
preamble, EPA is proposing to apply
UTS to various newly identified and
listed wastes, as well as to prohibited
decharacterized wastes injected into
Class I nonhazardous injection wells.
B. End-of-Pipe Treatment Standards for
Clean Water Act and Equivalent
Wastewater Treatment Systems
As discussed before, EPA must
impose treatment standards on wastes
that heretofore have not been subject to
RCRA. regulation. Both RCRA and CWA
programs require treatment notification,
monitoring, and enforcement; however,
they do so using different procedures.
. This rule proposes an approach,
discussed in the following subsections,
that integrates requirements under both
statutes to the maximum extent
possible.
The nonhazardous waste surface
impoundments in CWA and CWA-
equivalent systems currently have no
RCRA permit. For CWA systems, the
discharge into navigable waters are
subject to a NPDES permit, while
discharges to POTWs are subject to
pretreatment standards. EPA is today
proposing to require that the treatment
standard be met at the same point that
the NPDES and pretreatment limits are
required to be met: Generally, at end-of-
pipe. CWA-equivalent systems may be
subject to state or local permits, and
would be subject to the treatment
standards before final discharge to the
land.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11711
1. CWA Standards and Limitations as
RCRA Section 3004(m) Treatment
Standards
RCRA section 1006(b) requires EPA
(among other things) to integrate
provisions of RCRA and the CWA when
implementing RCRA and to avoid
duplication to the maximum extent
possible with CWA requirements. In
keeping with this requirement, EPA is
proposing to implement the end-of-pipe
equivalency standard in the court's
opinion so that a technology-based or
water quality-based CWA standard for
an underlying hazardous constituent in
a CWA facility's discharge will also be
considered to be the RCRA BDAT
treatment standard for that constituent.
(If a CWA standard for an underlying
hazardous constituent is not included in
the CWA permit, the facility must meet
UTS at end-of-pipe. See further
discussion in the next subsection.)
Consequently, satisfying the CWA
standard or limitation for that
constituent will also satisfy RCRA.
Thus, for example, if a facility managing
decharacterized wastes containing
benzene has an NPDES permit with a
limitation for benzene which reflects
Best Available Technology (BAT), that
limitation would also satisfy RCRA LDR
requirements. In addition, the facility
would not be subject to a separately
enforceable RCRA standard for benzene.
In order to limit the amount of potential
administrative duplication, EPA is
proposing that the standard remain
enforceable only under the Clean Water
Act.
EPA is proposing that a technology-
based CWA limitation or standard for a
hazardous constituent satisfies RCRA
because such a limitation or standard
best reflects the capability of best
treatment technologies to treat a specific
industry's wastewater (or, when the
limitation is determined by a permit
writer using Best Professional Judgment,
a specific plant's wastewater). The
RCRA UTS for wastewaters were
developed by transferring performance
data from various industries, and thus
EPA need not make that same transfer
when industry-specific (or plant-
specific) wastewater treatment data is
available. (EPA notes, however, that the
UTS reflect treatment of wastewater
matrices that are particularly difficult to
treat, and hence that the Agency's
conclusion that these standards are
typically achievable is sound.)
It is also reasonable for water quality-
based limitations to satisfy RCRA
requirements. These limitations must be
at least as stringent as the limitations
required to implement an existing
technology-based standard. (See CWA
section 301(b)(l)(c).) Even where there
is no existing BAT limitation for a toxic
or nonconventional pollutant, a permit
writer must determine whether BAT
would be more stringent than the
applicable water quality-based
limitation, and again, must apply the
more stringent of the two potential
limitations. (40 CFR 125.3(c)(2).)
Consequently, a water quality-based
limitation not only reasonably satisfies
RCRA section 3004(m) requirements,
but can be viewed as a type of site-
specific minimize threat level.
If a facility has received a
Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF)
variance, EPA is proposing that the
limitations established by that variance
also satisfy RCRA requirements.
Limitations established by the FDF
variance process are technology-based
standards reflecting facility-specific
circumstances, and hence can
appropriately be viewed as BDAT as
well, just as with RCRA treatability
variance standards. See 51 FR at 40605
(Nov. 7,1986).
EPA also believes that there are
adequate constraints in the CWA
implementing rules to prevent these
end-of-pipe standards from being
achieved by means of dilution. First,
many of the effluent limitation
guidelines and standards regulate the
mass of pollutants discharged, and thus
directly regulate not only the
concentration of pollutant discharged
but the degree of wastewater flow as
well. Where rules are concentration-
based, NPDES permit writers can set
requirements which preclude excessive
water use, and EPA has so instructed
permit writers. (See 58 FR 66151,
December 17,1983, encouraging permit
writers to estimate reasonable rate of
flow per facility and factor that flow
limit into the permit.) These permit
conditions can take the form of best
management practices, explicit mass
limitations, and conditions on internal
waste streams. 40 CFR 122.44(k);
122.45(f), (g) and (h). Indirect
dischargers are also subject to specific
CWA dilution rules in both the general
pretreatment rules and the Combined
Wastestream Formula (as well as
through many of the categorical
standards). 40 CFR 403.6(d) and (e).
Many of the guidelines and standards
also preclude addition of stormwater
runoff to process wastewater to preclude
achieving treatment requirements by
means of dilution. The Agency is
accordingly of the view that end-of-pipe
equivalence would be achieved by
treatment that removes or destroys
hazardous constituents, as required by
section 3004(m). (This discussion, of
course, still leaves open the questions,
left for the LDR Phase IV rule, of how
existence of leaks, air emissions, or
depositions of constituents in sludges
affects determinations of equivalent
treatment and similar issues.)
With respect to indirect dischargers,
EPA is further proposing that national
categorical standards or, potentially,
plant-specific standards contained in
control mechanisms (i.e. contracts
between industrial users and the POTW
or other governmental entity) satisfy
RCRA where these standards reflect
pass through findings. If it is found that
a particular pollutant/hazardous
constituent will not pass through to
navigable waters because of efficacious
treatment by the POTW, there will be
full-scale treatment of the pollutant/
hazardous constituent before its final
release into the environment. EPA is
proposing that such full-scale treatment
satisfies the court's equivalency test.
EPA is also proposing to add such pass-
through situations as a valid ground for
indirect dischargers to obtain a RCRA
treatability variance, for the same
reasons.
However, the Agency is not proposing
that standards based on interference
with POTW operations be deemed to
also satisfy RCRA requirements.
Interference findings reflect the effect
the pollutant may have on overall
POTW treatment, not necessarily
treatment of the particular constituent.
Because the relationship of an
interference-based standard with
treatment of a particular pollutant is
tenuous, the Agency does not believe
such a standard can be said to be
equivalent to RCRA treatment. The
Agency solicits comment on the
prevalence of interference-based
standards.
2. Implementation When CWA
Standards and Limitations Will Be the
Exclusive Standard
a. Direct Dischargers
EPA is proposing that if a direct
discharger subject to this rule (i.e.
generating ICRT wastes containing
hazardous constituents at
concentrations exceeding UTS at the
point the wastes are generated and
treating those wastes in surface
impoundments) has an NPDES permit
containing a limitation for that pollutant
based on BAT, New Source Performance
Standards, or a more stringent water
quality standard, or is regulated through
controls on an indicator pollutant, then
there are no RCRA requirements other
than documentary recordkeeping. An
indicator pollutant is a pollutant for
which control of that pollutant is
considered to indicate control of a
-------
11712
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
specific constituent. For example, total
phenols is an indicator for a specific
phenol. The Agency solicits comments
on specific circumstances where a
pollutant is an indicator of a specific
underlying hazardous constituent.
If the existing NPDES permit either
does not contain a limitation for the
pollutant or does not regulate the
pollutant through an indicator, a facility
would have several choices. It could do
nothing, in which case the hazardous
constituent would be subject to the
UTS, and compliance would be
monitored at end-of-pipe (unless the
facility chooses to segregate the
wastestreams for treatment, in which
case compliance would be measured in
the segregated stream after treatment).
These standards would be implemented
by rule, and thus would not be
embodied in a permit. Enforcement
would be solely under RCRA.
In the alternative, a facility could seek
amendment of its NPDES permit
pursuant to § 122.62(a)(2), requesting
that the applicable permitting authority
modify the permit to add limits for the
underlying hazardous constituents
reflecting BAT for that pollutant at the
facility. Assuming proper design and
operation of the wastewater treatment
technology, a permit writer in such a
case could modify the permit to add a
limitation for the pollutant based on
Best Professional Judgement reflecting
actual treatment (40 CFR 125.3(c)).
Modification requests would be
processed pursuant to the procedures
found at § 124.5. The modified permit
limitation would be a CWA requirement
and enforceable solely under that
statute.
A final alternative is for the facility to
seek a RCRA treatability variance. EPA
is proposing to amend the grounds for
granting such a variance to include
situations where a facility is treating
decharacterized wastes by treatment
identified as BAT, the technology is
designed and operated properly, but is
not achieving the UTS (see proposed
amendments to § 268.44(a)). The
amendment would also apply to
indirect dischargers properly operating
technology identified as the basis for
their PSES (Pretreatment Standard for
Existing Sources) or their PSNS
(Pretreatment Standard for New
Sources) standard.
b. Indirect Dischargers
The same alternatives exist for
indirect dischargers. First, if an
underlying hazardous constituent is not
regulated nationally by a PSES, PSNS,
or by a local limit, and so therefore
becomes subject to the UTS for that
constituent, that UTS would be enforced
as a RCRA standard. In addition, if there
is no pretreatment standard (i.e., PSES/
PSNS) for an underlying hazardous
constituent, because the Agency
determined that there was no pass
through, then the RCRA standard for
that underlying hazardous constituents
does not apply. However, in cases
where an underlying hazardous
constituent is not already subject to
categorical PSES, categorical PSNS, or
to a local limit in a control mechanism
reflecting PSES or PSNS-level treatment,
water quality, or pass through, the
control mechanism between the indirect
discharger and the applicable control
authority would have to be modified in
order to avoid application of the UTS by
rule. Although procedures for modifying
control mechanisms are less
institutionalized than those codified for
modifying direct dischargers' permits,
the Agency initially does not believe
this will pose a significant logistical
problem because the number of indirect
dischargers significantly affected by this
rule (i.e. those treating decharacterized
wastewaters in surface impoundments
before discharge to a POTW where
categorical PSES or local limitation does
not address a particular hazardous
constituent, and discharging greater
than de minimis levels of hazardous
constituents) appears to be small. The
Agency continues to solicit information
on the number of indirect dischargers so
affected, however.
EPA also solicits comment on the best
means of applying the equivalency
requirement to industries where the
Agency is also undertaking significant
revisions to applicable CWA
requirements on a somewhat slower
schedule than this rule. The Agency has
in mind particularly the forthcoming
amended standards for the
pharmaceutical and pulp and paper
industrial categories.6 Amended BAT/
PSES standards for these industries are
likely to encompass most or all of the
underlying hazardous constituents
typically found in these industries'
wastewaters, and will reflect EPA's best
judgement of the appropriate optimized
technology-based controls for those
pollutants, as well as the time needed to
implement those controls. The Agency's
initial preference, in keeping with the
requirements of RCRA section 1006, is
to wait until those controls are in place
before evaluating end-of-pipe
equivalency for those industries. The
Agency solicits comment on this matter.
6 The Pharmaceutical Rule is scheduled to be
proposed on February 28,1995; the Pulp and Paper
Rule was proposed on December 17,1993 (58 FR
66077).
Finally, if the facility treats to UTS
and does not modify its CWA permit or
control mechanism to include a CWA
standard/limitation for an underlying
hazardous constituent, EPA is proposing
minimal record-keeping requirements,
under RCRA authority. EPA is
proposing that generators can use
generator knowledge to identify the
underlying hazardous constituents
present at the point of generation of the
ICRT wastes which are not covered by
a CWA limitation and hence must be
treated to meet UTS (assuming no
permit modification, etc.). Monitoring at
potentially hundreds of points of
generation would be unnecessarily
burdensome and so is not being
proposed as a requirement. EPA is
proposing that this information be kept
on-site in files at the facility. EPA
proposes that the facility will then
monitor compliance with the UTS
standard for each of these constituents
at the point of ultimate discharge on a
quarterly basis, and that the results of
this monitoring also be kept in the
facility's on-site files. Monitoring
compliance with UTS at the point of
discharge provides appropriate
assurance of effective treatment. Failure
to comply with the RCRA UTS standard
must be reported by the facility to the
EPA Regional or authorized state RCRA
personnel.
Finally, the Agency is proposing to
grant a two-year national capacity
variance to allow facilities time to
repipe and build on-site treatment, or to
modify their CWA permit.
EPA is proposing these same
requirements for documenting
compliance for zero dischargers without
NPDES permits who are affected by this
rule. The absence of a permit
necessitates some alternative means of
documenting compliance, and the
scheme outlined above seems to be the
least burdensome scheme which would
still provide a reasonable means of
enforcing this rule.
C. Treatment Standards for Class I
Nonhazardous Injection Wells
1. Introduction
Generally, facilities injecting
decharacterized ICRT wastes into Class
I nonhazardous injection wells do not
treat their waste beyond removing the
characteristic by mixing and diluting,
plus some filtering of solids. There are
as many as 149 such facilities. The
average flow of a typical Class I
nonhazardous well is estimated at
107,000 gallons/day. Typically, the
volume of the hazardous wastestreams
is relatively small (less than 25%)
compared to the volumes of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11713
nonhazardous wastestreams being co-
injected.
EPA is proposing that these
characteristic wastestreams be
considered prohibited at the point they
are generated. The Agency is further
proposing that underlying hazardous
constituents in these prohibited wastes
ba treated to meet UTS levels before the
waste is injected. The treatment must
destroy, remove, or immobilize the
underlying hazardous constituents in
the waste that are present in
concentrations exceeding UTS at the
point the wastes are generated. It may be
that in some situations, one type of
treatment may pose more risk than
another type, notwithstanding that it
removes or destroys hazardous
constituents to a greater degree. In such
cases, facilities may seek a treatability
variance to allow the use of the less
aggressive treatment technology
(assuming such treatment technology
satisfies the 3004(m) standard). In such
a situation, the technology posing
greater risk could be considered to be
"not appropriate to the waste," (see 40
CFR 268.44(a)) and a variance could be
granted to allow the use of alternative
treatment. EPA believes this result
satisfies the court's mandate in the
Third Third opinion.
EPA believes that the decision in the
Third Third opinion necessitates
revising the applicability of the 40 CFR
Part 148 requirements, Hazardous Waste
Injection Restrictions, as they now
apply to Class I nonhazardous injection
wells. The Agency is clarifying in
proposed revisions to 40 CFR 148.1, that
owners and operators of Class I
nonhazardous wells must determine,
under certain circumstances, whether
the LDRs now apply to their facilities.
Class I wells which inject nonhazardous
wastes at the point of injection must
now determine if any of these wastes
exhibited a characteristic of hazardous
waste at the point they were generated.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
amend § 148.1 and redefine the purpose,
scope, and applicability of the Part 148
regulations.
To conform with the Court's ruling
the Agency is also proposing to include
Class I nonhazardous wells within the
scope of the dilution prohibition at 40
CFR 148.3. Class I wells thus may not
impermissibly dilute their hazardous
waste streams in order to substitute for
or avoid treatment levels or methods
established in the LDRs.
2. Compliance Options for Class I
Nonhazardous UIC Wells
In order to comply with today's
treatment. Treatment could occur either
on-site or off-site. After the
characteristic wastes have been treated
to meet UTS, they can be land disposed
(either by injection or by some other
means). A facility could also treat the
aggregated mass of wastewaters (i.e. the
commingled characteristic and non-
characteristic wastewaters) to meet UTS
before injection.
Another option is for the facility to
seek a no-migration variance under
§ 148.20. Thus, EPA is proposing today
to amend the provisions under § 148.20
to allow facilities to seek a no-migration
variance for their injection well(s). This
amendment, however, would simply
formalize EPA's existing interpretation
that no-migration variances are already
available for such wells. See 59 FR at
48013 (September 19,1994). If these
facilities submit a no-migration petition
to EPA and effectively demonstrate to
EPA that their formerly characteristic
wastes (including any hazardous
constituents contained in those wastes)
will not migrate from the injection zone
for 10,000 years or no longer pose any
threat to human health and the
environment because the wastes are
attenuated, transformed, or immobilized
by natural means in the injection zone,
then they may continue injection
without further treatment.
Each no-migration petition has, to
date, taken on average 3 years to
process. This time may increase if the
Agency receives a large number of
petitions. EPA continues to emphasize,
however, that interested petitioners
need not wait for this rule to be
promulgated before pursuing the
petition process. Petitions for a no-
migration variance for Class I
nonhazardous wells receiving
decharacterized wastes can be received
and evaluated now. Id.
EPA is also proposing to extend the
availability of case-by-case extensions of
the effective date to Class I
nonhazardous injection facilities for any
applicable Part 148 prohibition.
Proposed revisions to § 148.1(c)(l) and
§ 148.4 will allow Class I well owners
and operators on a case-specific basis to
follow procedures of § 268.5 to receive
a one-year extension, renewable for an
additional year, from the effective date
of the prohibitions, in order to acquire
or construct alternative treatment
capacity.
EPA today is proposing two other
means for facilities with Class I UIC
wells to comply with the LDR
requirements. The first involves
removing the same mass of hazardous
constituents from streams to be injected
through pollution prevention rather
than pre-injection wastewater treatment.
The second involves creating an
exception for situations when the
characteristic wastestreams make only a
de minimis contribution to the waste
mixture being injected. These two
proposed options are described below in
more detail.
3. Pollution Prevention Compliance
Option
The D.C. Circuit stressed that the
equivalency test, if enunciated, is
required to ensure that mass loadings of
hazardous constituents to permanent
disposal units are reduced to the same
extent they would be if a prohibited
waste was treated exclusively under a
RCRA regime. 976 F. 2d at 23 n. 8. EPA
is proposing that these reductions in
mass loadings can be achieved by
removing hazardous constituents from
any of the wastestreams that are going
to be injected, and that these reductions
in mass loadings can be accomplished
by means of pollution prevention.7
Thus, if a facility can, for example,
make process changes that reduce the
mass of cadmium by the same amount
that would be removed if the prohibited
wastestream was treated to satisfy UTS,
the facility would have satisfied LDR
requirements. The facility would thus
no longer have to demonstrate that it is
meeting UTS concentration levels.
Under this option, a hazardous
constituent could be removed from
either the hazardous or nonhazardous
portion of the injectate, and could be
removed before a waste is generated.
The result would be that the mass
loading into the injection unit would be
reduced by the same amount as it would
be reduced by treatment of the
prohibited, characteristic portion of the
injectate.
7 In a 1992 memorandum from F. Henry Habicht,
then EPA Deputy Administrator, and reiterated in
a June 15,1993 memorandum from Carol Browner,
EPA Administrator, the Agency has defined
pollution prevention as "source reduction" (as
defined in the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act
(PPA)), and other practices that reduce or eliminate
the creation of pollutants through (1) increased
efficiency in the use of raw materials, energy, water,
or other resources; or (2) protection of natural
resources by conservation. The PPA defines "source
reduction" to mean any practice which (1) reduces
the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant,
or contaminant entering any waste stream or
otherwise released into the environment (including
fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, treatment, or
disposal; (2) reduces the hazards to public health
and the environment associated with the release of
such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
"Source reduction" includes: equipment or
technology modifications, process or procedure
modifications, reformulation or redesign of
products, substitution of raw materials, and
improvements in housekeeping, maintenance,
training, or inventory control. Recycling, energy
recovery, treatment, and disposal are not included
in the definition of pollution prevention in the PPA.
-------
11714
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
The mass/day reduction of a
particular underlying hazardous
constituent can be calculated by
comparing the injected baseline with the
allowance. The injected baseline is
determined by multiplying the volume/
day of hazardous waste generated (and
subsequently injected) times the
concentration of hazardous constituents
prior to the pollution prevention
measure. The allowance is determined
by multiplying the volume/day of a
hazardous constituent generated/
injected times the UTS for that
constituent. The difference between the
injected baseline and the allowance is
the mass/day reduction.
After successful employment of a
pollution prevention measure, the
facility must demonstrate that the
injected mass achieves the required
mass/day reduction. The post-pollution
prevention measures would be corrected
for production variations by multiplying
the mass/day reduction times the ratio
of the pre-pollution prevention
production baseline divided by the
production on the day of sampling after
the pollution prevention is successfully
implemented. A correction for
production variations is needed because
the amount of an underlying hazardous
constituent in the injectate is dependent
upon the level of production. If the
initial reading is taken on a day of low
production, and the post-pollution
prevention reading is taken on a day of
high production, then without the
correction factor the mass/day reduction
calculation would be an underestimate.
The following is an example to
illustrate this discussion:
Facility X is daily injecting 1 Ib. of
benzene (an underlying hazardous
constituent in a characteristically
hazardous wastestream). The mass
allowed for benzene (based on the
volume of the hazardous wastestream
they inject and the UTS for benzene) is
0.3 Ibs. Therefore, the mass of benzene
that needs to be removed in order for
Facility X to be in compliance with the
LDR is 0.7 Ib.
Facility X decides to use pollution
prevention to remove the 0.7 Ib. of
benzene from their system. Before
employing pollution prevention,
Facility X monitors and determines that
on a day when they produce 10 tons of
product, 3 Ibs. of benzene is being
injected. After employment of pollution
prevention, Facility X monitors and
determines that 1 Ib. of benzene is being
injected. On this day of monitoring they
are producing 5 tons of product.
Therefore: 3 Ibs.-l* (10/5)=1 Ib. of
benzene removed, which means they are
in compliance with LDR, since 0.7 Ib.
was all that was necessary to be
removed.
EPA is proposing that the results of
the monitoring of the underlying
hazardous constituent concentration
and the volume of the hazardous waste
stream being injected, both on the day
before employment of pollution
prevention, and the day after successful
employment of pollution prevention, be
reported to the EPA Region or
authorized State as a one-time
notification. The facility will also
include in this report a description of
the pollution prevention method used.
In addition, the facility will monitor and
keep on-site records of the results on a
quarterly basis. Quarterly monitoring is
already required under SDWA
regulations (40 CFR 146.13(b)). The
reporting requirements for this option
will be a one-time notification; however,
if the facility changes its pollution
prevention method, they must repeat
the initial monitoring and notify the
EPA Region or authorized State. The
Agency is proposing to consider only
those pollution prevention measures
taken after the date of publication of this
proposed rule.
EPA is proposing that, at this time,
the pollution prevention alternative as
described in this section of the
preamble, be available only for facilities
using Class I nonhazardous injection
wells. EPA is not proposing the same
alternative for facilities using surface
impoundments because until the LDR
Phase IV rules are completed, there will
not be a test as to what comprises
equivalent treatment at such facilities.
That is, before EPA determines how
such issues as potential releases to air
and groundwater are to be resolved,
there is no final equivalency standard
for these facilities. It thus appears to
EPA to be premature to determine how
a pollution prevention alternative
would fit into such a scheme. EPA also
notes that because surface
impoundments can pose particularly
adverse environmental risks, see RCRA
section 1002(b)(7) and CWMv. EPA, 919
F. 2d 158 (B.C. Cir. 1992), the Agency
in any case may wish to develop
alternative approaches for
decharacterized wastes being managed
in such units.
EPA also solicits comment on a
number of issues relating to this option.
The first is comment on using other
production parameters besides or in lieu
of volume (e.g., mass, square footage,
etc.). The second is comment on use of
site-specific non-linear production
relationships and multiple production
factors to deal with potential differences
in underlying hazardous constituents
produced in the hazardous and
nonhazardous waste streams. Third,
EPA solicits comment on whether more
than one day is needed for monitoring
pre and post-employment of the
pollution prevention option (i.e., some
pollution prevention methods may
require more than one day to show
results).
EPA also solicits comment on the best
.means of ensuring that the mass
reductions achieved through this
pollution prevention alternative are
objectively verifiable and enforceable. In
particular, EPA solicits comments on
the best means of documenting baseline
levels, and whether flow reductions (as
opposed to hazardous constituent
removal) should be allowed as an
exclusive means of obtaining the
requisite reductions in mass loadings of
hazardous constituents.
Finally, EPA requests comment as to
whether it may eventually be possible to
implement this type of alternative by
means of a pollutant trading type of
approach, whereby the hazardous
constituent being removed by means of
pollution prevention need not be
identical to the hazardous constituent in
the characteristic stream. For example,
carcinogenic metals could all be
grouped rather than evaluated
individually. This type of approach may
add desirable flexibility if appropriately
constructed.
4. De Minimis Volume Exclusion
There is a question of whether EPA
should require treatment of relatively
small decharacterized hazardous waste
streams injected into Class I
nonhazardous wells when the result
will be essentially the same level of
contaminants being injected (and thus
risks are not measurably reduced).
Therefore the Agency is proposing to
establish a de minimis volume
exclusion for small volumes of formerly
hazardous wastes being injected into
these wells along with a greater volume
of nonhazardous waste.
There are two existing LDR de
minimis provisions (§ 268.l(e) (4) and
(5)). Both are for ignitable and/or
corrosive wastes (D001 and D002); the
first is for de minimis losses of D001 or
D002 to wastewater treatment systems
of commercial chemical products, while
the second is for de minimis losses of
D001 or D002 laboratory wastes. Under
the approach being proposed today,
when underlying hazardous
constituents are present in ICRT wastes
at concentrations less than 10 times
UTS at the point of generation, and the
combination of all of the
characteristically hazardous streams
together are less than 1% of the total
flow at point of injection and after
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11715
commingling with the nonhazardous
streams, and that the total volume of
hazardous streams are no more than
10,000 gallons/day, no segregation and/
or treatment would be required. The 1%
total How criteria is consistent with the
existing de minimis exemption for
laboratory wastes (§268.1(e)(5));
however, the Agency solicits comment
on the 1% criteria, the 10 times UTS
criteria as well as the 10,000 gallons/day
maximum—should these numbers be
higher, lower, or dropped?
The Agency intends to continue
analyzing collected data that may
provide additional justification for, or
alternatively, cause the Agency to
modify any or all of the criteria on
which it has based the de minimis
exemption for injected waste. This
analysis will be conducted in
conjunction with revising the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for
underground injected wastes, and may
include additional computer modeling
used in assessing the health risks posed
by Class I injection wells. The Agency
may conduct this analysis, for example,
by varying specific parameters in the
modeling, such as well pump rates, total
volume of waste injected, and waste
concentrations, and by altering
postulated exposure scenarios
describing health risks posed by
injection of Phase III wastes. Upon
conclusion, the analysis may support
the proposed de minimis criteria or may
cause the Agency to revise them in the
final rule. The Agency solicits any
comment on this planned approach and
any alternative suggestions.
The Agency is proposing that if a
generator determines that he meets the
requirements of the de minimis
exemption, that he place a one-time
notice in his files stating the % flow and
concentration of the underlying
hazardous constituents, and volumetric
flow of prohibited wastestreams (i.e.
streams exhibiting a characteristic at the
point of generation). The concentration
of underlying hazardous constituents
would have to be determined through
monitoring, and the % flow can be
determined through several methods.
One method for estimating annual
average wastewater stream flow is to use
the maximum annual production
capacity of the process equipment,
along with knowledge of the process
and mass balance. A second method
would involve using measurements that
are representative of average process
wastewater generation rates. A third
method is to select the highest flow rate
of process wastewater from the
historical records. Other knowledge-
based methods, which would be less
expensive alternatives to actual
measurement, could also be used. EPA
solicits comment on these alternatives.
D. Point of Generation Discussion
1. Introduction
It has long been the rule that land
disposal prohibitions apply at the point
hazardous wastes are generated. See e.g.
55 PR at 22652 (June 1,1990);
261.3(a)(2)(iii). Some members of the
regulated community, including the
Chemical Manufacturer's Association
(CMA), have asked EPA to reconsider
this issue in light of the Third Third
rule and the B.C. Circuit opinion
interpreting that rule. See CWM v. EPA
(976 F. 2d 2 D.C. Cir. 1992). Among
other things, the court held that
hazardous constituents present above
concentrations "sufficient to pose a
threat to human health and the
environment" in prohibited wastes,
including characteristic wastes, must
meet LDR treatment standards. See 976
F. 2d at 16.
The regulated community has argued
that continued application of the point
of generation rule could lead to
situations where prohibitions would
attach to particular characteristic
wastestreams and trigger a host of
potentially disproportionate
consequences, without necessarily
furthering any of the protective
objectives of the LDR program. Many
industrial processes consist of hundreds
or thousands of streams, some of which
exhibit characteristics only for a short
time or (for batch processes)
intermittently. The streams often exist
within the physical confines of an
industrial process, and may be collected
within a common sump or other
aggregation point. If one of the streams
should exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste, the entire system of
wastewater treatment or other
management could be affected if the
system contains an impoundment or
injection well.
These commenters have also
requested that EPA revisit the current
interpretation that prohibitions attach at
the instant of generation and that this
requires in certain cases knowledge or
monitoring of many internal streams.
They argue that some of these streams
may not be readily amenable to
monitoring because everything within
the process is hard-piped to a common
collection point. It should be noted that
EPA previously considered the practical
difficulties associated with sampling or
monitoring wastes within closed-
process units. See 55 FR 25760, 25765
(July 8,1987).
The commenters have expressed
concern that there are likely to be
circumstances where mass loadings of
hazardous constituents to the
environment are not significantly
affected by allowing initial aggregation
of residual streams from a process. They
also have expressed concern with the
practical impacts and achievability of
determining the precise content of
potentially thousands of internal
wastestreams within an industrial
facility.
In response to these concerns raised
by industry groups following the Third
Third opinion, the Agency is soliciting
comment on a number of approaches to
modify the current point of generation
approach for making LDR
determinations for certain types of
wastes. These approaches also could be
applied more generally for purposes of
subtitle C to determine at what point a
waste is generated.
2. Background
EPA has required LDR determinations
to be made at the point which
hazardous wastes are generated since
the Solvents and Dioxins final rule (51
FR 40620, November 7,1986). EPA
asserted the authority to make LDR
determinations at either point of
generation or point of disposal in the
Third Third final rule (55 FR 22652-53).
The court invalidated such selectivity
(976 F. 2d at 23), but did hold that at
least the dilution prohibition did not
have to apply to invalidate use of CWA
treatment impoundments performing
RCRA-equivalent treatment. 2d. at 23-4.
In the course of finalizing the
California list rule, EPA solicited
comment on a "point of aggregation"
approach to assessing when
prohibitions attached. (See 52 FR at
22356 (June 11, 1987) where point of
aggregation is defined as a point of
common aggregation preceding
centralized wastewater treatment.) Most
commenters at that time criticized such
an approach on the grounds that the
"point of aggregation" was by no means
readily determinable and could result in
wastes being treated less or, in some
cases, being diluted impermissibly. EPA
rejected the approach for these reasons.
52 FR at 25766 (July 8,1987).
The following options, which are
being presented for comment, would
narrowly redefine the point at which the
land disposal prohibitions attach.
3. Similar Streams Generated by Similar
Processes
One possible revision would address
situations in which like streams are
generated from like processes and
combined as a matter of routine
practice. An example would be
collection of rinses from sequential
-------
11716 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
rinses in a manufacturing process, or
multiple rinses from parallel
manufacturing lines all making the same
product. In these circumstances, all the
rinse water could contain the same
hazardous constituents in roughly the
same concentrations. Variations in
hazardous constituent concentrations
would reflect normal process variability,
so that mass loadings of hazardous
constituents to the environment over
time would not alter if the rinses are
aggregated and disposed. EPA seeks
comment on whether or not such
collection of like streams from like units
should be considered impermissible
dilution, since some in the regulated
community might view it as counter-
intuitive in many cases to even consider
these similar process outputs to be
separate.
4. Streams From a Single Process
Industrial facilities frequently collect
residual streams from a process in a
common unit such as a sump. In many
cases, these streams are similar in
composition because they all come from
a common unit process. Consequently,
although some of the residual streams
could exhibit a characteristic before
common collection, long-term average
mass loadings of hazardous constituents
per unit of production may not vary
significantly, even though the waste
concentrations may vary within a
normal range over time.
Moreover, where residues are
generated within a unit process, it might
be possible to view these streams as still
within the "normal part of the process
that results in the waste", S. Rep. No.
284, 98th Cong. 2d sess. at 17, and
consequently that any routine
combination of these streams from the
common process would not be
impermissible dilution. Id. Of course,
there is the possibility of abuse in any
approach that allows combination of
residues. Characteristic wastestreams
not normally generated as part of the
unit process could be re-piped in order
to dilute the characteristic and avoid
treatment of underlying hazardous
constituents. This would remain
impermissible dilution under any of the
approaches EPA is considering.
This approach differs from the "point
of aggregation" approach EPA rejected
as part of the California List rule in that
it limits the mixing of waste streams to
wastes generated within a single unit
process. In the initial "point of
accumulation" approach, wastes from
various sources could be mixed in a
sump, as long as the sump was the first
point of accumulation. This option
limits the mixing to single
manufacturing steps (unit operations).
5. "Battery Limits"
The CMA has suggested an expanded
version of the option discussed above.
Instead of limiting aggregation to that
normally occurring within a single unit
process, they would view an entire
battery of processes (associated with
making a single product or related group
of products) as a single manufacturing
step. CMA would use the logic of the
approach described in the previous
section to allow all residues generated
from that sequence of processes to be
combined before a determination is
made as to whether wastes are
prohibited. Under CMA's approach,
determinations as to whether
characteristic wastes are prohibited
could be made at this point where all of
the aqueous waste streams from a
unique industrial process are aggregated
(referred to by CMA as "battery limits"),
or at a point that a stream exits the
manufacturing process unit where it is
generated ("point of rejection").
Such aggregation could, in CMA's
view, be considered to be "part of the
normal process that results in the
waste" (S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong. 1st
sess. 17) so that the aggregation within
the industrial process battery limits
need not be considered to be
impermissible dilution. CMA believes
that this approach could ease
monitoring burdens, simplify point of
generation determinations, facilitate
legitimate wastewater treatment and
avoid accounting for characteristic
properties and underlying hazardous
constituents in intermittent streams
such as streams from batch processes, or
from characteristic streams resulting
from one-time spills or other process
emergencies.8
6. Solicitation of Comment
The Agency solicits comment on the
composition of internal residual streams
within discrete processes when one or
more of the streams exhibits a
characteristic in order to determine how
frequently such streams are similar with
respect to identity and concentration of
hazardous constituents. EPA also
solicits comments on how difficult it is
to identify the physical boundaries of a
unit process, and what safeguards could
be developed to assure that
characteristic streams not normally part
of a unit process are not diluted by re-
8 However, spills of commercial chemical
products exhibiting a characteristic, an example
mentioned by CMA, are already not considered to
be prohibited provided amounts spilled are de
minimis, as defined at 268.1(e)(4) (59 FR 47982,
September 19,1994). See generally, CMA's
submission to EPA of October 5,1994, part of the
record for this proposed rule.
piping and combination with unrelated
streams.
The Agency seeks comment on
potential difficulties with all three
options, but mostly the third option.
Namely, the various limits do not seem
to be graphically self-defining, and,
hence, could be difficult to implement.
The Agency is also concerned about the
possibility of impermissible dilution of
non-c?e minimis characteristic
wastewater streams whenever large
numbers and volumes of wastewaters
are brought together and characteristics
are eliminated without hazardous
constituents being removed or
destroyed.
7. Situations Where Existing Point of
Generation Determinations May Remain
Appropriate
a. Listed Wastes. In considering the
above approaches, as well as others, it
could be argued that any modification to
the point of LDR determination should
apply only to characteristic wastes and
F001-F005 (spent solvents) listed
wastes. In evaluating wastes from other
sources for listing (including other "F"
series \vastes), EPA has carefully
evaluated the various waste streams and
has defined, the point of generation as
part of the listing description. Therefore,
it may be inappropriate to modify that
description with a more generic point of
prohibition rule. EPA solicit comment
on this issue.
b. Prohibited Wastes Whose
Treatment Standard is a Method of
Treatment. Section 261.3(b) states that
characteristic wastes whose treatment
standard is a specified method of
treatment may not be diluted to remove
the characteristic in lieu of performing
the specified method of treatment.
Principal examples of such wastes are
high TOG ignitable wastes,
characteristic pesticide wastes, and
certain characteristic mercury wastes.
55 FR at 22657. EPA indicated that
these v/astes are not typically amenable
to adequate treatment by means other
than the designated treatment methods,9
so that aggregation to remove the
characteristic is impermissible dilution
unless treatment by the required method
follow!!. Id.
EPA"s initial view is that these
wastestreams should remain prohibited
at the current point of generation. The
Agency has made a considered decision
that these wastes require a particular
type of'treatment, and the wastestreams
themselves are clearly delineated. 55 FR
at 22657. In addition, the treatment
9De minimis losses of the discarded commercial
chemical, product form of these wastes are not
considered to be prohibited. 40 CFR 268.1(e)(4)..
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
11717
methods for a number of these wastes
(including high TOG ignitable wastes
and characteristic mercury wastes)
include or require resource recovery,
another reason to ensure that this type
of treatment continues to occur. Steel
Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 27 F.
3d 642, 647 (D.C. Cir. 1994). EPA
solicits comment as to whether any
alteration of the point at which LDRs
attach to these wastes should be
reconsidered.
8. Implications Beyond LDR Rules
The Agency believes that narrowly
redefining the point at which wastes are
subject to RCRA regulation should be
considered because of industry's
concerns with the impact this approach
is having on the program currently and
what potential impact it may have in the
future. Strict interpretation of the
current point of generation has already
raised questions with respect to the
status of a variety of similar wastes that
sometimes exhibit the hazardous waste
characteristic and are routinely mixed
(e.g., spent antifreeze from automobiles,
boiler cleanout wastes, emission control
residues). This issue may become even
more important in the future as EPA
adopts exit levels which may be
established by the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule.
While absolute clarity of the
applicability of RCRA may result from
the current point of generation
requirement, industry commenters feel
that it could be magnified in the future
by this and other rulemakings. In
considering these concerns, EPA does
not wish to undermine the effort to
segregate the most concentrated wastes
for source reduction or treatment. EPA
solicits comment on whether any of the
approaches described achieves the
proper balance among these goals.
V. Discussion of the Potential
Prohibition of Nonamenable Wastes
From Land-Based Biological Treatment
Systems
This section solicits comment on two
regulatory frameworks received from
industry and from treaters of hazardous
wastes concerning refractory underlying
hazardous constituents in land-based
biological treatment systems. First, the
Environmental Technology Council
(ETC) submitted comments to the
Agency on EPA's March, 1993
Supplemental Information Report on
potential responses to CWMv. EPA. The
ETC raised concern as to whether the
constituents from these decharacterized
wastes when placed into biological
impoundments are merely being diluted
and discharged; volatilized from the
surface of the impoundment; or simply
end up concentrating in the sludge at
the bottom of the impoundment. The
ETC labeled these constituents whose
primary fate is air or sludge (or
discharge without treatment) via one of
these paths as "nonamenable to
biotreatment." The comment suggested
several criteria for determining whether
process streams with "nonamenable"
constituents should be kept out of
surface impoundments.
Secondly, CMA provided EPA with
similar recommendations in August
1993. This section also considers CMA's
suggestions for managing refractory
chemicals in land-based biological
treatment units.
A. Technical Overview
Many "decharacterized" wastes (i.e.,
wastes that were formerly hazardous
wastes due to their ignitable, corrosive
or reactive properties as generated but
which no longer exhibit a characteristic
by the time they are land disposed) are
placed in Subtitle D surface
impoundments for the purpose of
biological treatment. In theory,
microorganisms in the impoundment
can degrade organic constituents in
these wastes (under aerobic and/or
anaerobic conditions) to carbon dioxide
and water.
The ETC comment suggested that EPA
identify and prohibit wastes containing
these "nonamenable" constituents from
biological treatment impoundments.
The issue facing EPA is whether there
are wastes for which biological
treatment is not BDAT either because
biological treatment cannot adequately
reduce hazardous constituents or
because biological treatment simply
transfers hazardous constituents to other
media, and, if so, whether an alternative
regulatory scheme is appropriate. While
the LDR Phase IV rule will specifically
address the concerns with respect to
sludges, leaks and air emissions, EPA
has committed to raising certain
technical issues concerning
"nonamenability" in the LDR Phase III
proposed rule and has also committed
to discuss the suggested regulatory
resolutions submitted by both the ETC
and the CMA, who also submitted
comments pertaining to this issue.
What follows is EPA's interpretation
of the fundamental concerns which
fostered this option, a discussion of the
technical issues inherent to this
approach and an identification of
alternative approaches to address these
underlying concerns. The issue of
whether RCRA can require segregation
of refractory hazardous wastes streams
entering land-based surface
impoundments is closely connected to
the Agency's approach to sludges, leaks
and air emissions in the LDR Phase IV
rule. The Agency is therefore delaying
any final action on the components of
the ETC comments, or on the CMA
suggestions, until LDR Phase IV when
more comprehensive decisions can be
made on each issue.
B. Summary of the ETC's Position
The full text of the ETC's comments
can be found in the administrative
record for today's rule. This section
summarizes that document.
The ETC asserts that "Hazardous
constituents in ICR wastes that are not
amenable to the biological or
sedimentation systems used in CWA
lagoons are not receiving RCRA-
equivalent treatment." They then
propose a definition of "nonamenable
waste streams" and suggest a regulatory
scheme for keeping these streams out of
surface impoundments.
In particular, the ETC recommends
that EPA should establish treatment
standards for ICR wastes that require
destruction and removal of hazardous
constituents in the waste as generated,
and allow only those ICR wastes that
contain hazardous constituents for
which biological treatment is the best
method to be managed in nonhazardous
waste surface impoundments. They
provide lists of individual constituents
and constituent categories that should
be segregated and restricted from
biological units. These include the
following individual chemicals:
mercury, vanadium, chromium,
cadmium, lead, and/or nickel, or the
following groups of chemicals: aromatic
compounds; acrylates, phenolics, and
highly oxidized constituents such as
phthalates, aldehydes, and ketones;
nitrosamines, amines, nitrophenolics,
and aniline compounds and most
chlorinated and brominated organic
constituents. ETC also recommends
segregating the following categories of
waste: Highly volatile and non-water-
soluble constituents, because of the
likelihood of air emissions during
biological treatment; and the acutely
toxic P-listed wastes, because they are
poisonous to the biological treatment
system. The ETC explicitly recommends
the following criterion for designating a
waste stream "amenable to biological
treatment": the waste must contain less
than 1% solids, must be free of oil and
grease, and must contain less than 10
ppm total heavy metals.
ETC then defines "ICR waste streams
not amenable to biological treatment"
as: ICR wastes with constituents (from
the groups listed above) at individual
concentrations greater than 100 x F039
wastewater treatment standards; and
ICR wastes with "water insoluble and
-------
11718
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
highly volatile" F039 constituents "that
are more likely to be released to air and
not treated. (ETC did not indicate at
what point these concentrations should
be measured, although they did suggest
that wastes should be segregated at
"battery limits".)
The ETC believes that such
"nonamenable" wastes should either be
required to undergo pretreatment prior
to aggregation with other wastewaters
(e.g., steam stripping of volatile
compounds), or be required to go to
other appropriate treatment (e.g.,
precipitation of metals). The ETC argues
that such segregation of nonamenable
wastes will promote pollution
prevention because companies will have
an incentive to modify raw materials or
production processes to keep such
hazardous constituents out of the waste
stream.
C. Summary of the CMA's Position
The full text of CMA's comments can
be found in the administrative record
for today's rule. This section
summarizes that document. CMA
describes "three situations in which
characteristically corrosive or ignitable
hazardous wastes could be sent to
biological treatment in surface
impoundments without jeopardizing the
treatment units effectiveness by
introducing non-amenable compounds".
CMA implicitly requests that the LDR
Phase III rule allow CWA-permitted
biological treatment in the following
three situations:
(a) When the stream to the
impoundment only contains hazardous
constituents amenable to biological
treatment (listed below);
(b) When the stream contains
hazardous constituents amenable to
biological treatment plus other
(nonamenable) constituents present at
concentrations equal to some multiple
(e.g., 1000) of the F039/UTS treatment
standards in the influent to the surface
impoundment; or,
(c) The facility can demonstrate on a
case-by-case basis that a nonamenable
hazardous constituent is amenable to
treatment occurring in the treatment
system.
CMA identifies most of the organic
UTS constituents as "amenable to
biological treatment". This includes all
the constituents for which biological
treatment is the basis of the F039
wastewater treatment standards plus a
number of organic constituents
generally recognized in the literature as
biodegradable.
The BDAT List constituents not
designated by CMA as "amenable to
biological treatment are: all UTS metals,
fluoride, sulfide and the volatile and
semivolatile organics in the table that
follows.
Nonamenable Volatile Organics
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroethane
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloroform
Chloromethane
1,2-Dibromoethane
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichioroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
1,4-Dioxane
Ethylene oxide
lodomethane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tribromomethane (Bromoform)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Trichloromonofluoromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Nonamenable Semivolatile Organics
Benzal chloride
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzilate
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
1,4-Dinitrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
Isosafrole
Methapyriline
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4'-Methylenebis (2-chloroaniline)
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
Phenacetin
Pronamide
Safrole
Methoxychlor
D. Summary ofEPA's Preliminary
Response to CMA's and ETC's Technical
Concerns
EPA presents its preliminary
evaluation of three major issues that are
raised by both CMA's and ETC's
suggestions: the question of feed limits
for land-based biological treatment
units; behavior of nonamenable
constituents in land-based biological
treatment units and constituent-specific
solubility and toxicity questions.
1. Feed Limits
The CMA and ETC approaches both
suggest constituent-specific limitations
of decharacterized ICR waste streams
entering surface impoundments to
ensure that certain toxic constituents do
not bypass treatment by volatilizing into
the atmosphere, by adsorbing
permanently onto sludge sediments at
the bottom of the impoundment or by
inhibiting biodegradation processes in
the impoundment. The Agency agrees
that all three of these mechanisms can
hinder treatment.
While many aspects of both the ETC
and CMA positions have technical and
regulatory merit, there appear to be
fundamental technical disagreements
that need to be resolved. First and
primary is the fact that ETC and CMA
differ on which constituents (and
chemical families of constituents) are
"amenable" or "nonamenable" to
treatment. Second, proposing
regulations requiring segregation of
streams entering impoundments would
raise the following issues:
(a) Surface impoundments have
traditionally provided an engineering
advantage—in addition to low energy,
maintenance and construction costs—in
that, they offer a means of
"equilibrating" and "equalizing" the
relatively frequent variations in
chemical compositions of process
wastes (i.e., aggregated waste streams).
As such, they receive variable wastes in
their capacity as large-volume holding
units for process upset streams,
stormwaters, spill washdown and other
unscheduled wastewater releases.
Segregation of these various streams
would require construction of holding
tanks that may not be able to provide
the same equalization capability of an
impoundment;
(b) Mandatory analyses and
separation may impose considerable
added expense; and,
(c) EPA, in some cases, assumed that
impoundments would be used for these
purposes by not including the costs of
impoundment replacement when
developing effluent guidelines for
affected industries.
2. Technical Concern
In theory, EPA agrees that certain
RCRA waste streams should be kept out
of certain types of Subtitle D
impoundments. (Listed wastes already
must go to Subtitle C impoundments,
and High TOG D001 ignitables, as well
as high mercury wastes, are also
restricted from Subtitle D
impoundments.) In addition, in 55 FR at
22666 (June 1, 1990), EPA presented
general criteria that could affect
amenable/nonamenable determinations.
All parties seem to agree that certain
metal-bearing wastes could also be
restricted from impoundments.
However, there are additional factors
that need to be considered, such as
impoundment size, depth, temperature,
and retention time. (An individual
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11719
organic compound is more treatable in
some systems than in others and
without information about the extent to
which the lagoon supports aerobic and
anaerobic processes we cannot assess
how treatable these constituents are.)
In addition, the overall composition
of each waste—i.e. the entire matrix—
must be considered in order to
characterize its relative amenability to
biological treatment. In particular, waste
composition can enhance or inhibit a
particular organic compound's
amenability to biological destruction.
Enhancement occurs, for example, if
microorganisms can use one compound
as a co-metabolite or co-substrate in
metabolizing another. A feature story on
biological treatment in the February
1993 issue of Environmental Science
and Technology reports "* * * highly
chlorinated compounds such as
trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane
and chloroform will transform under
aerobic conditions if methane, phenol or
toluene is provided as a primary source
of carbon and energy for biological
growth. However, these reactions are co-
metabolic * * *. Therefore it is
important to define exact conditions
when discussing biodegradation
results." Inhibition occurs when one
compound poisons the metabolic
pathway by which another compound is
otherwise degraded. The degree to
which the microbial population in the
impoundment has been acclimated to a
particular constituent is a significant
factor in determining that constituent's
amenability. Acclimation determines
the balance between inhibition and
enhancement and is a factor to be
defined in discussing biodegradation
results.
The fact that "consortia" of
microorganisms, rather than members of
a single bacterial strain, accomplish the
degradation of complex molecules
further complicates the extent to which
a compound can accurately be labeled
"amenable" (Rittman and Saez in Levin
and Gealt Biological Treatment of
Industrial and Hazardous Wastes, 1993,
McGraw-Hill, New York). The presence
of different microorganisms in a
consortium increases the number of
compounds that can be degraded in that
impoundment by virtue of the wider
array of metabolic degradation pathways
present. However, the various microbial
species may require a narrower range of
pH, dissolved oxygen and other
parameters in order to function and may
therefore be more liable to collapse and
fail than a simpler more robust
microbial strain.
Some of the technical issues that are
likely to arise include:
(a) Biotreatment systems vary.
Constituents that are amenable to
treatment in one system may be
nonamenable in another, thus an
accurate determination of what is a
nonamenable waste might have to
consider site-by-site factors, which
would present considerable problems in
the implementation of the program. If
EPA set up a more generic approach,
other problems are likely to occur, as
described below.
(b) The ETC uses the term "battery
limits" to describe where nonamenable
ICR wastes should be segregated. This
term, however, is undefined and could
represent the point where the
wastestream leaves the production
equipment, or a variety of aggregation
points.
(c) What levels of constituents justify
requiring segregation and recovery?
(d) If EPA required segregation of
nonamenable wastes from biological
treatment impoundments, there is a very
good possibility that facilities would
merely replace the surface
impoundments with RCRA exempt
tanks. Biological treatment in tanks
could have the same air emissions
unless they are properly controlled.
With respect to specific hazardous
organic constituents, EPA is currently
investigating whether the BDAT list of
compounds could be ordinally ranked
into a series of compounds more or less
amenable to biological treatment, based
on published treatability data.
"Amenability" is a continuous variable.
Treatability data shows that some
compounds are more amenable to
biological degradation than are other
compounds: there are no organic
chemicals, other than polymers, which
are absolutely resistant to biological
degradation.
Due to the technical problems
associated with determining which
wastestreams should be kept out of
certain impoundment lagoons, and the
policy concerns raised by these
approaches, we are setting out these
issues for comment in this proposed
rule.
3. Constituent Properties of Concern
The following three items are criteria
ETC suggests in addition to individual
constituent concentrations. EPA invites
comments on means of managing these
waste properties.
a. Water solubility. EPA does not
share ETC's concern that less soluble
compounds are significantly less
amenable to biological treatment than
relatively hydrophilic compounds. For
example, PCB's are virtually insoluble;
nevertheless the literature documents
cases where PCB's have been
successfully degraded to hydrochloric
acid, carbon dioxide and water.
b. TC Metals. EPA believes the LDR
Phase IV limitations on land disposal of
wastes that meet the definition of
toxicity based on their metals
concentration will address ETC's and
CMA's concerns about the inadequacy
of surface impoundments for metal
treatment.
c. Toxicity. EPA solicits comments on
the suggestion that P-waste constituents
be managed as particularly toxic and
thus likely to poison metabolic
pathways in the degradation process.
EPA further solicits comment on
additional constituents or categories of
constituents that are likely to be acutely
toxic to biological treatment processes,
rather than merely resistant to biological
treatment.
The target mass removal approach
described earlier in this preamble can be
applied to biological treatment units to
determine whether constituents
managed in the units are being
effectively degraded. The application of
this approach could address the
question of wastes nonamenable to
biotreatment. The target mass removal
approach requires a waste
determination prior to the waste
entering the treatment unit, and either
(1) a waste determination after treatment
in the unit, or (2) a determination of the
operating efficiency of the treatment
unit. This approach has been applied to
biotreatment units for at least two
promulgated standards that regulate
hazardous organic chemicals: the HON
and the Subpart CC air rules. Comments
are solicited on the approach to address
the nonamenable waste concerns.
F. Additional Issues
In addition to the issues raised in the
section "Summary of EPA's Preliminary
Response" above, there are other
technical issues arising in developing a
list of UTS constituents that are not
amenable to biological treatment.
Another issue concerns those UTS
constituents for which biological
treatment is BDAT: could a wastestream
containing such constituents have such
a high concentration of other
compounds known to be refractory to
biological treatment that biotreatment
no longer effectively treats the
constituents? A third issue considered
here is the extent to which
"nonamenable" constituents evade
treatment by volatilizing into the air or
by adsorbing onto sludge, in addition to
flowing out untreated in effluent.
1. List of Hazardous Constituents
In order to ensure that all the
constituents in a decharacterized waste
-------
11720
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
are adequately addressed, the starting
point should not be the BOAT list but
rather the entire list of U and P,
appendix VIII, and other toxic
chemicals present in the hazardous
waste universe. The next LDR
rulemaking ("Phase IV") will discuss
the universe of hazardous constituents
regulated by RCRA (i.e., a composite of
the above lists) and may propose which
constituents from the composite list are
considered "nonamenable" or
"amenable". Today's preamble,
however, raises general issues
associated with "amenability" in order
to solicit comments on specific
questions. These questions will be
addressed in LDR Phase IV. For
example, the Phase IV proposed rule
may include a discussion of
quantification problems and the use of
surrogate parameters such as BOD/COD/
TOG ratios to assist in measuring
performance where analytical methods
do not exist.
2. Biotreatment as BDAT
EPA has already promulgated
biodegradation (BIODG) as a specified
method of treatment for quite a few U
and P waste codes that fall under the
category that ETC has asked to be
classified as "nonamenable". (For
example, nitrosamines easily break
down in water to nitroamines. Nitrogen-
containing organics can typically be
biodegraded. Most microorganisms
flourish in the presence of nitrogen
containing chemicals.) EPA has also
established numerical standards for
many chemicals based on biotreatment
data. EPA is including all of the
chemicals in both of these cases in this
proposed rule and is asking for
comment oh them and seeking data that
would refute or support that
biotreatment is BDAT for these
chemicals.
3. Toxics Along for the Ride
EPA intends that the Phase IV
proposed rule will expand the
discussion on the concept of "toxics
along for the ride" in biotreatment (i.e.,
concern about how best to regulate
those toxic compounds that are not
degraded to less toxic compounds and
consequently pass untreated through the
unit and on to land disposal). While the
concept is environmentally attractive, in
order to create a regulatory construct
prohibiting such constituents from
biotreatment, the Agency must consider
the following constituent-specific
factors:
(a) Is the elemental composition of the
chemical such that it is truly not
"amenable to biotreatment" such as for
metals?
(b) Does a low rate of hydrolysis
indicate low biodegradability?
(c) Does high volatility necessarily
indicate low biodegradability?
(d) What retention time is required for
biodegradation?
(e) Is the biological system
responsible for degradation of the
compound sensitive to upsets in either
the chemistry of the impoundment or its
biocomposition?
(f) Is the bioactivity considered
"aggressive"?
(g) Is the constituent actually
chemically treated in the
impoundment?
(h) Will the constituent encounter
treatment after the impoundment?
(i) Is the waste containing the
constituent difficult to segregate from
other wastes?
(j) Does the chemical occur naturally
in the surrounding soil or water?
(k) Is the chemical already present in
the sludge and could then be released
by the sludge even though the influent
is reduced?
(1) Is the chemical present in other
nonhazardous waste that are
commingled with the decharacterized
wastes?
(m) Is the chemical generated at
concentrations below that which is
considered neither a chronic nor an
acute health risk?
(n) Is there an ecological risk from the
inorganic composition of the waste such
as the high salinity (dissolved solids) of
most D002 wastes?
(o) Is the chemical a surprise presence
from the use of some product that
contains trace levels that couldn't be
measured when the product was used
(below product specifications)?
(p) Is the chemical appearing due to
corrosion of pipes and equipment?
G. Treatment Standard for Wastes With
a High Concentration of Organics
In the Phase II final rule (59 FR 47982,
September 19,1994), EPA finalized
regulations prohibiting the disposal in
Class I nonhazardous waste injection
wells ignitable characteristic wastes
with a high total organic carbon (TOC)
content and toxic characteristic
pesticide wastes, unless either the well
is subject to a no-migration
determination, or the wastes are treated
by the designated the LDR treatment
method. The treatment method
promulgated was either combustion (i.e.
incineration or fuel substitution) or
recovery of organics. Today the Agency
is raising the option of proposing the
same treatment standard for
characteristic wastes with high
concentrations of organics managed in
surface impoundments. This would
result in a prohibition of these wastes
going into biological impoundments.
The Agency requests comment on this
option, including the question of how to
define "high" levels of organics that
would justify prohibition from surface
impoundments. The Agency believes
this option provides many of the
benefits of segregation of refractory
"nonamenable" streams with
significantly lower analytical
requirements.
VI. Treatment Standards for Newly
Listed Wastes
A. Carbamates
Hazardous Wastes from Specific Sources (K
Waste Codes)
K15I5—Organic waste (including heavy ends,
still bottoms, light ends, spent solvents,
Filtrates, and decantates) from the
production of carbamates and carbamoyl
oximes.
K157—Wastewaters (including scrubber
waters, condenser waters, washwaters,
and separation waters) from the
production of carbamates and carbamoyl
oximes.
K158—Bag house dust, and filter/separation
solids from the production of carbamates
and carbamoyl oximes.
K159—Organics from the treatment of
thiocarbamate wastes.
K160—Solids (including filter wastes,
separation solids, and spent catalysts)
from the production of thiocarbamates
and solids from the treatment of
thiocarbonate wastes.
K161—Purification solids (including
filtration, evaporation, and
centrifugation solids), baghouse dust,
and floor sweepings from the production
of dithiocarbamate acids and their salts.
(This listing does not include K125 or
K126.)
Acute Hazardous Wastes (P Waste Codes)
P203 Aldicarb sulfone
PI 2 7 Carbofuran
P189 Carbosulfan
P202 m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate
P191 Dimetilan
P198 Formetanate hydrochloride
P197 Formparanate
P19I2 Isolan
Pi 96 Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate
P199 Methiocarb
P190 Metolcarb
P123 Mexacarbate
P194 Oxamyl
P204 Physostigmine
P188 Physostigmine salicylate
P201 Promecarb
P185 Tirpate
P205 Ziram
Toxic Hazardous Wastes
U394 A2213
U280 Barban
U278 Bendiocarb
U364 Bendiocarb phenol
U271 Benomyl
U400 Bis(pentamethylene)thiuram
tetrasulfide
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11721
U392 Butylate
U279 Carbaryl
U372 Carbendazim
U367 Carbofuran phenol
U393 Copper dimethyldithiocarbamate
U386 Cycfoate
U366 Dazomet
U395 Diethylene glycol, dicaibamate
U403 DIsulfiram
U390 EPTC
U407 Ethyl Ziram
U396 Ferbam
U375 3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate
U384 Motam Sodium
U365 Molinate
U391 Pebulate
U383 Potassium dimethyl dithiocarbamate
U378 Potassium n-hydroxymethyl-n-
methyldithiocarbamate
U377 Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate
U373 Propham
U411 Propoxur
U387 Prosulfocarb
U376 Selenium, tetrakis
(dimethyldithiocarbamate)
U379 Sodium dibutyldithiocarbamate
U381 Sodium diethyldithiocarbamate
U382 Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate
U277 Sulfallate
1)402 Tolrabutylthiuram disulfide
U401 Tetramethylthiuram monosulfide
U410 Thiodicarb
U409 Thiophanate-methyl
U389 Triallate
U404 Triethylamine
U385 Vernolate
For background information on waste
characterization data, data gathering
efforts, and applicable technologies, see
the Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background
Document for Newly Listed or Identified
Wastes from the Production of
Carbamates and Organobromines.
1. Proposed Treatment Standards
The Agency has promulgated the
listing of the wastes from the carbamate
industry specified above. The final
listing was signed by the administrator
on January 31,1995, and published in
the Federal Register on February 9,
1995. EPA is today proposing
concentration-based treatment standards
for these wastes. The concentration
limits for the regulated constituents are
based on both existing and newly
proposed UTS (59 FR 47982, September
19,1994). UTS standards have already
been promulgated for 21 of the
constituents of concern for these waste
codes (16 organic constituents and 5
metals). These standards were
promulgated in the LDR Phase II final
rule and are based on the following
technologies: (1) Incineration was the
primary basis for organic constituents in
nonwastewaters; (2) biological treatment
or carbon absorption was the basis for
organics in wastewaters; (3) high
temperature metal recovery and
stabilization were the basis for metals in
nonwastewaters; and (4) chemical
precipitation was the basis for metals in
wastewaters. These treatment standards
were developed by examining
essentially all the BDAT treatment data
the Agency had at the time.
The Agency is proposing new UTS for
42 constituents associated with
carbamate wastes. 40 of these
constituents are chemicals produced by
this industry which may be grouped
into the following categories:
carbamates and carbamate
intermediates, carbamoyl oximes,
thiocarbamates, and dithiocarbamates.
Please refer to the Background
Document for definitions of these
chemical groups and the categorization
of these 40 chemicals. The other 2
constituents for which new UTS are
being proposed (triethylamine, and o-
phenylene diamine) are not carbamate
products, but are hazardous constituents
present at levels of regulatory concern
in carbamate wastes. Note that although
specific dithiocarbamate chemicals have
been added to Appendix VII and VIII,
the basis for listing K161, and the waste
descriptions of P196, P205, U277, U366,
U376-379, U381-384, U393, U396,
U400-U403, and U407, the regulated
constituent for these chemicals and
codes is specified as "Dithiocarbamates
(total)", because the analytical method
for dithiocarbamates does not
distinguish among specific
dithiocarbamate constituents.
The Agency is proposing to base the
UTS for the carbamate, carbamate
intermediate, carbamoyl oxime,
dithiocarbamate, and thiocarbamate
constituents in wastewaters on data
developed by the Office of Water for the
development of effluent guidelines, and
data from treatability studies performed
by RREL. Wastewater standards for
carbamate and carbamoyl oxime
constituents are based on data from
alkaline hydrolysis, with the exception
of thiodicarb which is based on
biological treatment. Wastewater
standards for thiocarbamates are based
on GAG adsorption, while wastewater
standards for dithiocarbamates are
based on ozone/UV light oxidation. In
cases where data were not available for
a specific constituent, the standard has
been transferred from the constituent
with the most similar chemical structure
and properties.
The Agency is proposing to base the
UTS for the carbamate, carbamate
intermediate, carbamoyl oxime,
thiocarbamate, and dithiocarbamate
constituents in nonwastewaters on
analytical detection limits compiled
from sampling and analysis reports
prepared to support the proposed listing
for these wastes. Although data from the
treatment of these constituents in
nonwastewater matrices is not currently
available, the thermal destruction
technologies currently employed to treat
these nonwastewaters can routinely
achieve destruction to levels below the
detection limit. '•
In addition, the Agency is proposing
UTS standards for triethylamine based
on data transferred from the treatment of
methapyrilene. The treatment standards
for methapyrilene are 0.081 mg/1 for
wastewaters and 1.5 mg/kg for
nonwastewaters. Methapyrilene was
selected as the basis for this data
transfer because it is the only tertiary
amine for which UTS standards have
been promulgated.
Finally, the Agency is proposing UTS
standards for o-phenylenediamine based
on analytical detection limits compiled
from sampling and analysis reports
prepared to support the proposed listing
for these wastes. For the treatment
standards being proposed today for
waste codes K156-161, P127, P128,
P185, P188-192, P194, P196-199, P201-
205, U271, U277, U279, U280, U364-
367, U372, U373, U375-379, U381-387,
U389-396, U400-404, U407, U409-411,
see § 268.40 table—Treatment Standards
for Hazardous Wastes in the proposed
amendments to the regulatory language.
2. Request for Comments
In the LDR Phase II rule establishing
UTS, the Agency was able to make
modifications to the proposal, where
commenters submitted data. The
Agency strongly encourages parties
affected by these proposed standards to
submit any available treatment data for
these newly regulated constituents; if
such data become available, the Agency
will make appropriate adjustments to
these proposed standards. The Agency
is soliciting comments, technical
descriptions, and performance data
regarding the characterization and
treatability of these wastes and the
achievability of these proposed
standards. EPA is especially interested
in any information regarding the
feasibility of product recovery for these
wastes, any available treatment data for
the new constituents being added to the
list of UTS, detection limits for these
constituents in treatment residues, and
suggestions for specified methods which
could be alternatives to the
concentration based standards proposed
today.
Because standards for organics are
based on treatment of organic
constituents to non-detect levels, EPA
solicits comment on the use of
constituent specific detection levels
used during the testing of these wastes
for purposes of the listing
-------
11722 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
determination. The Agency recognizes
that there may be differences between
detection limits prior to and after
treatment. Detection levels may be
lowered for these wastes after treatment
due to the "cleaner" matrix. This data
has been placed in the docket for
today's proposed rule.
B. Organobromines
K140—Waste solids and filter cartridges from
the production of 2,4,6-tribromophenol.
U408—2,4,6-Tribromophenol
For further information on waste
characterization data, data gathering
efforts, and applicable technologies, see
the Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) Background
Document for Newly Listed or Identified
Wastes from the Production of
Carbamates and Organobromines.
1. Proposed Treatment Standards for
Organobromine Wastes
EPA proposed to add 2,4,6-
Tribromophenol to Appendix VIII of
Part 261 on May 11,1994, and is today
proposing to add this constituent to the
list of UTS in 40 CFR 268.48. The
decision to add 2,4,6-tribromophenol to
appendix VIII was based on the
determination that the toxicities of this
chemical and its chlorinated analogue,
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol, are essentially
the same, due to the Quantitative
Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR)
between these two compounds.
Since treatment data is not currently •
available on 2,4,6-tribromophenol, the
Agency is proposing to set the UTS for
2,4,6-tribromophenol based on data
transferred from the treatment of 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol. The structures of 2,4,6-
tribromophenol and 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol are sufficiently similar
to be considered halogenated congeners
of phenol. Both halogenated phenols
contain three symmetrically placed
bromine or chlorine substituents which
are difficult to remove by chemical
substitution. The chemical behavior and
mechanisms of action for 2,4,6-
tribromophenol is expected to be similar
to its chlorinated analogue, 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol. Thus, the Agency is
proposing UTS standards of 7.4 mg/kg
for nonwastewaters and 0.035 mg/1 for
wastewaters for 2,4,6-tribromophenql.
The Agency is soliciting comment
regarding the achievability of this
standard by demonstrated available
technologies and regarding the
analytical detection limit of 2,4,6-
tribromophenol in treatment residual
matrices. The Agency is also soliciting
any available data on the concentrations
2,4,6-tribromophenol in treatment
residuals from the recovery or
destruction of wastes containing 2,4,6-
tribromophenol. The analytical method
for 2,4,6-Tribromophenol is SW846
method 8270 (GC/MS for semivolatiles,
capillary column).
2. Applicable Technology
The lone facility which produces
2,4,6-tribromophenol wastes uses a
Bromine Recovery Unit (BRU) to recover
bromine values from organic liquid and
vapor waste streams. In this unit, the
organics are burned and the combustion
products are removed by a wet scrubber.
The BRU is a halogen acid furnace
which meets the regulatory definition of
industrial furnace in 40 CFR 260.10.
The combustion of hazardous waste in
industrial furnaces is regulated under 40
CFR part 266, subpart H, which
regulates air emissions from these units
and requires monitoring and analyses.
The facility which produces 2,4,6-
tribromophenol burns listed spent
solvents and still bottoms in this BRU;
therefore, it is already subject to the
performance standards of part 266,
subpart H. Treatment of 2,4,6-
tribromophenol wastes in the BRU
should be effective in destroying the
phenolic component of 2,4,6-
tribromophenol and providing for
recovery of bromine. Based on available
information, EPA proposes that
treatment by BRU is BOAT for 2,4,6-
tribromophenol wastes. EPA solicits
comment on this assertion and on the
potential applicability of other
technologies which destroy 2,4,6-
tribromophenol and provide recovery of
bromine.
C. Aluminum Potliners (K088)
K088—Spent potliners from primary
aluminum reduction.
For background information on waste
characterization, see the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
Background Document (BOAT) for
Newly Listed or Identified Wastes for
K088, Spent Aluminum Potliners.
1. Possible Determination of Inherently
Waste-Like
Certain current and potential K088
management methods have features of
both recycling and conventional
treatment. For example, there are a
number of management methods
involving some type of combustion
process that produce a treatment residue
from which resources may be recovered
and reused. These management methods
either destroy or drive off cyanides and
toxic organics. Nevertheless, the
technologies may useful alternative
management methods for K088 if
valuable resources are recovered. The
Agency has a long-standing preference
for recovery over simple treatment. This
position is based on the preference in
RCRA for environmentally protective
recovery versus waste treatment. Any
consideration of relative safety must
include not just the recovery step, but
transport and storage preceding
recovery, and proper management of all
residues from recovery. RCRA section
1003(a)(6) as well as S. Rep. No. 284,
98th Cong. 2d sess. at 17.
EPA is considering how best to
balance the potential promise of spent
potliner recovery technologies with
their similarities to conventional
treatment technologies, especially with
respect to the fate of (and risks
generated by) hazardous constituents
present in the waste. The Agency would
prefer to provide consistent regulatory
requirements for these recovery as well
as for conventional treatment
technologies in order to ensure both safe
recovery and treatment. However, the
existing regulatory framework may
make it difficult to achieve this
objective. For example, many of these
recovery technologies already could be
subject to the existing regulations for
industrial furnaces burning hazardous
waste (the so-called BIF rules).10 See 56
FR at 7142 (Feb. 21,1991); 50 FR at
49171-174 (Nov. 29,1985).
For K088 recovery technologies
subject to BIF regulations, only those
facilities in existence on the effective
date of the BIF rules (August 21,1991)
could operate without first obtaining a
permit. This could create a significant
barrier to commercial operation of the
technology in the near term. If, however,
these units operate in a manner that
does not subject them to the BIF
regulations, then it is possible that they
could operate with little or no oversight
under RCRA.
The regulatory classification of
residues as hazardous or nonhazardous
wastes is another area where there
would be dissimilar requirements under
current rules. For example, one
company has obtained from EPA a
delisting determination that residues
from their conventional treatment
process are at levels low enough to no
longer be classified as listed hazardous
wastes. Other companies have not
obtained such determinations, even
though they potentially could treat
spent potliners to delisting levels. As a
result;, these companies face the cost
10 Because the Agency is not fully aware of all
of the details of some of the projected potliner
treatment/recovery technologies, we cannot state at
this time whether the technologies will meet the
regulatory definition of an industrial furnace. It
should be noted that processes recovering both
energy and material values from a waste are subject
to BIF rules, and energy recovery in an industrial
furnace need not involve any export of energy).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
11723
and time of seeking a delisting petition,
or the cost disadvantage of disposal of
all residuals as hazardous waste.
Because of the similarities in risks,
EPA is soliciting comment on whether
there are ways to subject all of these
technologies to the same, or nearly the
same, regulatory requirements, while
assuring that the ultimate goals of
protecting human health and the
environment are not compromised. The
Agency has discussed with aluminum
industry representatives the possibility
of achieving this objective by
designating spent aluminum potliners
as inherently waste-like materials
pursuant to 261.2(d)t" and using this
designation as a triggering event for a
determination of "substantial
confusion" pursuant to 270.10(e)(2),
which could establish a date for
eligibility for interim status after August
21,1991. See generally 56 FR at 7142
making this type of designation and
finding of "substantial confusion" for
halogen acid furnaces. The Agency
solicits comment on this possibility.
The benefit of this approach would be
to guarantee that these technologies all
would be subject to a minimum level of
RCRA oversight, especially with respect
to design of storage equipment, control
of air emissions from the process,
minimum treatment standards for
residuals, and mandatory corrective
action in response to releases of
hazardous constituents to the
environment.
In order to mitigate some of the
potential delay and costs in complying
with RCRA, EPA also requests comment
on the feasibility of establishing uniform
delisting levels for residues from
processing spent potliners, much as it
did for residues from processing K061
wastes in high temperature metal
recovery furnaces. Under this approach,
11 Tho basis for such a designation would be that
spent polllnors contain cyanides and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons which are destroyed rather than
recycled, even by recovery technologies. These
hazardous constituents are present in
concentrations not ordinarily found in raw
materials or products for which the spent potliners
would bo substituting, and the spent potliners
could pose a substantial hazard to human health
and tho environment when recycled. The
combustion process itself, for example, would seem
to peso all of tho risks tho BIF rule is intended to
address. Past storage practices for spent potliners
also havo led to significant environmental damage
(although much of this storage utilized open piles).
A designation of inherently waste-like,
incidentally, would only apply to the potliners and
not to legitimate products obtained by processing
the potllner (so long as those products were not
burned as fuels or used directly on the land). 56 FR
at 7141. Another option, therefore, would be to
designato tho uso of KOSB in certain types of
recycling (e.g., all processes involving thermal
destruction of cyanide, processes that incorporate
cyantdo/PAHs into product unchanged) as
inherently wasto-liko.
we believe, levels would need to be
established for organics, metals, cyanide
and fluoride.
Another possibility for assuring safe
processing of the potliners would be to
develop air emission standards for the
processing units pursuant to section
112(d) of the Clean Air Act. This
alternative would have to be
implemented in such a way as to assure
proper management of the potliners
before processing, and satisfactory
treatment and management of residues
from the processing. EPA solicits
comment on all of these issues.
EPA wishes to add that its Region 10
office and the Washington State
Department of Ecology have already
evaluated the spent potliner recovery
process used by one vender
(Enviroscience). Washington State
determined that it is an excluded
recycling process, and EPA Region 10
determined that the process is not
required to meet emission standards for
BIFs, provided the process is conducted
pursuant to certain conditions.12 In light
of the existing industry reliance on this
determination, any decision made
regarding designation of spent potliners
in this rulemaking would not change the
specific decisions concerning the
Enviroscience process that have been
completed to date.
2. Overview of Today's Proposal
EPA is proposing treatment standards
for K088 expressed as the maximum
concentration of specific constituents
that would be allowed for land disposal.
The tables at the end of this section
summarize the constituents proposed
for regulation and the maximum
allowable concentrations. These
maximum concentrations are the UTS
for metals, cyanides, and other organics
that were developed in the LDR Phase
n final rule. These standards are based
on a variety of technologies as follows:
(1) Alkaline chlorination was the basis
for the cyanide wastewater standards;
(2) alkaline chlorination of the
wastewater to destroy the cyanide prior
to the generation of the nonwastewater
residual was the basis for the cyanide
nonwastewater standard; (3)
incineration was the primary basis for
other organic constituents in
nonwastewaters; (4) biological treatment
or carbon absorption was the basis for
organics in wastewaters; (5) high
temperature metal recovery and
stabilization were the basis for metals in
nonwastewaters; (6) chemical
precipitation was the basis for fluorides
and metals in wastewaters; and (7)
"These evaluations were conducted at the
express, voluntary request of Enviroscience.
immobilization through either
vitrification or the addition of calcium
as a stabilization reagent was the basis
for fluorides in nonwastewaters.
These treatment standards were
developed by examining essentially all
the BDAT treatment data the Agency
had at the time. The Agency is also
proposing new nonwastewater
treatment standards based on leachate
tests for fluoride. The leach tests must
be conducted using the TCLP (SW-846
Method 1311 as described in 40 CFR
Part 261, Appendix II). These leach
standards were developed by the
Agency when granting a delisting for
certain K088 wastes. The treatment
standard for fluoride wastewaters is
taken from the UTS promulgated in the
LDR Phase II final rule. More
information on the development of
these treatment standards can be found
in the docket to today's rule.
Treatment and recycling technologies
such as mineral wool cupolas,
metallurgical processes; iron and steel
industrial furnaces, and other recovery
and recycling technologies should be
able to meet the proposed standards.
K088 treatment data from Reynolds
Metals, Comalco Aluminum Ltd., Ormet
Corporation and the EPA Combustion
Research Facility (CRF) show that K088
can be treated to meet the UTS. Because
EPA is proposing numerical treatment
standards, any recycling or treatment
technologies can be used as long as the
treatment standards are met by actual
treatment, rather than impermissible
dilution. More discussion on these
various technologies is presented later
in this preamble.
a. Proposed Regulated Constituents.
EPA is proposing to regulate the
following constituents: acenapthene,
anthracene, benz(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene,benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, chrysene,
dibenz(a,h)-anthracene, fluoranthene,
indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene, phenanthrene,
pyrene, antimony, arsenic, barium,
beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, nickel, selenium, silver,
cyanide and fluoride. Based on the
available waste characterization data
(see Best Demonstrated Available
Technology Background Document
(BDAT) for Newly Listed or Identified
Wastes for K088, Spent Aluminum
Potliners found in the docket to this rule
for details), these constituents were
found to be present in either the
untreated K088 wastes or in the K088
treatment residuals at levels exceeding
the UTS. See the proposed delisting of
K088 for Reynolds Metals at 56 FR
33004 and 33005, July 19,1991, and the
corresponding docket for that
-------
11724
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
rulemaking. See also the docket for
today's proposal for more data on
constituent concentrations in untreated
and treated K088. EPA is specifically
requesting comment on regulating the
phthalates: bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate,
di-n-butyl phthalate and di-n-octyl
phthalate. These constituents can show
up in the untreated potliner and the
treated residue; however, there is some
question that their presence may simply
be due to lab contamination.
Treatment technologies for K088 are
also designed to recover or stabilize the
fluoride. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
regulate fluoride in K088 in order to
ensure that the fluoride is actually
recovered or that it is properly treated.
Fluoride is also being regulated because
of its toxicity and the high
concentrations found in untreated K088
(see Tables 2 and 3 in 56 FR 33004 (July
19,1991)—the proposed delisting of
K088 generated by Reynolds Aluminum
Company). If a treatment standard is
promulgated for fluoride, the Agency
will add fluoride to the UTS for K088.
EPA has some data on the toxicity of
fluoride (see the docket for today's
proposed rule), and is in the process of
gathering more information. For more
information on regulated constituents
see the Best Demonstrated Available
Technology Background Document
(BOAT) for Newly Listed or Identified
Wastes for K088, Spent Aluminum
Potliners found in the docket to this
rule.
Section 3004(d)(l), (e)(l), and (g)(5)
require that land disposal of hazardous
wastes is prohibited unless a
prohibition is no longer warranted to
protect human health and the
environment. EPA reads this language to
require that land disposal may still be
prohibited after treatment of hazardous
constituents if the waste might still pose
substantial hazards due to presence of
other constituents or properties. 56 FR
at 41168 (August 19,1991); NRDCv.
EPA, 907 F. 2d 1146,1171-72 (D.C. Cir.
1990) (dissenting opinion). These
hazards could be posed due to lack of
treatment of other constituents in the
waste, in this case, fluoride. It should be
noted that this action is consistent with
previous Agency actions, since EPA
regulated fluoride in the delisting
granted to treatment residues from the
Reynolds Metals treatment process, and
also regulates discharge of fluorides in
the CWA effluent limitation guidelines
for the primary aluminum subcategory.
Consequently, the Agency is proposing
a treatment standard for fluoride to
assure that ultimate disposal of treated
K088 is protective.
EPA is proposing treatment standards
for fluoride, as well as the hazardous
constituents contained in the waste.
Flouride is present in these wastes in
very high concentrations: upwards of
10%. Untreated concentrations of this
magnitude can cause significant adverse
effects to human health and the
environment if improperly land
disposed. The Agency requests
comment on whether fluoride should be
added to Appendix VIII, as well.
b. Specific Companies Investigating
K088 Recovery/Treatment Technologies.
It has been mentioned earlier that there
are numerous technologies either
available or being developed that
recycle or recover the value (carbon,
fluoride, etc.) in K088. Some of these
technologies are described below. This
is by no means a comprehensive
discussion on those technologies, but
rather is intended to give the public
some idea of treatment options that are,
or may be, available. These technologies
or companies are only those of which
the Agency has been made aware. EPA
has placed in the RCRA Docket of this
proposed rule all the recycling/
treatment studies, as well as literature
and videos submitted to the Agency on
the various technologies. The EPA
requests comment and data on these
technologies and any other recycling or
recovery technologies applicable to
K088.
• Enviroscience, Inc. (ESI) has
completed a pilot plant demonstration
sponsored by Kaiser Aluminum,
Vanalco and Columbia Falls Aluminum
Company. Their process uses K088,
K061 (electric arc furnace dust) and
F006 (electroplating sludges) to produce
zinc oxide, mineral wool fiber and pig
iron. The K088 is first formed into
briquettes and then heated to
approximately 3000 F in a furnace, with
lime and silica being added to attain an
optimal acid:base ratio for proper fiber
formation. The carbon and the cyanide
from the potliner are used to reduce the
metals in the K061 and F006. The non-
reducible metal oxides are spun into a
mineral wool from the molten slag.
• Alcan International Limited has
developed a Low Caustic Leach and
Liming hydrometallurgical process to
treat K088. This process converts the
fluorides to acid grade fluorspar and
recovers the sodium and aluminum as
sodium aluminate and caustic feed to be
used in aluminum smelter operations.
Alcan claims that the remaining brick
and carbon fraction constitutes a high
ash solid fuel whose reduced sodium
content enhances its value as a chemical
reducing agent.
• Ormet Corporation has used a pilot-
scale melting system vitrification
process to treat K088 wastes. The
process involves the rapid suspension
heating of the waste and other additives
in a preheater prior to physical and
chemical melting which occur within a
cyclone reactor. Ormet has submitted a
petition to the EPA requesting a
delisting of their residues from this
process. They intend to scale-up this
plant upon receiving a delisting of their
waste. They claim the process produces
a nonhazardous reusable product with
the qualities of industrial glass that can
be used as glass insulation material,
roofing shingle granules or in the
manufacture of tiles.
« Comalco Aluminum Ltd. (CAL), an
Australian company, has developed the
Comtor process, which is a full-scale
calcination process which thermally
destro3's the cyanide in K088. This
process also recovers the fluoride and
carbon values in K088 by using
hydrometallurgical techniques with
lime dewatering. The precipitate can be
used as a fluxing agent or in cement
making. The caustic liquor may be
recycled to the alumina plant or can be
used as a scrubbing agent. Comalco has
plans to upgrade their plant to 10,000
ton/yr and build a second plant in New
Zealand. They have a licensing
agreement with Aisco Systems of
Canadfi to commercialize the
technology.
• Elkem Technology is a Norwegian
company which has done bench-scale
testing consisting of smelting K088
along with iron ore to produce pig iron
and a slag which they hope to get
delisted. The process uses the carbon in
K088 to act as a reducing agent and
destroy the cyanides and other toxic
organics, while rendering all other
constituents immobile in a glassified,
inert slag. For each ton of K088, they
produce 0.85 ton of iron. Elkem plans a
demonstration plant in the U.S. next
year. They also plan to pilot a process
to recover fluoride from the molten slag.
• Ausmelt Limited is an Australian
company which has performed pilot
scale tests using their submerged lance
technology, which is a
pyrometallurgical process, to destroy
the toxic constituents in K088 and
produce a stable slag. Fluorides are
recovered for re-use in the aluminum
smelting process. Ausmelt has plans to
build a facility which could process
approximately 15,000 tons per year of
K088.
For more specific information on
these technologies, see the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
Background Document (BOAT) for
Newly Listed or Identified Wastes for
K088, Spent Aluminum Potliners.
For the treatment standards being
proposed today for K088, see § 268.40
table— Treatment Standards for
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
11725
Hazardous Wastes in the proposed
amendments to the regulatory language.
For performance data supporting these
standards, see the aforementioned K088
Background Document.
VII. Improvements to the Existing Land
Disposal Restrictions Program
A major part of today's rule is
designed to improve the quality and
efficiency in the LDR program. Areas
that are addressed in this proposed rule
include: Completion/adjustments to
UTS and expansion/consolidation of
certain required methods of treatment.
A. Completion of Universal Treatment
Standards
Today's rule proposes further
streamlining and simplification of the
LDR treatment standards based on the
UTS promulgated in the LDR Phase II
final rule (59 FR 47982, September 19,
1994). The proposed modifications
apply to: (1) all UTS and therefore to all
hazardous wastes regulated with
numerical treatment standards included
in the UTS as summarized in the
Consolidated Standards Table at
§ 268.40, and (2) the numerical
treatment standards proposed for
carbamate, organobromine and spent
aluminum potliner wastes. These
proposed changes to UTS therefore
extend to all F-, K-, U- and P- waste
codes with individually regulated
constituents plus ignitable, corrosive,
reactive and characteristically toxic
wastes with underlying hazardous
constituents.
1. Expansion to Cover All Components
of Newly Listed Wastes (Carbamates and
Organobromines)
A number of constituents regulated
with numerical treatment standards in
certain waste codes are not represented
in UTS. EPA lacked adequate data to
cover all the BOAT List with UTS in the
LDR Phase II final rule and today the
Agency is proposing numerical
treatment standards for additional
constituents in carbamate and
organobromine wastes which are not yet
on the current BOAT List. These 43
constituents are:
A2213
Aldicarb sulfone
Barban
Bendiocarb
Bendiocarb phenol
Benomyl
Butylate
Carbaryl
Carbenzadim
Carbofuran
Carbofuran phenol
Carbosulfan
Cycloate
Dimetilan
Dithiocarbamates (total)
EPTC
Formetanate hydrochloride
Formparanate
m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate
Isolan
Methiocarb
Methomyl
Metolcarb
Mexacarbate
Molinate'
Oxamyl
Pebulate
o-Phenylenediamine
Physostigmine
Physostigmine salicylate
Promecarb
Propham
Propoxur
Prosulfocarb
Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate
Thiodicarb
Thiophanate-methyl
Tirpate
Triallate
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Triethylamine
3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate
Vernolate
The proposed UTS for these
constituents can be found in § 268.48 of
today's proposed rule.
2. UTS for Constituents in Wastewater
and Nonwastewater Forms
For a number of constituents, there
exist UTS in wastewater forms of wastes
but none in nonwastewaters. EPA
believes that these constituents should
be controlled in both sets of waste
streams associated with a given waste
code. This enhances consistent and
complete treatment. The organic
constituents for which EPA has
promulgated wastewater UTS but no
nonwastewater UTS include acrolein, 4-
aminobiphenyl, aramite,
chlorobenzilate, 2-chlorovinylethyl
ether, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, ethylene
oxide, methyl methanesulfonate, p-
dimethylaminoazobenzene, and 2-
naphthylamine.
TABLE 1 .—DETECTION LIMITS
Today's rule requests comment on
potential UTS values for these
constituents in nonwastewaters.
Although EPA does not have definitive
treatability data on hand at the time of
proposal, EPA believes that
nonwastewater UTS for these
constituents would close gaps in the
current LDR framework and ensure
adequate treatment of all waste streams.
a. Nonwastewaters.
(i) The Environmental Technology
Council Data. EPA is soliciting comment
on the treatment standards originally
proposed, but not promulgated, in the
Third Third F039 standards for acrolein,
4-aminobiphenyl, chlorobenzilate, p-
dimethylaminoazobenzene, aramite, and
2-naphthylamine. EPA had withdrawn
these as constituents of nonwastewater
forms of F039 following comments from
the ETC that these were analytically
problematic. Specifically, in a study
repbrting detection limits and spike
recoveries in incinerator ash from the
combustion of hazardous wastes (as
analyzed by six different laboratories),
ETC reported anomalous levels of
detection limits or spike recoveries for
these compounds. Detection limits and
spike recoveries are of concern because
the numerical treatment standard for
any constituent in incinerator ash is
equal to the product of the detection
limit times the accuracy correction
factor, the inverse of the percent
recovery times a variability factor
representing the extent of the data.
ETC reported detection limits and
percent recovery values for acrolein, p-
dimethylaminoazobenzene (p-DAB), 4-
aminobiphenyl (4AB), aramite,
chlorobenzilate (CB),
methylmethanesulfonate (MMS) and 2-
naphthylamine (2NA), and also for
dibenzo(a,e)pyrene (DBF). The detection
limit results are labeled LIMITS A-F to
represent the six different laboratories
and the percent recovery results are
similarly labeled % REC A-F to
represent the six different laboratories.
These data, together with the complete
ETC investigations for the Third Third
proposed rule and the subsequent
pesticide study are available for
inspection in the RCRA Docket for the
LDR Phase II final rule.
Limit
A
B
c
D
Constituent
Acrolein
0.029
9999
0.161
9999
p-DAB
1.82
3.2
9.43
1.38
4-AB
6.94
9999
26.89
14.06
Aramite
17.18
614.43
243.05
4.52
CB
4.87
8.29
7.98
2.61
DBP
9999
9999
18.72
9999
MMS
2.438
1.85
2.3
0.75
2-NA
12.561
26.82
6.96
2.214
-------
11726
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—DETECTION LIMITS—Continued
Limit
E
F
Constituent
Acrolein
9999
9999
p-DAB
48.26
1.78
4-AB
0.065
14.18
Aram'rte
2.37
9999
CB
11.34
10.53
DBP
9999
9999
MMS
9999
1.37
2-NA
2.43
9999
TABLE 2.—PERCENT RECOVERY
% Rec
A
B
c
D
E
F
Constituent
Acrolein
1.6
0
1.954
0
0
0
p-DAB
36
118.87
40.77
126.74
134.65
558.13
4-AB
13.661
473.41
34.95
1.69
31.54
17.55
Aramite
5.47
79.23
120.34
0.11
80
330.24
CB
138.04
175.85
105.99
160.43
247.725
436.82
DBP
0
0
27.34
0
0
0
MMS
50.7
63.54
100.38
74.11
0
33.31
2-NA
8.77
125.48
18.73
3.98
8.89
3.08
Although ETC reports relatively few
detection limits for acrolein, the
consistently problematic low recoveries,
all below 2% were the basis of EPA's
concern in the Third Third rule.
Similarly, dibenzo(a,e)pyrene exhibits
extremely and consistently low
recoveries while several detection limits
are missing from the report. Aramite
exhibited several.extremely high
detection limits plus an erratic set of
percent recoveries ranging from very
high to very low. The other four
constituents, p-dimethylaminoazo-
benzene, 4-aminobiphenyl,
chlorobenzilate and 2-naphthylamine
show a pattern of generally high
detection limits and high recoveries,
with much variation in recoveries and
with several significantly high values in
each set. The methylmethanesulfonate
data were supplied by ETC despite the
fact that EPA did not propose a
nonwastewater standard for this
constituent in the Third Third rule; this
data is presented here for completeness
and to stimulate comment on the
development of today's proposed
methylmethanesulfonate nonwastewater
standard discussed below.
(ii) EPA's Treatability Data Detection
Limits and Recoveries. High or erratic
detection limits and recoveries are of
concern to EPA. For both parameters,
high values indicate a barrier to
quantification and erratic values
indicate unreliable quantification.
Analysis of the fourteen EPA
incinerator burns used to generate
nonwastewater treatability data shows
both a narrower range of detection
limits and lower values of detection
limits than the ETC study achieved. The
following table presents the ranges of
detection limits achieved.
In generating treatability data for
listed hazardous wastes EPA undertook
a series of fourteen incinerator burns.
Analysis of ash from these burns
provided the numerical basis for
nonwastewater standards. Detection
limit data were obtained from the ash
itself for all constituents. However,
recovery levels were determined for
only a handful of constituents. After
these recoveries were determined by
spiking ash with the selected
constituents and measuring the
percentage of the spike which was
recovered, these recovery values were
transferred to chemically similar
constituents and incorporated into the
nonwastewater treatment standard
calculations. EPA generally rejected
recoveries ranging outside the 20% to
200% range following the guidance of
the BOAT program's Quality Assurance
Project Plan.
ORIGINAL EPA NONWASTEWATER
INCINERATOR BURN DETECTION LIMITS
EPA test burn
Test #1
Test #2
Test #3
Test #4
Test #5
Test #6
Test #7
Test #8
Test #9
Test #1 0
Test #11
Test #13
Test #14
Detection
limits for
volatile
organics
0.1-10.0
0.2-50.0
0.05-10.0
2.0-10.0
a 2.0-50.0
"0.2-50.0
'2.0-20
0.025-2.0
0.005-0.4
c 1.5-30
0.005-0.4
0.01-2.0
a 0.01 0-2
Detection
limits for
semivolatile
organics
0.11-10.0
0.08-5.0
0.01-10.1
2.0-50.0
0.5-10.0
0.4-7.0
0.2-5
1.0-10.0
0.42-4.0
1.00-5.0
0.531-4.0
0.36-1 .8
0.36-1 .8
a Excluding one outlier out of 40 analytes.
b Excluding five outliers out of 40 analytes.
c Excluding two outliers out of 40 analytes.
(iii) Solicitation of Treatability Data.
EPA solicits additional treatability and
analytical data concerning
nonwastewater forms of these
constituents. By taking comment on
whether to promulgate nonwastewater
standards for these constituents, EPA is
reopening the discussion of the issues of
detection limits and recoveries raised by
ETC in the comments following the
Third Third proposal. EPA opens the
question of whether advances in
detectability, notably the use of HLPC
(high pressure liquid phase
chroraatography) may allow reliable
measurement. EPA also solicits
comment whether more reliable
recovery values have been achieved for
these constituents, and at what
detection level are reliable results
achieved.
(iv) Additional Potential
Nonwastewater UTS Based on
Treatability Groups. EPA is also
soliciting comment on potential
treatment standards for 2-chlorovinyl
ether, 1,2-diphenylhydrazine, ethylene
oxide and methyl methanesulfonate
based on the Treatability Group
categories outlined in the LDR Phase II
Final Background Document for
Universal Standards, Volume A,
Universal Standards for Nonwastewater
Forms of Listed Hazardous Wastes.
Specifically, for each of the constituents
listed above, EPA is considering as
potential UTS the lowest nonwastewater
treatment standard for the treatability
group to which that constituent belongs.
Treatability groups collect the UTS
constituents into sets of chemically
similar compounds with similar
behavior in treatment processes and
analytical instruments. UTS for
nonwastewater UTS are based on the
detection limits of that compound in
incinerator ash. Since these detection
limits reflect the constituent's "fate and
transport" in the analytical unit
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11727
according to its chemical structure and
composition, transferring treatability
data among members of treatability
groups accounts for similarities in
analytical quantification as well as in
treatment.
NONWASTEWATER UTS
Compound
Acrolein
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aramite
Chlorobenzilate
2-Ch!orovinyl ether
Dibenz(a,e)pyrene
1 ,2-Dlphenylhydrazine
Ethylene oxide
Methyl methanesulfonate
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
2-Naohthvlamine
NWUTS
(mg/l)
2.8
13
25
6.6
5.6
22
1.5
0.75
46
29
15
(v) UTS for Sulfide in Nonwastewater
Form.
EPA is soliciting treatability data for
nonwastewater forms of sulfide. In the
absence of treatability data for this
inorganic ion in nonwastewater
matrices, EPA is not proposing
treatment standards but is requesting
treatability and analytical data on which
to develop a standard.
(vi) UTS for Fluoride in
Nonwastewater Form.
EPA is today proposing a 48 mg/l as
the UTS for the fluoride ion identical to
that proposed today for fluoride in K088
nonwastewaters. The basis of the K088
standard is discussed in the section of
today's preamble proposing treatment
standards for K088 wastes. Today's
proposed fluoride nonwastewater UTS,
like the K088 fluoride standard, is based
on the use of SW-846 leachate method
1311. Fluoride, like zinc, is not an
underlying hazardous constituent in
characteristic wastes, according to the
definition at § 268.2(i).
b. Wastewaters. Additionally, today's
rule proposes a wastewater treatment
standard for 1,4-dioxane. 1,4-Dioxane is
the only UTS constituent for which EPA
had promulgated a nonwastewater
standard but not a wastewater standard.
Commenters reported analytical
difficulties in quantifying 1,4-dioxane at
the wastewater standard proposed in the
LDR Phase II UTS (0.12 mg/l); this
standard was based on a transfer from
ethyl ether. EPA consequently withdrew
that standard in the LDR Phase II final
rule. The docket for today's rule
includes treatability data submitted by
one such commenter.
Today's rule proposes a wastewater
UTS of 0.22 mg/l for 1,4-dioxane. This
standard is being proposed as the
maximum daily limit for 1,4-dioxane in
the proposed effluent guidelines for the
Pharmaceuticals industry, based on the
performance of steam stripping followed
by biological treatment.
EPA also solicits comment on a
wastewater standard for 1,4-dioxane of
8.67 mg/l, followed by biological
treatment. The basis of this alternative
standard is treatability data for
distillation, which was developed for
the proposed pharmaceutical effluent
guidelines. The data supporting this
standard represents a transfer of
distillation performance data with
methanol to 1,4-dioxane.13
WASTEWATER UTS
Compound
1 .4-Dioxane
WWUTS
0.22 mo/l
3. Application to Listed Waste
a. Wastewater-nonwastewater pairs.
There are several cases where a
constituent is regulated in wastewater
forms of particular listed wastes with
UTS but not in nonwastewater and a
nonwastewater UTS exists for these
constituents, having been promulgated
in LDR Phase II. For these constituents,
EPA proposes to extend the UTS to
nonwastewaters, and vice versa. In other
words, in cases where the 40 CFR
268.40—Table of Treatment Standards
for Hazardous Wastes lists a numerical
treatment standard for a constituent in
one form of a listed waste but not in the
other, today's rule proposes the UTS as
the standard for the other form. This
section of today's rule does not propose
new UTS, rather it extends existing. UTS
to gaps in the media-specific standards
for individual constituents in listed
wastes. An example is K019 where p-
dichlorobenzene, fluorene and 1,2,4,5-
tetrachlorobenzene are regulated with
UTS in wastewater forms of K019 but
are not regulated—indicated in the
Consolidated Table as "NA"—in
nonwastewater forms of K019. Today's
rule proposes filling in these "NA's" for
p-dichlorobenzene, fluorene and 1,2,4,5-
tetrachlorobenzene in nonwastewater
for K019 with the UTS and similarly
applying UTS in other cases where UTS
now apply to a constituent in either
wastewaters and nonwastewaters but do
not apply to both. The gaps between
wastewater and nonwastewater coverage
for individual constituents in listed
wastes occurred because the Agency
decided on a waste code-by-waste code
basis whether to include constituents in
wastewater, nonwastewater or both
forms of a waste. EPA now believes that
applying UTS to wastewaters and
nonwastewaters consistently ensures
treatment of regulated constituents
regardless of the physical form of the
waste or the waste treatment residual
regulated under the "derived-from"
rule.
The following tables show those
regulated constituents, by waste code,
where either a wastewater or a
nonwastewater UTS is added by today's
proposal.
Waste
code
F006
F007
F008
F009
F011
F012
F038
Constituent
Silver
Cadmium
Silver
Cadmium
Silver
Cadmium
Silver
Cadmium
Silver
Cadmium
Silver
Nickel
Wastewater
standard
(mg/l)
043
0 69
043
0 69
043
069
0 43
069
043
069
043
3.98
" At tho time of signature of this rule, further
data on thcso affluent guidelines were forthcoming.
This additional data, if not available at the time of
publication of this rule, will be made available
shortly thereafter.
-------
11728 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
Waste
code
Constituent
Wastewater
standard
(mg/l)
K018
K030
K035
Pentachloroethane •
Hexachlorpropylene •
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
Acenaphthene •
Anthracene •
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluorene
lndeno{1,2,3-cd)pyrene
K048 Nickel
K049 Nickel
K050 Nickel
K051 Nickel •,
K052 Nickel :
K061 Antimony ;
Arsenic r •
Barium •:
Beryllium
Mercury ,
Selenium °-82
Silver • °-43
Thallium I-4
Zinc r 2-61
P013 | Barium : I 1 -2
i Nonwastewater
„ ... . i standard (mg/kg un-
Constituent ,ess otherwise
noted)
F001-5 ... Carbon disulfide 4-8 (™g/l TCLP)
Cyclohexanone 0.75 mg/l TCLP
Methanol 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
F037 Acenaphthene 3-4
Fluorene 3-4
Lead * 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
F038 Fluorene ; 3-4
Lead ; 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
F039 Acetonitrile '• 38
Acrolein > 2-8
4-Aminobiphenyl • 13
Aramite • • * 2.5
Carbon disuifide !!"."!.!!"!! • 4.8 (mg/l TCLP)
Chlorobenzilate 6-6
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene 0.28
Cyclohexanone 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
Dibenz(a,e)pyrene 22
Diphenylamine/diphenylnitrosamine ; 13
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine • 1-5
Ethylene oxide r °-75
Methanol - 0.75 (mg/l TCLP)
Methyl methanesulfonate 4-6
2-Naphthylamine [ 15
N-Nitrosodimethylamine 2-3
Phthalic anhydride 28
tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl)phosphate i 0.10
Beryllium ._.... - 0.014 (mg/l TCLP)
Fluoride 48
Thallium • 0.078 (mg/l TCLP)
Vanadium • 0.23 (mg/l TCLP)
K006 Lead 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
K018 Chloromethane • 30
K019 p-Dichlorobenzene 6.0
Fluorene 3-4
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene 14
K028 Cadmium 0-19 (mg/l TCLP)
K030 o-Dichlorobenzene 6.0
p-Dichlorobenzene 6.0
K048 Fluorene 3-4
Lead 0.37 (mg/l TCLP)
K049 Carbon disulfide 4-8 (mS/l TCLP)
2,4-Dimethylphenol • 14
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
11729
Waste
code
K050
K051
K052
K083
K086
K101
K102
P003
P056
U038
U042
U093
U134
U168
Constituent
Lead
Lead
Acenaphthene
Fluorene :
Lead
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Lead
Cyclohexanone
Cyclohexanone
Methanol
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Acrolein
Fluoride
Chlorobenzilate
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
Fluoride
2-Naphthylamine
Nonwastewater
standard (mg/kg un-
less otherwise
noted)
0 37 (mg/l TCLP)
0 37 (mg/l TCLP)
34
34
0 37 (mg/l TCLP)
14
0 37 (mg/l TCLP)
0 75 (mg/l TCLP)
0 75 {mg/l TCLP)
0 75 (mg/l TCLP)
019 (mg/l TCLP)
0 37 (mg/l TCLP)
0 025 (mg/l TCLP)
019 (mg/l TCLP)
0 37 (mg/l TCLP)
0 025 (mg/l TCLP)
28
48
66
56
29
48
15
b. Elimination of Redundant Methods
of Treatment. Several constituents had
been regulated with UTS in one
medium (wastewaters or
nonwastewaters) but were regulated
with a method of treatment in the other
as alternatives, namely P022 carbon
disulfide (nonwastewaters), TJ003
acetonitrile (nonwastewaters), U057
Cyclohexanone (nonwastewaters), U108
1,4-dioxane (wastewaters and
nonwastewaters), UllO 1,2-
diphenylhydrazine (wastewaters), U115
ethylene oxide (wastewaters), U154
methanol (wastewaters and
nonwastewaters). The LDR Phase II
proposal did not suggest that the
specified methods be replaced with the
UTS. However, in comments received
on the proposal, commenters requested
that EPA apply the UTS to these wastes.
Because EPA had not specifically
proposed such a change, the LDR Phase
II final rule allowed both the specified
method or the UTS.
EPA believes that the UTS are
appropriate so that the alternative
specified method is now unnecessary.
Numerical treatment standards, such as
UTS, ensure treatment more reliably
than do standards expressed as methods
of treatment because the target
concentrations allow for verification
that the waste has been treated.
Consequently, EPA intends to replace
required methods of treatment with
numerical standards whenever possible.
EPA believes UTS for these constituents
provides such an opportunity. Therefore
today's rule proposes to eliminate the
alternative methods of treatment and
establishes UTS for both wastewater and
nonwastewater constituents.
4. Revision to the Acetonitrile Standard
a. The acetonitrile nonwastewater
standard. EPA reviewed the constituent-
specific standard for acetonitrile
nonwastewaters, and believes that this
standard should be raised from 1.8 mg/
kg to 38 mg/kg. The 1.8 mg/kg standard,
which was based on incineration, is not
consistent with treatment data and
standards for other structurally related
organo-nitrogen UTS compounds. For
example, the nonwastewater treatment
standard for both acrylonitrile and
methacrylonitrile is 84 mg/kg. The
nonwastewater standards for ethyl
methacrylate and methyl methacrylate
are 160 mg/kg.
Acetonitrile is one of the compounds
singled out by the ETC as being
problematic to analyze for in
combustion residues (i.e.,
nonwastewaters). In response to the
Third Third Rulemaking, the ETC had
submitted data from which they
calculated a method detection limit of
6.678 mg/kg for other combustion
residues.
The Agency is soliciting data and
comment specifically on the analytical
achievability of the 1.8 mg/kg
acetonitrile nonwastewater Standard in
combustion residues and the ability of
non-combustion technologies to achieve
the 1.8 mg/kg and. the proposed
standard of 38 mg/kg for acetonitrile in
nonwastewaters.
b. Revoking the special wastewater/
nonwastewater definition for
acrylonitrile wastes. The Agency also
recognizes that K011/13/14
nonwastewaters could consist of over
90% water, and that wastewater
treatment is an appropriate means of
treating these wastes. For the above
reasons, the Agency is proposing to
revise the treatment standard for
acetonitrile in nonwastewaters to 38
mg/kg based on the existing treatment
data, which comes from treating K011/
13/14 wastes containing greater than 1%
TOC by steam stripping. (See the
background documents for K011/13/14
nonwastewaters in the Second Third
Final Rule Docket and the background
documents for K011/13/14
"wastewaters" in the Third Third Final
Rule Docket).
5. Aggressive Biological Treatment as
BOAT for Petroleum Refinery Wastes
EPA solicits comment whether to
specify aggressive biological treatment
as the treatment standard for
decharacterized petroleum refining
wastewaters. Aggressive biological
treatment is defined in §261.31(b)(2) as
one of the following four processes:
activated sludge, trickling filters,
rotating biological contactors or high-
rate mechanical aeration. The American
Petroleum Institute (API) has submitted
data to the Agency on ten of its facilities
using aggressive biological treatment.
Along with the data API requested that
EPA specify aggressive biological
treatment as the treatment standard for
their wastes. Such a standard, which
would operate in lieu of UTS, may
reduce the monitoring burden. EPA
-------
11730 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 /Thursday, March 2, 1995 /Proposed Rules
solicits comment on proposing
aggressive biological treatment as BDAT
for these wastes. However, because
monitoring is required under CWA
permits, EPA is also soliciting comment
on whether a reduction in the number
of constituents monitored is significant.
The data which API submitted
demonstrate that aggressive biological
treatment in the industry may
consistently meet UTS. There was one
observation, however, for which a
constituent exceeded UTS, and other
observations which involved detection
limits which exceeded UTS. This data is
available in the docket for today's rule.
B. Dilution Prohibition
Under the existing LDR dilution
prohibition (40 CFR 268.3), burning
inorganic metal-bearing hazardous
wastes can be a form of impermissible
dilution. On May 27,1994, the Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response issued
a Statement of Policy which clarified
this point (59 FR 27546-7). Today the
Agency is proposing to codify and
quantify these principles.
1. Dilution Prohibited as a Method of
Treatment
Under RCRA, the LDR prohibition on
dilution states generally that no person
"shall in any way dilute a restricted
waste * * * as a substitute for adequate
treatment to achieve compliance with (a
treatment standard for that waste)". 40
CFR 268.3(a). This prohibition
implements the requirement of section
3004(m) of RCRA, which requires that
hazardous constituents in hazardous
wastes be destroyed, removed or
immobilized before these wastes can be
land disposed. Hazardous constituents
are not destroyed, removed or
immobilized if they are diluted. CWMv.
EPA, 976 F.2d at 16,17,19-20; see also
S. Rep. No. 298, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 17
(1983) ("the dilution of wastes by the
addition of other hazardous waste or
any other materials during waste
handling, transportation, treatment or
storage is not an acceptable method of
treatment to reduce the concentration of
hazardous constituents").
Consistent with these authorities, the
Agency has stated that the dilution
prohibition serves one chief purpose—
"to ensure that prohibited wastes14 are
treated by methods that are appropriate
for that type of waste." (55 FR 22532,
June 1,1990). Impermissible dilution
can occur under a number of
circumstances. The most obvious is
when solid wastes are added to a
prohibited waste to reduce
concentrations but not volumes of
hazardous constituents, or to mask their
presence. Impermissible dilution also
may occur when wastes not amenable to
treatment by a certain method (i.e.,
treated very ineffectively by that
treatment method) are nevertheless
'treated' by that method (55 FR 22666,
June 1,1990) (biological treatment does
not effectively remove toxic metals from
wastes; therefore, prohibited wastes
with treatment standards for metals
ordinarily would be impermissibly
diluted if managed in biological
treatment systems providing no separate
treatment for the metals). See also 52 FR
at 25778-79 (July 8,1987)
(impoundments which primarily
evaporate hazardous constituents do not
qualify as section 3005(j)(ll)
impoundments which may receive
otherwise-prohibited hazardous wastes
that have not met the treatment
standard).
This proposed rule gives a general
distinction between "adequate
treatment" and potential violations of
the dilution prohibition. The Agency
has evaluated the listed wastes and has
determined that 43 of the RCRA listed
wastes (as set forth in 40 CFR 261)
typically appear to be such inorganic
hazardous wastes; i.e., they typically do
not contain organics, or contain only
insignificant amounts of organics, and
are not regulated for organicsls. BDAT
for these inorganic, metal-bearing listed
wastes is metal recovery or stabilization.
Thus, impermissible dilution may result
when these wastes are combusted.
This proposed rule reflects the
Agency's concerns about the hazard
presented by toxic metals in the
environment. When an inorganic metal-
bearing hazardous waste with
insignificant organics is placed in a
combustion unit, legitimate treatment
for purposes of LDR ordinarily is not
occurring. No treatment of the inorganic
component occurs during combustion,
and therefore, metals are not destroyed,
removed, or immobilized. Since there
are no significant concentrations of
organic compounds in inorganic metal-
bearing hazardous wastes, it cannot be
maintained that the waste is being
properly or effectively treated via
combustion (i.e., thermally treated or '
destroyed, removed, or immobilized).
In terms of the dilution prohibition, if
combustion is allowed as a method to
achieve a treatment standard for these
"A "prohibited" hazardous waste is one which
is actually subject to a prohibition on land disposal
without first being treated, or disposed in a no-
migration unit. See 54 FR 36968 (Sept. 6,19.89).
"To the extent that these wastes or residues of
these wastes (i.e., biological treatment sludges)
contain significant organic content, combustion
may be an appropriate treatment technology. See
later discussion regarding this point.
wastes, metals in these wastes will be
dispersed to the ambient air and will be
diluted by being mixed in with
combustion ash from other waste
streams. Adequate treatment
(stabilization or metal recovery to meet
LDR treatment standards) has not been
performed and dilution has occurred. It
is also inappropriate to regard eventual
stabilizing of such combustion ash as
providing adequate treatment for
purposes of the LDRs. Simply meeting
the numerical BDAT standards for the
ash fails to account for metals in the
original waste stream that were emitted
to the air and for reductions achieved by
dilution with other materials in the ash.
(In most cases, of course, the metal-
bearmg wastes will have been mixed
with other wastes before combustion,
which mixing itself could be viewed as
impermissible dilution).
Thsse inorganic, metal-bearing
hazardous wastes should be and are
usually treated by metal recovery or
stabilization technologies. These
technologies remove hazardous
constituents through recovery in
products, or immobilize them, and are
therefore permissible BDAT treatment
methods.
There are eight characteristic metal
wastes; however, only wastes that
exhibit the TC as measured by both the
TCLP and the EP for D004-D011 are
presently prohibited (see 55 FR 22660-
02, June 1,1990). Characteristic wastes,
of course, cannot be generically
characterized as easily as listed wastes
because they can be generated from
many different types of processes. For
example, although some characteristic
metal wastes do not contain organics or
cyanide or contain only insignificant
amounts, others may have organics or
cyanide present which justify
combustion, such as a used oil
exhibiting the TC characteristic for a
metal. Thus, it is difficult to say which
D004-D011 wastes would be
impermissibly diluted when combusted,
beyond stating that as a general matter,
impermissible dilution would occur if
the D004-D011 waste does not have
significant organic or cyanide content
but is nevertheless combusted.
2. Permissible Dilution
EPA ordinarily would not consider
the following hazardous wastes to
contain "significant organic or cyanide
content", for which combustion would
otherwise be impermissible dilution
(the Agency is adding criteria beyond
that included in the May 27,1994
policy memorandum to clarify
situations raised in comments received).
Combustion of the following inorganic
metal-bearing wastes is therefore not
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 /Thursday, March 2, 1995 /Proposed Rules 11731
prohibited under the LDR dilution
prohibition: (1) Wastes that, at the point
of generation, or after any bona fide
treatment such as cyanide destruction
prior to combustion, contain hazardous
organic constituents or cyanide at levels
exceeding the constituent-specific
treatment standard for UTS; (2) organic,
debris-like materials (e.g., wood, paper,
plastic, or cloth) contaminated with an
inorganic metal-bearing hazardous
waste; (3) wastes that, at point of
generation, have reasonable heating
value such as greater than or equal to
5000 Btu/lb (see 48 FR11157, March 16,
1983); (4) wastes co-generated with
wastes that specify combustion as a
required method of treatment; (5)
wastes, including soil, subject to Federal
and/or State requirements necessitating
reduction of organics (including
biological agents); and (6) wastes with
greater than 1% Total Organic Carbon
(TOG). An "inorganic metal-bearing
waste" is one for which EPA has
established treatment standards for
metal hazardous constituents, and
which does not otherwise contain
significant organic or cyanide content.
(See 40 CFR Appendix XI proposed in
today's rule for a list of waste codes
which EPA tentatively believes satisfies
this definition.) The foregoing six
categories of waste typically would
contain sufficient organic content to
indicate that combustion can be a
reasonable means of treating the wastes
prior to land disposal. EPA solicits
comments on whether there are other
inorganic wastes that would technically
justify combustion as a means of
complying with BDAT. For example, are
there metal bearing organic wastes or
complexing agents not covered by the
above criteria that prevent effective
stabilization of metals due to the
presence of unregulated organics?
However, as noted above, mixing
practices such as fuel blending to add
organics to inorganic metal-bearing
hazardous wastes ordinarily would be
considered to be impermissible dilution.
This is because, under current rules, the
dilution prohibition applies at the point
a hazardous waste is generated. CWMv.
EPA 976 F.2d at 22-3; see also 48 FR
11158,11159 and nn. 2 and 4 (March
16,1983); 53 FR at 522 (Jan. 8,1988)
determinations of legitimacy of
recycling are made on a waste-by-waste
basis before any blending occurs.
The Agency is aware of a practice
within the foundry industry that
recycles foundry sand by thermally
oxidizing impurities. It is EPA's view
that this process would violate the
policy against combustion of inorganics,
unless the foundry sand being oxidized
contains toxic organic constituents or
has a significant organic component (as
described above).
3. Cyanide-Bearing Wastes and
Combustion
A commenter questioned why EPA
allows the presence of cyanide to justify
combustion when there are adequate
alternative treatment methods. This
approach was adopted because cyanide
is destroyed by combustion. Existing
LDR rules, in many cases, identify
combustion as an appropriate BDAT for
destruction of cyanide-bearing wastes.
The May 27,1994 policy statement did
not change BDAT determinations and
thus reflected that combustion could be
appropriate for destroying certain
cyanide-bearing wastes. EPA, however,
solicits comments on whether the
cyanide criterion should be dropped.
While cyanide is effectively treated in
combustion devices, EPA has received
comments that non-combustion
technologies such as alkaline
chlorination are available to effectively
treat metal bearing wastes that contain
cyanide and that BDAT for these wastes
should not include combustion. EPA
solicits comments on the relative
effectiveness and risks of combustion
versus alkaline chlorination in treating
cyanides in inorganic metal bearing
wastes.
4. Table of Inorganic Metal Bearing
Wastes
The table being proposed in 40 CFR
part 268, Appendix XI today indicates
the list of waste codes for which EPA
regulates only metals and/or cyanides
that would be affected by this proposed
rule. Except for P122, this list is
identical to the list originally published
in the aforementioned Policy Statement
on this subject. The Agency is removing
P122 (Zinc Phosphide greater than 10%)
from the list of restricted inorganic
metal-bearing wastes, because the
Agency has previously promulgated a
treatment standard of INCIN for the
nonwastewater forms of this waste. See
40 CFR 268.40. The policy memo was in
error on this point. The Agency solicits
comment on this issue, particularly with
respect to costs associated with the
segregation of these wastes.
5. The Addition of Iron Dust To
Stabilize Characteristic Hazardous
Wastes: Potential Classification as
Impermissible Dilution
The Agency has become aware that
certain industries may be adding iron
dust or iron filings to some
characteristic hazardous wastes as a
form of treatment. For example,
foundries are known to mix iron dust or
filing with the D008 waste sand
generated from their spent casting
molds, viewing this practice as a form
of stabilization. The Agency believes,
however, that such stabilization is
inadequate to minimize the threats
posed by land disposal of metal-
containing hazardous wastes, and is
today proposing to clarify that this
waste management practice is
"impermissible dilution" under 40 CFR
268.3, for reasons discussed below.
In particular, when iron dust or filings
are added to a characteristic waste
foundry sand, it is considered
"treatment" under the definition in 40
CFR 260.10. Nevertheless, the Agency
does not believe it to be adequate
treatment; rather, it is merely the
addition of material as a substitute for
adequate treatment, and thus constitutes
impermissible dilution. See §268.3(b),
54 FR at 48494 (Nov. 1989), and 55 FR
at 22532 (June 1,1990). The Agency
believes it is unlikely that any chemical
reactions are taking place when iron
dust or iron filings are added, because
the waste foundry sand would likely
contain only lead, silica, microscopic
pieces of castings, and binders (clays,
phenols, and tars) from the molds. The
Agency does not believe that simply
adding iron would provide treatment for
either the lead or the organics (i.e.,
phenol and tar).
While it is arguable that iron could
form temporary, weak, ionic complexes
with silica and/or phenate, so that when
analyzed by the TCLP test the lead
appears to have been stabilized, the
Agency believes that this "stabilization"
is temporary, based upon the nature of
the complexing. In fact, a report
prepared by EPA on Iron Chemistry in
Lead Contaminated Materials (Feb. 22,
1994), which specifically addressed this
issue, found that iron lead bonds are
weak, adsorptive surface bonds, and
therefore not likely to be permanent.
Furthermore, as this iron-rich mixture is
exposed to moisture and oxidative
conditions over time, interstitial water
would likely acidify, which could
potentially reverse any temporary
stabilization, as well as increase the
leachability of the lead from the foundry
sand. Therefore, the addition of iron
dust or filings to characteristic waste
foundry sand does not appear to provide
long-term treatment.
Another related concern is that the
addition of iron has been demonstrated
to result in false negatives for lead when
wastes are analyzed by means of the
-------
11732
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
TCLP -16. This significant interference
with the analytical method for detecting
lead, in conjunction with the concerns
about the temporary nature of any
stabilization that would occur, fully
supports identifying this practice as
impermissible dilution or otherwise
failing to satisfy the requirements of
RCRA section 3004(m) to minimize
short- and long-term threats to human
health and the environment. Comments
and data are solicited on whether this
type of stabilization is effective in
achieving long-term treatment.
Comments and data are also solicited on
whether a test method other than the
TCLP is more appropriate for measuring
compliance for this waste.
D. Expansion of Methods .Requiring
Incineration
EPA is proposing to modify the
treatment standard expressed as INCIN,
which specifies hazardous waste
incineration, to, CMBST, which allows
combustion in incinerators and boilers
and industrial furnaces. The INCIN
requirement was set before EPA had
issued air emission requirements for
boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs).
Now that BIF regulations are in place,
the need to constrain treatment to one
type of combustion device is no longer
appropriate. With the development of
innovative technologies, EPA also
solicits comment on whether the
Catalytic Extraction Process, for which
Molten Metal Technology received a
determination of equivalent treatment
under § 268.42(b)17, should also be
allowed for all wastes which have a
treatment standard of CMBST, and
whether there are other technologies
which are equivalent to CMBST.
E. Clean Up of 40 CFR Part 268
EPA is proposing further changes to
the LDR program to achieve the goal of
simplified regulations. The Agency is
committed to improving the LDR
program by implementing participant
suggestions from the LDR Roundtable
held on January 12-14, 1993.
The LDR requirements are found,
primarily, in 40 CFR Part 268. EPA
intends to remove language that is out-
of-date, and to clarify language which
16 See memo from John V. Cignatta, Datanet to
John Gauthier, EPA Region 1, dated September 8,
1992.
"The Catalytic Extraction Process, used by
Molten Metal Technology, involves a molten metal
bath, with temperatures around 3000°F, into which
liquid wastes are injected, and solid wastes are fed
with a carrier gas (Ar). The process treats the wastes
in a high temperature reduction environment,
which reduces the compounds to their elemental
state. The metallic, inorganic ceramic, and gaseous
phases which result are then reused, or purified and
released.
may be confusing, in an effort to make
the LDR program easier to understand,
implement, and enforce. This effort will
continue in the LDR Phase IV rule,
scheduled for proposal in June 1995.
1. Section 268.8
Section 268.8 stated that First and
Second Third wastes for which EPA did
not promulgate treatment standards by
their respective effective dates could
continue to be disposed of in landfill
and surface impoundment units until
May 8,1990 (see 55 FR 22526). Because
treatment standards for all scheduled
wastes were promulgated in the Third
Third rule in 1990, these "soft hammer"
requirements are no longer necessary.
Therefore, § 268.8 is proposed to be
removed from part 268.
2. Sections 268.10-268.12
The purpose of Subpart B of § 268 was
to set out a schedule for hazardous
wastes by the date when treatment
standards were to be established.
Sections 268.10, 268.11, and 268.12 of
Subpart B included the First Third,
Second Third, and Third Third
scheduled wastes respectively.
Deadlines in all three of these sections
were met on time, and the wastes are
subject to treatment standards.
Therefore, these three sections are no
longer necessary, and are proposed to be
removed.
3. Section 268.2(f)
The existing wastewater definition
found in § 268.2(f) includes wastes that
have less than 1% TOC and less than
1% TSS. There are three exceptions
given to this definition: (1) F001-F005
wastewaters have no criteria for TSS,
and must contain less than 1% solvent
constituents, (2) K011, K013, K014
wastewaters must contain less than 5%
TOC and less than 1% TSS, and (3)
K103 and K104 wastewaters must
contain less than 4% TOC and less than
1% TSS. With the promulgation of UTS
in the LDR Phase II final rule (59 FR
47982, September 19,1994), such
distinctions are inconsistent and an
unnecessary complication of the
regulations. While such initial
classifications may have had some
meaning, after effective BOAT treatment
the residuals are appropriately regulated
by the wastewater or nonwastewater
limit as specified by the 1% TOC and
TSS criteria. The Agency is therefore
proposing to remove paragraphs (l)-{3)
from § 268.2(f).
VIII. Proposed Prohibition of
Hazardous Waste as Fill Material
EPA is also proposing today to amend
the LDR rules so as to prohibit the
placement of hazardous waste as a fill
material unless the prohibited waste is
treated so that short- and long-term
threats have been minimized. By "fill
material", fihe Agency means uses lt! of
waste as a substitute for low grade
material (such as sand or dirt) to raise
the level of land, occupy space, or
otherwise fill in depressions. Hazardous
waste Includes, of course, any waste
that is identified or listed as hazardous
under § 261.3, and so includes wastes
(such as residues from treating listed
wastes) that are hazardous by virtue of
the mixture and derived-from rules. The
result of this rule, if finalized, would
thus be to confirm that such uses are
prohibited and therefore illegal unless
the fill area is a regulated unit (i.e., a
subtitle C landfill).
EPA in fact already interprets current
rules as ordinarily providing a similar
result. In the preamble to the May 19,
1980 rules establishing the subtitle C
hazardous waste management program,
EPA stated that an exemption from
regulation for legitimate recycling
activities does not apply to "sham uses
and recovery or reclamation—e.g.
'landfilling' or 'land reclamation'". 45
FR at 33093. In the April 4,1983
Federal Register Notice proposing a
separate regulatory regime for hazardous
wastes legitimately recycled in a
manner constituting disposal
(ultimately promulgated as 40 CFR
260.2C1-.23), the Agency stated that this
provision would not apply to hazardous
wastes used as fill material, the specific
example provided being "waste
stabilization processes where the
stabilized material is then used as fill."
48 FR at 14985. The Agency further
stated that it was "convinced that these
waste treatment operations are not
production processes and can therefore
be regulated as waste management." Id.
The reasons for the Agency's
interpretation are evident. The wastes
are being put into the environment
without any safeguards to prevent
exposure. Hazardous constituents can
migrate into the environment and reach
human and environmental receptors by
any number of direct pathways,
including inhalation, dermal contact,
surface runoff, and leaching to
groundwater. Indirect exposure
pathways exist as well.
The amended rule, if adopted, would
prohibit the use of hazardous waste as
fill material, and add a conforming
amendment to § 266.20(b) stating that
18Incidentally, the term "use" here has no
specific meaning other than the normal dictionary
definition. It is not meant to connote the phrase
"used or reused" found in § 261.1.(c)(5), which is a
term of art for determining the scope of the
exclusion in §261.2(e)(l) (i) and (ii).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
11733
disposal of hazardous waste as fill
material is not a type of use constituting
disposal subject to the special standards
of Part 266 subpart C, but rather
disposal plain and simple, and hence
illegal unless occurring in a regulated
unit; or, as explained below, if the
prohibited waste can be shown to be
treated to satisfy section 3004(m).
Section 3004(m) of the statute states that
EPA is to establish "levels or methods
of treatment, if any, which substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the wastes
so that short-term and long-term threats
to human health and the environment
are minimized." (Emphasis added). In
this case, the Agency is unable to
determine any level of treatment of
hazardous wastes which can guarantee
the requisite minimization of short-term
and long-term threats when prohibited
hazardous wastes are used as fill
material.
Because there are no specifications or
constraints on placement of fill material,
reliable assessments pose particular
uncertainties and difficulties. These
uncertainties relate to release, transport,
and ultimate exposure, and include
uncertainties regarding release
mechanisms, types and amounts of
hazardous constituents released due to
potential waste variability, location of
human and environmental receptors,
and transport mechanisms, cf. HWTC
III, 886 F. 2d at 1362-63. The existing
LDR treatment standards do not fully
address these potential problems for at
least two reasons. First, the LDR
standards are technology-based, not
risk-based standards. Second, for metal
hazardous constituents, the LDR
standards do not regulate the total metal
content of hazardous wastes. Total
metal content is relevant to many
possible exposure pathways when
hazardous waste is used as fill material,
including inhalation and direct
ingestion pathways. See also 59 FR at
43499 (August 24,1994), where EPA
made similar findings with respect to
use of hazardous waste K061 as anti-
skid or deicing material (uses which are
better defined, and hence more
assessable, than use as fill material).
Similarly, this type of disposal does not
appear to satisfy the ultimate
protectiveness standard in sections 3004
(d), (e), and (g) (which requires that
disposal of hazardous waste that meets
a treatment standard must nevertheless
still be protective, taking into account
enumerated uncertainties—including
long-term uncertainties associated with
the persistence, toxicity, mobility, and
propensity to bioaccumulate—of land
disposed hazardous waste and
hazardous constituents). See 56 FR at
41168 (August 19,1991), adopting this
standard, which was first articulated in
NRDCv. EPA, 907 F. 2d 1146,1171-2
(D.C. Cir. 1990) (dissenting opinion).
EPA is not, in this notice, proposing
to prohibit other uses of hazardous
waste that involve placement on the
land. Thus, hazardous waste presently
placed on the land as fill material can
be diverted to a less risky, more
acceptable activity. See 59 FR 8583
(Feb. 23,1994) noting availability of
safer alternatives as justification for the •
then-proposed prohibition on non-
encapsulated uses of hazardous waste
K061. Nor would the agency preclude
the possibility that particular types of
prohibited waste could be used as fill
material, provided that it can be
established that threats to human health
and the environment have been
minimized, taking into account all of
the statutorily-enumerated uncertainties
cited above.
In a recent proposed rule on the
product use of High Temperature Metal
Recovery slags derived from K061,
F006, and K062 hazardous waste, the
Agency initially evaluated the risks that
result from a variety of uses of these
slags, including use as road subbase, an
ingredient in cement and asphalt, top
grade material for roads, etc. (59 FR
67256, December 29,1994). While this
evaluation considered the possible
release and transport of waste
constituents, the uses examined did not
include the unrestricted use of the
waste-derived product as fill material.
Use as fill could result in placement of
the waste residual in almost any
location, including a residential setting.
Therefore, an evaluation of the risks
posed by use of waste-derived products
as fill would need to consider the
potential for direct exposure to
receptors located on-site (e.g., direct
ingestion or inhalation of the material),
in addition to the potential for
movement of the material off-site to
other receptors. Such an evaluation
would need to consider at a minimum
the volume of material used as fill, the
levels of toxic constituents in the
material (both total and leachable), the
placement site and proximity to
receptors, and activity at the site that
would promote release, transport, and
exposure. Indirect exposure pathways
also could be relevant, particularly for
hazardous wastes containing
bioaccumulative hazardous constituents
(including dioxins and dibenzofurans).
IX. Capacity Determinations
A. Introduction
This section summarizes the results of
the capacity analysis for the wastes
covered by this proposal. For
background information on data
sources, methodology, and a summary
of each analysis, see the Background-
Document for Capacity Analysis for
Land Disposal Restrictions, Phase III—
Decharacterized Wastewaters,
Carbamate and Organobromine Wastes,
and Spent Potliners, found in the docket
for today's rule.
In general, EPA's capacity analysis
methodologies focus on the amount of
waste to be restricted from land disposal
that is currently managed in land-based
units and that will require alternative
treatment as a result of the LDRs. The
quantity of wastes that are not managed
in land-based units (e.g., wastewaters
managed only in RCRA exempt tanks,
with direct discharge to a POTW) is not
included in the quantities requiring
alternative treatment as a result of the
LDRs. Also, wastes that do not require
alternative treatment (e.g., those that are
currently treated using an appropriate
treatment technology) are not included
in these quantity estimates.
EPA's decisions on whether to grant
a national capacity variance are based
on the availability of alternative
treatment or recovery technologies.
Consequently, the methodology focuses
on deriving estimates of the quantities
of waste that will require either
commercial treatment or the
construction of new on-site treatment
systems as a result of the LDRs—
quantities of waste that will be treated
adequately either on site in existing
systems or off site by facilities owned by
the same company as the generator (i.e.,
captive facilities) are omitted from the
required capacity estimates.19
B. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
For the decharacterized ICR and TC
wastes managed in CWA, CWA-
equivalent, and Class I injection well
systems, EPA estimates that between 3.5
and 15 billion tons will be affected as
a result of today's proposal. EPA
believes that some affected facilities
need time to build treatment capacity
for these wastes, as wastewater volumes
19 Traditionally, capacity analyses have focused
on the demand for alternative capacity once
existing on-site capacity and captive off-site
capacity have been accounted for. However, for
some of the wastes at issue in this rule it may not
be feasible to ship wastes off site to a commercial
facility. In particular, facilities with large volumes
of wastewaters may not readily be able to transport
their waste to treatment facilities. Alternative
treatment for these wastes may need to be
constructed on site.
-------
11734
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
generally make off-site treatment
impractical. EPA has determined that
sufficient alternative treatment capacity
is not available, and today is proposing
to grant a two-year national capacity
variance for decharacterized
wastewaters.
EPA estimates that approximately
90,000 tons of newly listed wastes
included in today's proposal will
require alternative treatment. In
particular, approximately 4,500 tons of
carbamate wastes (K156-K161, P127,
P128, P185, P188-P192, P194, P196-
P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-U280,
U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-U379,
U381-U387, U389-U396, U400-U404,
U407, U409-U411) will require
alternative treatment. Less than 100 tons
of organobromine wastes (K140, U408)
are expected to require alternative
treatment capacity. In addition, 85,000
tons of spent aluminum potliners (K088)
will require alternative treatment
capacity. Sufficient commercial capacity
exists to manage all of these wastes, so
EPA is not proposing to grant a national
capacity variance for these wastes.
The quantities of radioactive wastes
mixed with wastes included in today's
proposal are generated primarily by the
U.S. Department of Energy. EPA
estimates that 820 tons of high-level
waste and 360 tons of mixed low-level
waste that may be affected by this
proposal will be generated annually by
DOE. In addition, there are currently
7,000 tons of high-level waste, 10 tons
of mixed transuranic waste, and 2,700
tons of mixed low-level waste in storage
that may be affected by this proposal.
DOE currently faces treatment capacity
shortfalls for high-level wastes and
mixed transuranic wastes. Although
DOE does have some available treatment
capacity for mixed low-level wastes,
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. DOE has indicated that it will
generally give treatment priority to
mixed wastes that are already restricted
under previous LDR rules. Therefore,
EPA is proposing to grant a two-year
national capacity variance to radioactive
wastes; mixed with the hazardous wastes
affected by today's proposal.
Table 1 lists each RCRA hazardous
waste code for which EPA is today
proposing LDR standards. For each
code, this table indicates whether EPA
is proposing to grant a national capacity
variance for land-disposed wastes.20
Also, EPA is proposing to grant a three
month national capacity variance for all
wastes in this proposed rule to handle
logistical problems associated with
complying with the new standards. EPA
is soliciting comment on these variance
determinations.
TABLE 1 .—VARIANCES FOR NEWLY LISTED AND IDENTIFIED WASTES
["Yes" Indicates EPA is Proposing to Grant a Variance]
Waste description
.Surface-disposed
wastes
Deep well-injected
wastes
Ignitable Wastes1 (D001) ;
Corrosive Wastes1 (D002)
Reactive Wastes1 (D003) '..'""."'.
Newly Identified Pesticide Wastes2 (D012-D017) '..".".".
Newly Identified TC Organic Wastewaters (D018-D043) : !""""""!"ZZ™""""!!.'
Spent Aluminum Potliners (K088) ;
Carbamate Production Wastes (K156-K161, P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194, P19&-P199i P2oi-
P205, U271, U277-U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-U396 U400-
U404, U407, U409-U411).
Organobromine Wastes (K140, U408)
Mixed Radioactive Wastes3
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO-
NO ...
NO ...
YES
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES.
NO.
NO.
NO.
YES.
1 The variance determinations listed here apply only to decharacterized wastewaters managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA systems
•Mhe vanance determinations listed here apply only to newly identified decharacterized D012-D017 wastewaters manaaed in CWA CWA-
equivalent, and SDWA systems. a '
a The variance determinations given listed apply only to radioactive wastes mixed with decharacterized D001-D003 or newly identified D012-
0017 wastes managed in CWA, CWA-equivalent, and SDWA systems; to radioactive wastes mixed with newly identified TC organic
wastewaters; and to radioactive wastes mixed with spent aluminum potliners, carbamate production wastes, or organobromine production
wastes.
EPA is also proposing in this notice
to prohibit placement of hazardous
waste as fill material. To the extent this
can be viewed as a new prohibition
(which, given EPA's consistent
interpretation that this activity should
be occurring in regulated units, is
unclear), EPA would not propose any
type of capacity variance. Hazardous
waste treatment residues satisfying LDR
standards can be land disposed in
subtitle C units, and there is no shortage
of such disposal capacity. In addition,
there may be opportunities for recycling
hazardous waste treatment residues
presently placed as fill (such as use in
^The term "land-disposed wastes" denotes
wastes that are managed in land-based units at any
time during the waste's storage, treatment, or
disposal.
asphalt, cement, or as light weight
aggregate) which would provide
adequate capacity.
C. Requests for Comment
EPA is soliciting general comment
and data on sources, quantities, and
management practices of characteristic
wastes, as well as presence and
quantities of underlying hazardous
constituents, from facilities managing
their wastes using Subtitle D surface
impoundments (CWA), or subsequent
land disposal of treated wastewaters
(CWA-equivalent), or Class I
nonhazardous injection wells, or tanks.
EPA requests specific information from
facilities managing de minimis ICRT
wastes, including information on waste
sources, quantities, and management
practices, as well as underlying
hazardous constituents.
EPA requests specific information on
volumes of carbamate and
organobromine wastes that are recycled,
mixed with, or co-managed with other
wastes, and the volumes and types of
residuals that are generated by the
various management practices
applicable to these wastes. EPA is also
soliciting information, including
quantities, management practices, and
waste characteristics, for soil and debris
contaminated with carbamate and/or
organobromine wastes. EPA also seeks
comments from the aluminum industry
on volumes of K088 generated and
future management of this waste.
EPA is soliciting specific data on
reactive wastes which are deactivated
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11735
using processes that may cause
explosions, including quantities,
management practices, and waste
characteristics, and is requesting data
for mixed TC/radioactive wastes which
are deepwell injected.
X. State Authority
A. Applicability ofBules 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 CFRPart 271.
Prior to 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 applies in
authorized States in the interim.
Today's rule is being proposed
pursuant to sections 3004 (d) through
(k), and (m), of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924(d)
through (k), and (m)). It is proposed to
be added to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1(j),
which identifies the Federal program
lCUUlJ.OUiOl.llO UUUt. «*« J^/JLWAl»M.*^W»t.WV*
pursuant to HSWA and that take effect
in all States, regardless of their
authorization status. States may apply
for 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.
EPA's proposal to prohibit hazardous
waste as fill material is also a HSWA
regulation. It implements RCRA sections
3004 (d), (e), (g)(5), and (m), which
provisions require EPA to prohibit all
land disposal of hazardous waste that is
not capable of being done in a manner
that is protective and that minimizes
short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment
from hazardous waste disposal. See also
59 FR 43499 (August 24,1994), which
is a HSWA rule prohibiting K061 as
anti-skid/de-icing material and
implements these same LDR provisions.
Consequently, this provision, if enacted,
would be effective immediately in
authorized states.
B. Effect on State Authorization
As noted above, EPA is today
proposing a rule that, when final, 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
proposed pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive 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 final
authorization are described in 40 CFR
271.21.
Section 271.21(e)(2) requires that
States with final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and to subsequently
submit the modification to EPA for
approval. The deadline by which the
State would have to modify its program
to adopt these regulations is specified in
section 271.21(e). This deadline can be
extended in certain cases (see section
271.21(e)(3)). 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
Eroposed rule. These State regulations
ave not been assessed against the
Federal regulations being proposed
today to determine whether they meet
the tests for authorization. Thus, a State
is not authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modifications are
approved. Of course, states with existing
standards could continue to administer
and enforce their standards as a matter
of State law. In implementing the
Federal program, EPA will work with
States under agreements to minimize
duplication of efforts. In many cases,
EPA will be able to defer to the States
in their efforts to implement their
programs rather than take separate
actions under Federal authority.
States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations are not required to include
standards equivalent to these
regulations in their application.
However, the State must modify its
program by the deadline set forth in
§ 271.21(e). States that submit official
applications for final authorization 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations must include standards
equivalent to these regulations in their
application. The requirements a state
must meet when submitting its final
authorization application are set forth in
40 CFR 271.3.
The regulations being proposed today
need not affect the State's UIC primacy
status. A State currently authorized to
administer the UIC program under the
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 LDRs 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 discussed in a July 15,1985
final rule (50 FR 28728).
XI. 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 proposed rule to determine if it
is a significant regulation as defined by
-------
I
11736 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
the Executive Order. The analysis
considers compliance cost and
economic impacts for both characteristic
wastes and newly listed wastes affected
by this rule. For characteristic wastes,
the potential cost impacts of this rule
depend on whether facilities' current
wastewater treatment systems will meet
the UTS levels or if additional treatment
will be required. If current treatments
are adequate, facilities will only incur
administrative costs to have their
permits revised. A rough estimate
would be that there would be one-time
incremental costs of $0.9 to $2.9 million
for all incrementally impacted facilities.
However, at the high end, if current
wastewater treatment systems need to
be augmented with additional treatment
steps, the incremental compliance costs
for today's rule could be as high as $1
million per affected facility. If 20% of
the firms comply by installing
additional treatment, treatment costs are
estimated to be $6.5-^518.1 million/year.
The Agency does not have adequate
data to estimate how many, if any,
facilities may require modification to
their treatment facilities. The Agency
requests comment and data on how
often additional treatment may be
required and what type of treatment
may be needed.
For newly listed wastes, the costs are
substantially higher and will be
incurred each year. These costs range
from approximately $11.9 million to
$47.3 million and are attributable
primarily to thermal treatment of spent
aluminum potliner wastes (K088).
Therefore, today's proposed rule may be
considered an economically significant
rule. Because today's proposed rule is
significant, the Agency analyzed the
costs, economic impacts, and benefits.
This section of the preamble for
today's proposed rule provides a
discussion of the methodology used for
estimating the costs, economic impacts
and the benefits attributable to today's
proposed rule, followed by a
presentation of the cost, economic
impact and benefit results. More
detailed discussions of the methodology
and results may be found in the
background document, "Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the Proposed Rule
for the LDR Phase III Newly Listed and
Identified Wastes," which has been
placed in the docket for today's
proposed rule.
1. Methodology Section
In today's proposed rule, the Agency
is establishing treatment standards for
the following wastes: end-of-pipe
standards for ICR wastewaters managed
in CWA and CWA-equivalent systems,
and Class I nonhazardous UIC wells, TC
pesticide (D012-17) and organic (D018-
43) wastewaters managed in CWA and
CWA-equivalent systems, and Class I
nonhazardous UIC wells (all UIC
managed volumes are covered under a
different section of the preamble for
today's rule), and newly listed wastes
from three industries - organobromines,
spent aluminum potliners, and
carbamates.
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 waste affected
by today's rule. The procedure for
estimating the volumes of ICR waste and
TC organic and pesticide waste, and
newly listed wastes affected by today's
rule is summarized below.
First, the Agency examined all
industries which might be likely to
produce wastes covered under today's
standards. Through reviewing
comments to the Supplemental Notice
of Data Availability published by the
Agency in 1993, reviewing runs from '
the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) of
volumes generated from particular
industry sectors, as well as discussions
with industry, and discussions with the
Office of Water at EPA HQ, the Agency
narrowed it down to 16 industries
which would potentially have
significant volumes of wastewater
affected by today's rule.
Using a host of databases and/or
sources, the Agency collected data on
the quantities, constituents, and
concentrations of the volumes affected
from each of the 16 industries. In
addition, the Agency gathered any data
on current management practices, plant
design, etc. The following sources were
used: Section 308 data from the Office
of Water, Industrial Studies Database
(ISDB), 1991 Biennial Reporting System
(BRS), primary summary and
development documents from effluent
guidelines, Toxicity Characteristic
Regulatory Impact Analysis documents,
data gathered in the capacity analysis
performed for today's rule, as well as
comments from potentially affected
industries.
The Agency obtained volume
information for the newly listed
wastes—organobromines (K140), spent
aluminum potliners (K088), and
carbamate wastes (K156-161)—from the
listing documents prepared for these
wastes during the listingprocedure.
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 cost methodology section
includes three subsections: (i) ICR and
TC Pesticide and Organic Wastes
Managed in CWA and CWA-Equivalent
Systems, (ii) Newly Listed Wastes, (iii)
Testing and Recordkeeping Costs. (The
costs for wastes managed in Class I
nonhazardous waste deep wells are
discussed in section B.)
(i) ICR and TC Pesticide and Organic
Wastes Managed in CWA and CWA-
Equivalent Systems. The Agency
employed the following approach to
estimate the incremental costs for the
ICR and TC wastes. First, using
information available on the affected
industries, the Agency created average-
sized model facilities for each industry.
Second, for a given model facility in an
affected industry, the Agency used
available unit cost data to develop costs
for the baseline management practices
(usually treatment in surface
impoundments followed by discharge
into receiving waters through a NPDES
permit). Third, the Agency used data on
the constituents and waste quantities for
each industry, where applicable, to
determine the necessary treatment
required to reduce to UTS levels the
constituents present. Fourth, the Agency
used unit costs to develop costs for the
post-regulatory management practices
for the treatment requirements
determined in the third step. Fifth,
subtracting the baseline from the post-
regulatory costs for an average facility in
an industry sector and using the data
available on the number of facilities
affected within each industry, the
Agency was able calculate the
incremental cost for a given industry.
Sixth, summing costs across affected
industries, the Agency determined the
incremental cost for the rule for the end-
of-pipe treatment standards.
(ii) Newly Listed Wastes. The costs for
treatment of organobromines (K140),
spent aluminum potliners (K088), and
carbamate wastes (K156-161) will be
determined using data from the listings
on baseline management practices,
judgment on the technology(s) required
to meet the UTS standards for these
wastes, and available unit cost data.
(iii) Testing and Recordkeeping Costs.
Testing and recordkeeping costs,
including costs that facilities will incur
for ensuring that hazardous constituents
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11737
in characteristic waste are meeting new
treatment standards and costs associated
with permit modifications will be based
upon an average, one-time testing cost
and an Information Collection Request,
respectively.
c. Economic Impact Methodology.
The economic effects of today's
proposed 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).
The Agency used (1) historic average
capital expenditures for each industry,
(2) historic average operating
expenditures for each industry, (3)
historic revenues, and (4) historic
average pollution abatement and control
expenditures (PACE) to determine the
economic impacts. However, the
Agency was unable to examine the
impacts on a facility-specific basis due
to lack of data. Therefore, the impacts
are assessed on an industry-specific
basis.
d. Benefits Methodology. The
approach for estimating benefits
associated with today's rule involves
three components: (i) estimation of
pollutant loadings reductions, (ii)
estimation of reductions in exceedances
of health-based levels, and, (in)
qualitative description of the potential
benefits. The benefits assessment is
based upon the waste quantity and
concentration data collected for the cost
analysis. This incremental assessment
focuses upon reductions in toxic
concentrations at the point of discharge
and does not consider any potential
benefits resulting from reductions in air
emissions or impacts on impoundment
leaks and sludges which may occur as
part of treating wastes to comply with
the LDRs.
EPA has not conducted an assessment
of the benefits related to the effects of
the proposed rule on newly listed
wastes. These benefits depend on the
incremental risk reductions that may
result from treatment of the wastes prior
to disposal at a subtitle C facility. EPA
data indicate that between 100,000 and
118.000 tons of spent aluminum
potliners are generated annually.
Improper management of these wastes
has caused many serious past damage
incidents. (See listing Background
Document for K088). However, data are
limited with regard to current
management practices and risk levels
for these wastes. Therefore, EPA is not
yet able to evaluate the benefits
resulting under the proposed rule for
these wastes. Because the quantity of
waste is very small, benefits for newly
listed organobromine and carbamate
wastes are expected to be minimal.
(i) Estimation of Pollutant Loadings
Reductions. An incremental approach
was used to estimate reductions in
pollutant loadings. For the baseline
scenario, contaminant concentrations
were based upon data or estimates of
current effluent discharge concentration
levels. For the post-regulatory scenario,
concentration levels were assumed to
equal UTS levels.
(ii) Estimation of Reductions in
Exceedances of Health-Based Levels.
The methods used for evaluating the
benefits associated with cancer and
noncancer risk reductions resulting
from the proposed rule entail comparing
constituent concentration levels to
health-based standards to evaluate
whether implementation of the
proposed rule reduces concentration
levels below levels that pose risk to
human health.
To estimate benefits from cancer risk
reductions resulting from the proposed
rule, a simple screening analysis was
performed. This analysis compared
contaminant concentrations for the
baseline and post-regulatory scenario to
health-based levels for carcinogens.
Further analysis may be undertaken to
quantify benefits associated with
facility/ wastestream combinations
identified in the contaminant
concentration comparisons.
Benefits associated with reductions in
non-cancer exceedances are estimated
based upon comparisons of contaminant
concentration levels in effluent
discharges of the affected wastestreams
to the reference health levels. These
benefits are expressed in terms of the
number of exceedances of health-based
levels under the baseline scenario
compared to the number of exceedances
under the proposed rule.
(iii) Qualitative Description of the
Potential Benefits. A qualitative
assessment of potential benefits likely to
result from the proposed rule is used
where data are limited. The Agency
acknowledges limited data availability
in developing waste volumes affected,
constituents, concentrations, cost
estimates, economic impacts, and
benefits estimates for the proposed LDR
Phase III rulemaking. The Agency
respectfully requests comment from
industry regarding constituents,
concentrations, waste volumes, and
current management practices.
2. Results
a. Volume Results. The Agency has
estimated the volumes of formerly
characteristic wastes potentially affected
by today's rule to total in the range of
33.5 to 500 million tons. The Agency
requests comment on waste volumes
affected by the proposed LDR Phase III
rule. For newly listed wastes, the
analyses supporting the listing
determination showed about 4,500 tons
of carbamate wastes, less than 100 tons
of organobromine wastes, and 100,000
to 118,000 tons of spent aluminum
potliners are potentially affected by this
rule.
b. Cost Results. For characteristic
wastes, the potential cost impacts of this
rule depend on whether facilities'
current wastewater treatment systems
will meet the UTS levels or if additional
treatment will be required. If current
treatments are adequate, facilities will
only incur administrative costs to have
their permits revised. A rough estimate
would be that there would be one-time
incremental costs of $0.9 to $2.9 million
for all incrementally impacted facilities.
However, at the high end, if current
wastewater treatment systems need to
be augmented with additional treatment
steps, the incremental compliance costs
could be as high as $1 million per
affected facility. The Agency does not
have adequate data to estimate how
many, if any, facilities may require
modification to their treatment facilities.
The Agency requests comment and data
on how often additional treatment may
be required.
For newly listed wastes, the costs are
substantially higher and will be
incurred each year. These costs range
from approximately $11.9 million to
$47.3 million and are attributable
primarily to thermal treatment of spent
aluminum potliner wastes (K088). The
Agency requests comment on these
estimates.
c. Economic Impact Results. The
Agency has estimated the economic
impacts of today's rule to represent less
than one percent of historic pollution
control and operating costs for the
organic chemical and petroleum
refining industries. However, for those
facilities that may need to treat to UTS
to comply with today's rule, costs could
be more significant. The estimated
compliance costs for treating newly
listed spent aluminum potliners
represents 40 percent of pollution
control operating costs for aluminum
reducers; however, treatment costs
represent only one percent of total
historic operating costs. The Agency
requests comment on anticipated
economic impacts resulting from the
proposed LDR Phase III rule.
d. Benefit Estimate Results. The
Agency has estimated the benefits
associated with today's rule to be small.
Assuming facilities comply with the
proposed rule by treating their affected
wastestreams, loadings reductions
-------
11738
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 ) Proposed Rules
estimates range between 36 and 407
tons per year for direct dischargers, and
between 1,490 and 24,391 tons per year
for indirect dischargers. For direct
dischargers, loadings reductions
represent between .03 to .30 percent of
total Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
chemical loadings to surface waters. For
indirect dischargers, loadings
reductions represent between .8 and
12.8 percent of all TRI loadings
transferred to POTWs. Based upon the
results of this screening, and more
detailed risk assessments, the estimated
baseline risks associated with only four
wastestreams exceed commonly
assumed threshold cancer and
noncancer risk levels. EPA estimated
that three wastestreams containing
aniline pose baseline cancer risks
ranging from 1 x 10'5 to 1 x 10'4 which
potentially would be reduced to
between 8 x 10'8 and 3 x 10'6 under the
Phase III rule. A fourth wastestream
containing acrylamide poses baseline
cancer risk at a level of 2 x 10-3. The
proposed rule is estimated to reduce
this risk to between 2x10"* and
4 x lO-3. All four of these wastestreams
are currently discharged to POTWs; if
POTW treatment removes these
constituents from the wastewater prior
to discharge to surface water and/or if
no drinking water intake is located
downstream from the POTWs outfall,
baseline risks will be lower than those
estimated above. The Agency requests
comment and any available information
related to these wastestreams.
B. Regulatory Impact Analysis for
Underground Injected Wastes
The Agency has completed a separate
regulatory impact analysis for
underground injected wastes affected by
the LDR Phase HI proposed rule. This
analysis describes and evaluates the
regulatory impacts only to the Class I
injection well universe. The new
proposed Phase III LDRs cover
decharaterized ICR and TC organic
wastes, and other newly-identified
hazardous wastes that are distinctly
industrial wastes injected by owners
and operators of only Class I hazardous
and non-hazardous injection wells.
According to the available data
outlined'in the RIA, indications are that
of the 223 Class I injection facilities in
the nation, up to 154 could be affected
by the new Phase ni LDRs. Of these
facilities, 101 inject nonhazardous waste
and 53 inject hazardous waste.
Combined, these facilities may inject up
to 14 billion gallons of waste annually
into Class I wells. These Class I
injection facilities will now be required
to either treat wastes, or file no
migration petitions as outlined in 40
CFR148 (See 53 FR 28118 (July 26,
1988)) preamble for a more thorough
discussion of the no migration petition
review process). Additional options for
compliance with the proposed Phase III
LDRs, including a de minimis
exemption and a pollution prevention
option are discussed in more detail in
the RIA.
Of these newly affected Class I
facilities, 38 already have no migration
exemptions approved by EPA, but may
face additional requirements requiring
some modifications of their petitions
due to the proposed LDR Phase III rule.
For the facilities which do not have
approved no migration exemptions,
today's proposed rule will add
compliance costs to those currently
incurred as a result of previous
rulemakings. The Agency analyzed costs
and benefits for today's rule by using
the same approach and methodology
developed in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the Underground Injection
Control Program: Proposed Hazardous
Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions
used for the final rule (53 FR 28118) and
subsequent rulemaking. An analysis was
performed to assess the economic effect
of associated compliance costs for the
additional volumes of injected wastes
attributable to this proposed rule.
In general, Class I injection facilities
affected by the LDR Phase III rule will
have several options. As previously
mentioned, some facilities will modify
existing no migration petitions already
approved by the Agency, other facilities
may submit entirely new petitions, and
still others may accept the prohibitions
and either continue to inject wastes after
treatment or cease injection operations
altogether, EPA assessed compliance
costs for Class I facilities submitting no-
migration petitions, employing
alternative treatment, and/or
implementing pollution prevention
measures. Although facilities using
pollution prevention/waste
minimization to comply with the Phase
III LDRs will likely lower overall
regulatory compliance costs, these
situations are site-specific and,
therefore, EPA cannot estimate these
cost savings.
For Class I facilities opting to use
alternative treatment, the Agency
derived costs for both treating wastes
on-site, and/or shipping wastes and
treating them off-site at a commercial
facility. However, the Agency believes
that transportation of large volumes of
liquid wastes off-site is not practical.
This makes the off-site treatment
scenario, at best, a highly conservative
analysis. EPA expects most facilities
that treat their wastes will do so on-site.
Preliminary EPA estimates show that
the total annual compliance cost for
petitions and alternative on-site
treatment to industry affected by the
new LDR Phase III prohibitions will
range between $9.2 million to $13.2
million. The noncommercial facilities
choosing to segregate their wastes may
incur additional costs totaling $2.98
million. The average annual compliance
costs per affected facility employing on-
site alternative treatment ranges from
$59,740 to $85,714. The overall annual
regulatory compliance cost to industry
for petitions and alternatively treating
wastes off-site will range between
$486.5 million to $805.3 million. The
range of costs for alternative treatment
is the result of applying a sensitivity
analysis. Only the incremental
treatment costs for the new waste
listings are calculated in this RIA. All of
these costs will be incurred by Class I
injection well owners and operators.
The estimated economic impacts of the
proposed rule were based on the
random assignment of injection
facilities to petition and treatment
outcomes using a decision tree analysis
method described in the RIA. The
Agency requests comment as to how
frequently facilities with Class I
nonhazardous injection wells will be
able to receive a no-migration variance.
The Agency also requests comment on
how frequently owners will choose to
treat their waste and whether that
treatment will occur on-site.
The benefits to human health and the
environment in the RIA are generally
defined as reduced human health risk
resulting from fewer instances of ground
water contamination. In general,
potential health risks from Class I
injection wells are extremely low. EPA
conducted a preliminary quantitative
assessment of the potential human
health risks associated with two worst-
case scenarios involving well
malfunction. EPA applied the approach
taken in an earlier study to measure
health risks of two LDR Phase III
contaminants: benzene and carbon
tetrachloride. The results of this
preliminary analysis show that all of the
cancer and noncancer risks calculated
are below regulatory concern, with the
exception of the cancer risk and hazard
index calculated for carbon
tetrachloride, assuming an abandoned
borehole is near the injection well,
drinking water pumping is occurring,
and the local geology is typical of the
East Gulf Coast Region. The
assumptions used in deriving these
results were based on conservative,
upper-bound estimates. The Agency
intends to expand this analysis in the
final rule to include other constituents
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
11739
and facilities. The Agency is interested
in comments on this methodology and
any data on actual injection volumes
and constituents.
The economic analysis of LDR Phase
III compliance costs suggests that
publicly traded companies affected by
the rule will probably not be
significantly economically impacted.
The limited data available for the
privately held companies suggests,
however, that they may face significant
impacts due to the proportionally larger
expenses they may face as a result of the
proposed rule.
C. 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 (May 4,1992), the
Agency committed to considering
regulatory alternatives in rulemakings
when there were any economic impacts
estimated on any small entities. See
RCRA sections 3004(d), (e), and (g)(5),
which apply uniformly to all hazardous
wastes. 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
proposed 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 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.
See also § 268.1(c)(l), which states that
LDR rules do not apply to small
quantity generators.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The new information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Four Information Collection
Request (ICR) documents has been
prepared by EPA, covering the three
programs impacted (i.e., the LDR
program, the UIC program, and the
CWA NPDES program: LDR ICR#
1442.08; UIC ICR# 1738.01; NPDES
Application ICR# 0226.11; and NPDES
Discharge Monitoring Report ICR#
0229.10). The overall reporting and
recordkeeping burden,is estimated to be
approximately 632,500 hours (sum from
the four ICRs). The average burden per
respondent is slightly more than 4,000
hours (sum from the four ICRs.). Only
incremental burdens are discussed in
the ICRs. These incremental burdens
will eventually be merged with: the UIC
program ICR, the LDR program ICR, the
NPDES permit program ICR, and the
Discharge Monitoring Report program
ICR.
The public reporting burden for these
collections is estimated to average: for
the LDR program, 75 hours per
respondent; for the UIC program, 3800
hours per respondent; for the NPDES
application program, 37.5 hours per
respondent; and for the NPDES
discharge monitoring report, 211.5
hours per respondent. This includes
time for reviewing instructions,
gathering and compiling data,
maintaining the data, and preparing and
submitting all data.
A copy of the ICRs for this rule may
be obtained from the Sandy Fanner,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Information Policy Branch, 401 M
Street, S.W. (Mail Code 2136),
Washington D.C. 20460 or by calling
(202) 260-2740. The public should send
comments regarding the burden
estimate, or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing burden to EPA;
and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington,
D.C. 20460, marked "Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA."
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 148
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous waste, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
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: February 16,1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 148—HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 148
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 3004, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901, et seq.
2. Section 148.1 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) to
read as follows:
§ 148.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
*****
(a) This part identifies wastes that are
restricted from disposal into Class I
wells and defines those circumstances
under which a waste, otherwise
prohibited from injection, may be
injected.
(b) The requirements of this part
apply to owners or operators of Class I
hazardous waste injection wells used to
inject hazardous waste; and, owners or
operators of Class I injection wells used
to inject wastes which once exhibited a
prohibited characteristic of hazardous
waste identified in subpart C of part 261
of this chapter, at the point of
generation, and no longer exhibit the
characteristic at the point of injection.
*****
(d) Wastes that are only
characteristically hazardous and
otherwise prohibited are not prohibited
if the wastes are disposed into a
nonhazardous injection well defined
under 40 CFR 144.6(a) and do not
-------
11740
I
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
exhibit any prohibited characteristic of
hazardous waste identified in subpart C
of part 261 of this chapter, and do not
contain any hazardous constituents
identified in 40 CFR 268.48 diluted
below the Universal Treatment Standard
levels prior to injection.
3. Section 148.3 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 148.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute
for treatment.
(a) The provisions of § 268.3 of this
chapter shall apply to owners or
operators of Class I wells used to inject
a waste which is hazardous at the point
of generation whether or not the waste
is hazardous at the point of injection.
(b) Owners or operators of Class I
nonhazardous waste injection wells
which inject waste formerly exhibiting a
hazardous characteristic which has been
removed by dilution, may address
underlying hazardous constituents by
treating the hazardous waste, obtaining
an exemption pursuant to a petition
filed under § 148.20, or complying with
the provisions set forth in § 268.9 of this
chapter.
4. Section 148.4 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 148.4 Procedures for case-by-case
extensions to an effective date.
The owner or operator of a Class I
hazardous or nonhazardous waste
injection well may submit an
application to the Administrator for an
extension of the effective date of any
applicable prohibition established
under subpart B of this part according
to the procedures of § 268.5 of this
chapter.
5. Section 148.18 is added to subpart
B to read as follows:
§148.18 Waste specific prohibitions—
Newly Identified Wastes.
(a) On [Insert date 90 days from date
of publication of final rule], the wastes
specified in 40 CFR part 261.32 as EPA
Hazardous waste numbers K088, K140,
K156-K161, P127, P128, P185, P188-
P192, P194, P196-P199, P201-P205,
U271, U277-U280, U364-U367, U372,
U373, U375-U379, U381-387, U389-
U396, U400-U404, and U407-U411 are
prohibited from underground injection.
(b) On [Insert date 2 years from
effective date of the final rule], the
wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261 as
EPA Hazardous waste numbers D018-
043, and Mixed TC/Radioactive wastes,
are prohibited from underground
injection.
(c) On [Insert date 2 years from
effective date of the final rule], the
wastes specified in 40 CFR part 261 as
EPA Hazardous waste numbers D001-
D003 are prohibited from underground
injection.
6. Section 148.20 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) introductory text
to read as follows:
§ 148.20 Petitions to allow injection of a
waste prohibited under Subpart B.
(a) Any person seeking an exemption
from a prohibition under subpart B of
this part for the injection of a restricted
hazardous waste, including a hazardous
waste exhibiting a characteristic and
containing underlying hazardous
constituents at the point of generation,
but no longer exhibiting a characteristic
when injected into a Class I injection
well or wells, shall submit a petition to
the Director demonstrating that, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, there will
be no.migration of hazardous
constituents from the injection zone for
as long as the waste remains hazardous.
This demonstration requires a showing
that:
PART 266—STANDARDS FOR THE
MANAGEMENT OF SPECIFIC
HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SPECIFIC
TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
7. The authority citation for part 266
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
and 6934.
8. In Subpart C, § 266.20, paragraph
(b) is amended by adding one sentence
to the end of the paragraph to read as
follows:
§266.20 Applicability.
*****
(b) * * * This provision does not
apply to hazardous waste used as a fill
material (i.e., a substitute for sand, dirt
or comparable material) to fill in holes,
occupy space, raise land levels, or be
used for other similar purposes.
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
9. 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
10. Section 268.1 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(4) and by
removing paragraph (e)(5) to read as
follows:
§ 268.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
*****
(e) * * *
(4) De minimis losses of characteristic
wastes to wastewaters are defined as:
(i) 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; rinsate from empty
containers or from containers that are
rendered empty by that rinsing; and
laboratory wastes not exceeding one per
cent of the flow of wastewater into the
facility's headworks on an annual basis;
or
(ii) Characteristic wastes which are
injected into Class I nonhazardous wells
whose combined volume is less than
one per cent of the total flow at the
wellhead on an annualized basis, and
which any underlying hazardous
constituents in the characteristic wastes
are present at the point of generation at
levels less than ten times the treatment
standards found at § 268.48.
11. Section 268.2 is amended by
revising the introductory text to
paragraph (f), by removing paragraphs
(f)(l), (f)(2), and (f)(3), and by adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 268.2 Definitions applicable in this part.
* i* * * *
(f) Wastewaters are wastes that
contain less than 1% by weight total
organic carbon (TOG) and less than 1%
by weight: total suspended solids (TSS).
* * * * *
(j) 'Inorganic metal-bearing waste is
one for which EPA has established
treatment standards for metal hazardous
constituents, and which does not
otherwise contain significant organic or
cyanide content as described in
§ 268.3(b)(l), and is specifically listed in
appendix XI of this part.
12. Section 268.3 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 268.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute
for treatment
(a) No generator, transporter, handler,
or owner or operator of a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility shall in any
way dilute a restricted waste or the
residual from treatment of a restricted
waste as a substitute for adequate
treatment to achieve compliance with
subpurt E- of this part, to circumvent the
effective date of a prohibition in subpart
C of this part, to otherwise avoid a
prohibition in subpart C of this part, or
to circumvent a land disposal
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
prohibition imposed by RCRA section
3004.'
(b) Combustion of hazardous waste is
prohibited, unless the waste, at the
point of generation, or after any bona
fide treatment such as cyanide
destruction prior to combustion, can be
demonstrated to comply with one or
more of the following criteria (unless
otherwise specifically prohibited from
combustion):
(1) The waste contains hazardous
organic constituents or cyanide at levels
exceeding the constituent-specific
treatment standard found in § 268.48;
(2) The waste consists of organic,
debris-like materials (e.g., wood, paper,
plastic, or cloth) contaminated with an
inorganic metal-bearing hazardous
waste;
(3) The waste, at point of generation,
has reasonable heating value such as
greater than or equal to 5000 BTU per
pound;
(4) The waste is co-generated with
wastes for which combustion is a
required method of treatment;
(5) The waste is subject to Federal
and/or State requirements necessitating
reduction of organics (including
biological agents); or
(6) The waste contains greater than
1% Total Organic Carbon (TOC).
13. Section 268.7 is amended by
adding paragraph (b)(5)(v) to read as
follows:
§268.7 Waste analysis and recordkeeping.
*****
(b)**«
(5) . * *
(v) For characteristic wastes D001,
D002, D003 and D012-D043 that
contain underlying hazardous
constituents as defined in § 268.2(i) that
are treated on-site to remove the
hazardous characteristic and to treat
underlying hazardous constituents to
levels fn § 268.48 Universal Treatment
Standards, 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
decharacterized waste contained underlying
hazardous constituents that have heen treated
on-site to meet § 268.48 Universal Treatment
Standards. 1 am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment.
§268.8 [Removed and Reserved]
14. Section 268.8 is removed and
reserved.
15. Section 268.9 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (b), (d)(l)(i),
(d)(l)(ii), (d)(2) introductory text; and by
adding paragraphs (d)(3), (e) and (f) 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. hi addition, the waste will cam' one
or more of the waste codes under 40
CFR part 261, subpart C, where the
waste exhibits a characteristic, except in
the case when the treatment standard
for the waste code listed in 40 CFR part
261, subpart D operates in lieu of the
standard for the waste code under 40
CFR part 261, subpart C, as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section. If the
generator determines that his waste
displays a hazardous characteristic (and
the wa'ste is not a D004—D011 waste, a
High TOC D001, or is not treated by
CMBST, or RORGS of § 268.42, Table 1),
the generator must determine what
underlying hazardous constituents (as
defined in § 268.2 of this Part), are
reasonably expected to be present above
the universal treatment standards found
in § 268.48 of this part.
(b) \Vhere a prohibited waste is both
listed under 40 CFR part 261, subpart D
and exhibits a characteristic under 40
CFR part 261, subpart C, the treatment
standard for the waste code listed in 40
CFR part 261, subpart D will operate in
lieu of the standard for the waste code
under 40 CFR part 261, subpart C,
provided that the treatment standard for
the listed waste includes a treatment
standard for the constituent that causes
the waste to exhibit the characteristic
and for any underlying hazardous
constituents reasonably expected to be
present in the waste. Otherwise, the
waste must meet the treatment
standards for all applicable listed and
characteristic waste codes.
*****
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) For characteristic wastes other than
those managed on-site in a wastewater
treatment system subject to the Clean
Water Act (CWA), zero-dischargers
engaged in CWA-equivalent treatment,
or Class I nonhazardous injection wells,
the name and address of the Subtitle D
facility receiving the waste shipment;
(ii) For all characteristic wastes, a
description of the waste as initially
generated, including the applicable EPA
Hazardous \Vaste Number(s), treatability
group(s), and underlying hazardous
constituents;
(2) The certification must be signed by
an authorized representative and must
state the language found in § 268.7(b)(5).
*****
(3) For characteristic wastes whose
ultimate disposal will be into a Class I
nonhazardous injection well, and
compliance with the treatment
standards found in § 268.48 for
underlying hazardous constituents is
achieved through pollution prevention,
the following information must also be
included:
(i) A description of the pollution
prevention mechanism;
(ii) The mass of each underlying
hazardous constituent before pollution
prevention;
(iii) The mass of each underlying
hazardous constituent that must be
removed, normalized for production;
and,
(iv) The mass reduction of each
underlying hazardous constituent that is
achieved.
(e) For decharacterized wastes
managed on-site in a wastewater
treatment system subject to the Clean
Water Act (CWA), zero-dischargers
engaged in CWA-equivalent treatment,
or Class I nonhazardous injection wells,
compliance with the treatment
standards found at § 268.48 must be
monitored quarterly. Monitoring results
must be kept in on-site files for 5 years.
(f) For characteristic wastes whose
ultimate disposal will be into a Class I
nonhazardous injection well which
qualifies for the de minimis exclusion
described in § 268.1, information
supporting that qualification must be
kept in on-site files.
§ 268.10—§ 268.12 [Removed and
Reserved]
16. Sections 268.10 through 268.12
are removed and reserved.
17. In subpart C, § 268.39 is added to
read as follows:
§ 268.39 Waste specific prohibitions-
spent aluminum potliners, carbamates and
organobromine wastes.
(a) On [Insert date 90 days from date
of publication of the final rule], the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261.32 as
EPA Hazardous Waste numbers K088,
K140, K156-K161; and in 40 CFR
261.33 as EPA Hazardous Waste
numbers P127, P128, P185, P188-P192,
P194, P196-P199, P201-P205, U271,
U277-U280, U364-U367, U372, U373,
U375-U379, U381-U387, U389-U396,
U400-U404, and U407-U411 are
prohibited from land disposal. In
addition, soil and debris contaminated
-------
31742 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 ) Proposed Rules
with these wastes are prohibited from
land disposal.
(b) On [Insert date two years from
date of publication of the final rule],
characteristic wastes that are managed
in systems whose discharge is regulated
under the Clean Water Act (CWA), or
that are zero dischargers that engage in
CWA-equivalent treatment before
ultimate land disposal, are prohibited
from land disposal. Radioactive wastes
mixed with K088, K140, K156-K161,
P127, P128, P185, P188-P192, P194,
P196-P199, P201-P205, U271, U277-
U280, U364-U367, U372, U373, U375-
U379, U381-U387, U389-U396, U400-
U404, and U407-U411 are also
prohibited from land disposal. In
addition, soil and debris contaminated
with these radioactive mixed wastes are
prohibited from land disposal.
(c) Between [Insert date 90 days from
date of publication of the final rule] and
[Insert date two years from date of
publication of the final rule], the wastes
included in paragraph (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).
(d) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), (b}, and (c) of this section do not
apply if:
fl) 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.
18. The table in § 268.40 is amended
as follows:
a. By revising the entries for D001
through F012, F037 through F039, K006,
K018, K019, K028, K030, K035, K048
through K052, K061, K083, K086, K101,
K102, POOS, P013, P056, U038, U042,
U093, U134, andU!68.
b. By adding in alpha-numerical order
entries for K088, K140, K156 through
K161, P127, P128, P185, P188 through
P192, P194, P196 through P199, P201
through P205, U271, U277 through
U280, U384 through U367, U372, U373,
U375 through U379, U381 through
U387, U389 through U396, U400
through U404, and U407 through U411.
§ 268.40 Applicability of treatment
standards.
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES
Regulated hazardous constituent
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
Waste code
D001
Waste description and treatment/reg-
ulatory Subcategory' Common name
Ignitable Characteristic Wastes, ex- NA
'cept for the §261.21(a)(1) High
TOC Subcategory.
High TOC Ignitable Characteristic Liq- NA
uids Subcategory based on 40
: Concentration in
CAS2 No. i mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
§268.48 stand-
ards; or
: RORGS; or
CMBST.
NA NA
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
DEACT and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards; or
RORGS; or
CMBST.
RflRf^Q- f\r
CMBST.
D002
D002, D004,
D005,
D006,
D007,
D008,
D009,
D010,
D011.
D003
equal to 10% total organic carbon.
(Note: This Subcategory consists of
nonwastewaters only.).
Corrosive Characteristic Wastes
Radioactive high level wastes gen-
erated during the reprocessing of
fuel rods. (Note: This Subcategory
consists of nonwastewaters only.).
NA
Corrosivity (pH) ...
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
NA
NA
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
DEACT and meet
; §268.48 stand-
ards.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reactive Sulfides Subcategory based
on§261.23(a)(5).
Explosives Subcategory based on
§261.23(a)(6), (7), and (8).
Lead
Mercury ..
Selenium
Silver
NA
NA
7439-92-1 NA
7439-97-6 NA
7782-49-2 NA
7440-22-4 NA
NA DEACT and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
NA DEACT and meet
§208.48 stand-
ards.
DEACT and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
HLVIT.
HLVIT.
HLVIT.
HLVIT.
HLVIT.
HLVIT.
HLVIT.
HLViT.
HLVIT.
DEACT and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
DEACT and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 41 / Thursday. March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
11743
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent
Waste code
D004
D005
Waste description and treatment/reg-
ulatory subcategory '
Other Reactives Subcategory based
on§261.23(a)(1).
Water Reactive Subcategory based
on §261.23(a)(2), (3), and (4).
(Note: This subcategory consists of
nonwastewaters only.).
Reactive Cyanides Subcategory
based on § 261. 23(a)(5).
Wastes that exhibit, or are expected
to exhibit, the characteristic of tox-
feity for arsenic based on the ex-
traction procedure (EP) in SW846
Method 1310.
. Wastes that exhibit, or are expected
Common name
NA
NIA
Cyanides (Amenable) 7
Arsenic; alternate6 standard
for nonwastewaters only.
Barium
CAS2 No.
NA
NA
57-12-5
57-12-5
7440-38-2
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
DEACT and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
NA
Reserved
086
5.0
NA
100
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
DEACT and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
DEACT and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
590.
30.
5.0 mg/l EP.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
,' 100 mg/l TCLP.
D006
D007
D008
to exhibit, the characteristic of tox-
teity for barium based on the ex-
traction procedure (EP) in SW846
Method 1310.
Wastes that exhibit, or are expected Cadmium
to exhibit, the characteristic of tox-
icity for cadmium based on the ex-
traction procedure (EP) in SW846
Method 1310.
Cadmium Containing Batteries Sub-
category. (Note: This subcategory
consists of nonwastewaters only.).
Wastes that exhibit, or are expected
to exhibit, the characteristic of tox-
teity for chromium based on the ex-
traction procedure (EP) in SW846
Method 1310.
Wastes that exhibit, or are expected
to exhibit, the characteristic of tox-
icity for lead based on the extrac-
tion procedure (EP) in SW846
Method 1310.
7440-43-9 NA 1.0 mg/l TCLP.
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
7440-43-9 NA
7440-47-3 5.0
RTHRM.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
Lead
7439-92-1 5.0 5.0 mg/l EP.
Lead Acid Batteries Subcategory
(Note: This standard only applies to
lead acid batteries that are identi-
fied as RCRA hazardous wastes
and that are not excluded else-
where from regulation under the
land disposal restrictions of 40 CFR
268 or exempted under other EPA
regulations (see 40 CFR 266.80).
This subcategory consists of
nonwastewaters only.).
Lead; altermate6 standard
for nonwastewaters only.
Lead
7439-92-1 NA
7439-92-1 NA
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
RLEAD.
-------
11744 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
Waste code
Waste description and treatment/reg-
ulatory subcategory ' Common name
; Concentration in
CAS2 No. mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
Concentration in
mg/kg s unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
D009
D010
D011
Radioactive Lead Solids Subcategory Lead
(Note: these lead solids include,
but are not limited to, all forms of
lead shielding and other elemental
forms of lead. These lead solids do
not include treatment residuals
such as hydroxide sludges, other
wastewater treatment residuals, or
incinerator ashes that can undergo
conventional pozzolanic stabiliza-
tion, nor do they include organo-
lead materials that can be inciner-
ated and stabilized as ash. This
subcategory consists of
nonwastewaters only.).
Nonwastewaters that exhibit, or are Mercury .
expected to exhibit, the characteris-
tic 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 also contain
organics and are not incinerator
residues. (High Mercury-Organic
Subcategory).
Nonwastewaters that exhibit, or are Mercury .
expected to exhibit, the characteris-
tic 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 are inorganic, in-
cluding incinerator residues and
residues from RMERC. (High Mer-
cury-Inorganic Subcategory).
Nonwastewaters that exhibit, or are Mercury .,
expected to exhibit, the
characterisitc 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 Sub-
category).
All D009 wastewaters „. Mercury .,
Elemental mercury contaminated with Mercury ..
radioactive materials. (Note: This
subcategory consists of
nonwastewaters only.).
Hydraulic oil contaminated with Mer- Mercury ..
cury Radioactive Materials Sub-
category. (Note: This subcategory
consists of nonwastewaters only.).
Wastes that exhibit, or are expected Selenium
to exhibit, the characteristic of tox-
icity for selenium based on the ex-
traction procedure (EP) in SW846
Method 1310.
Wastes that exhibit, or are expected Silver
to exhibit, the characteristic of tox-
icity for silver based on the extrac-
tion procedure (EP) in SW846
Method 1310.
7439-92-1 NA MACRO.
7439-97-6 NA
I MERC; or
RMERC.
7439-97-6 NA RMERC.
7439-97-6 NA 0.20 mg/l TCLP.
7439-97-6 0.20
7439-97-6 NA ..
NA.
AMLGM.
7439-97-6 NA IMERC.
7782-49-2 ! 1.0 5.7 mg/l TCLP.
7440-22-4 5.0 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March
2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11745
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES— Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Waste code
D016
D019
0020
D024
D025
D026
D027
D028
Concentration in
Waste description and treatment/reg- Concentration in mg/kgs unless
ulatory subcategory 1 Common name CAS 2 No. mg/l 3; or tech- noted as "mg/l
nology code 4 TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
Wastes that are TC for Endrin based Endrin
1311.
Wastes that are TC for Lindane alpha-BHC
Method 1311.
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Wastes that are TC for Methoxychlor Methoxychlor
based on the TCLP in SW846
Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Toxaphene Toxaphene
based on the TCLP in SW846
Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for 2,4-D (2,4- 2,4-D (2,4-Dichlorophenoxy-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid) based acetic acid).
on the TCLP in SW846 Method
1311.
Wastes that are TC for 2 4 5-TP 2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
(Silvex) based on the TCLP in
SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Benzene Benzene
based on the TCLP in SW846
Method 1311.
chloride based on the TCLP in
SW846 Method 1311.
. Wastes that are TC for Chlordane Chlordane (alpha and
based on the TCLP in SW846 gamma isomers).
Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene based on the TCLP
in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Chloroform Chloroform
based on the TCLP in SW846
Method 1311.
based on the TCLP in SW846
Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for m-Cresol m-Cresol (difficult to distin-
based on the TCLP in SW846 guish from p-cresol).
Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for p-Cresol p-Cresol (difficult to distin-
based on the TCLP in SW846 guish from m-cresol).
Method 1311.
.... Wastes that are TC for Cresols Cresol-mixed isomers (Cre-
(Total) based on the TCLP in sylic acid) (sum of o-, m-,
SW846 Method 1311. and p-cresol concentra-
tions).
.... Wastes that are TC for p- p-Dichlorobenzene(1,4-
Dichlorobenzene based on the Dichlorobenzene).
TCLP in SW846 Method 131 1 .
Dlchloroethane based on the TCLP
in SW846 Method 1311.
72-20-8 BIODG; or INCIN . 0.13 and meet
7421-93-4 BIODG; or INCIN . §268.48 stand-
ards.
0.13 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
319_84_6 CARBN; or INCIN 0.066 and meet
319-85-7 CARBN; or INCIN §268.48 stand-
ards.
0.066 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
319-86-8 CARBN; or INCIN 0.066 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
58-89-9 CARBN; or INCIN 0.066 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
72-43-5 WETOX or INCIN . 0.18 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
8001-35-2 BIODG or INCIN .. 2.6 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
94-75-7 CHOXD, BIODG, 10 and meet
or INCIN. §268.48 stand-
ards.
93-72-1 CHOXD or INCIN . 7.9 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
71-43-2 0.1 4 and meet 10 and meet
§ 268.48 stand- § 268.48 stand-
ards, ards.
56-23-5 0.057 and meet 6.0 and meet
§268.48 stand- §268.48 stand-
ards, ards.
57_74_9 0.0033 and meet 0.26 and meet
§268.48 stand- §268.48 stand-
ards, ards.
108-90-7 0.057 and meet 6.0 and meet
§ 268.48 stand- § 268.48 stand-
ards, ards.
67-66-3 0.046 and meet 6.0 and meet
§268.48 stand- §268.48 stand-
ards, ards.
95-48-7 0.1 1 and meet 5.6 and meet
§ 268.48 stand- § 268.48 stand-
ards, ards.
108-39-4 0.77 and meet 5.6 and meet
§ 268.48 stand- § 268.48 stand-
ards, ards.
106-44-5 0.77 and meet 5.6 and meet
§ 268.48 stand- § 268.48 stand-
ards, ards.
131 9-77-3 0.88 and meet 1 1 .2 and meet
§ 268.48 stand- § 268.48 stand-
ards, ards.
106-46-7 0.090 and meet 6.0 and meet
§ 268.48 stand- § 268.48 stand-
ards, ards.
107-06-2 0.21 and meet 6.0 and meet
§ 268.48 stand- § 268.48 stand-
ards, ards.
-------
11746
Federal Register / Vol. 60,
No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS
Waste code
D029
D030
D031
D032
D033
D034
D035
D036
D037
D038
D039
D040
D041
D042
D043
Waste description and treatment/reg-
ulatory subcategory 1
Wastes that are TC for 1,1-
Dichloroethylene based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for 2,4-Dinitro-
toluene based on the TCLP in
SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Heptachlor
based on the TCLP in SW846
Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for
Hexachlorobenzene based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for
Hexachlorobutadiene based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 131 1 .
Wastes that are TC for Hexachloro-
ethane based on the TCLP in
SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Methyl ethyl
ketone based on the TCLP in
SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Nitrobenzene
based on the TCLP in SW846
Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for
Pentachlorophenol based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Pyridine
based on the TCLP in SW846
Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for
Tetrachloroethylene based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for
Trichloroethylene based on the
TCLP in SW846 Method 131 1 .
Wastes that are TC for 2,4,5-
Trichlorophenol based on the TCLP
in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for 2,4,6-
Trichlorophenol based on the TCLP
in SW846 Method 1311.
Wastes that are TC for Vinyl chloride
based on the TCLP in SW846
Method 1311.
Regulated hazardous
Common name
1,1-Dichloroethylene
2 4-Dinitrotoluene
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methyl ethyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Pyridine
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
/ Proposed Rules
WASTES— Continued
constituent
CAS2 No.
75-35-4
121 14 2
76-44-8
1024-57-3
118-74-1
87-68-3
67-72-1
78-93-3
98-95-3
87-86-5
110-86-1
127-18-4
79-01-6
95-95-4
88-06-2
75-01-4
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
0.025 and meet
8 268.48 stand-
ards.
0.32 and meet
«j 268.48 stand-
cirds.
0.0012 and meet
$268.48 stand-
ards.
0.016 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.055 and meet
§268.48 stand-
• ards.>
0.055 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.055 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.23 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.068 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.089 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.0'I4 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.056 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.054 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.18 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.035 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.27 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
6.0 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
140 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.066 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
0.066 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
10 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
5.6 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
30 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
36 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
14 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
7.4 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
16 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
6.0 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
6.0 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
7.4 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
7.4 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
6.0 and meet
§268.48 stand-
ards.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March
2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
—•— •—
11747
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES— Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters
... . j Waste description and treatment/reg- Concentration in
Waste code ulatory subcategory ' Common name CAS 2 No. mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
F001, F002, F001, F002, F003, F004 and/or F005 Acetone
F003, F004 solvent wastes that contain any Benzene
& F005. combination of one or more of the n-Butyl alcohol
following spent solvents: acetone, Carbon disulfide
benzene, n-butyl alcohol, carbon di- Carbon tetrachloride
chlorinated fluorocarbons, o-Cresol
cNorobenzene, o-cresol, m-cresol, m-Cresol (difficult to distin-
p-cresol, cyclohexanone, o- guish from p-cresol)
dichlorobenzene, 2-ethoxyethanol,
ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl
ether, isobutyl alcohol, methanol,
methylene chloride, methyl ethyl
ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone,
nitrobenzene, 2-nitropropane, pyri-
dine, tetrachloroethylene, toluene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
trichloroethane, 1 ,1 ,2-trichloro-
1,2,2-trifluorethane,
trtehloroethylene,
trichloromonofluoromethane, and/or
xylenes [except as specifically
noted in other subcategories]. See
further details of these listings in
§261.31.
p-Cresol (difficult to distin-
guish from m-cresol).
Cresol-mixed isomers (Cre-
sylic acid) (sum of o-, m-,
and p-cresol concentra-
tions)
Pthul athor
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichlorc-1,2,2-
trifluoroethane.
Trichloromonofluoromethane
Xylenes-mixed isomers
(sum of o-, m-, and p-xy-
lene concentrations).
F003 and/or F005 solvent wastes that Carbon disulfide
contain any combination of one or Cyclohexanone
more of the following three solvents Methanol
as the only listed F001-5 solvents:
carbon disulfide, cyclohexanone,
and/or methanol. (formerly
§268.41{c)).
Nitropropane as the only listed
F001-5 solvent.
67-64-1 0.28 :
71-43-2 0.14
71 36-3 5.6
75-15-0 3.8
56-23-5 0057
108-90-7 0.057
95_48-7 0.11
108-39—4 077
106-44-5 0.77
1319-77 3 088
108-94 1 0.36
95-50-1 0.088
141 78-6 0.34
100-41-4 0.057
60-29-7 0.12
78-83-1 5.6
67 56-1 5.6
75-Q-2 0.089
78-93-3 0.28
108-10-1 014
98-95-3 0.068
110-86-1 0.014
127 18-4 0.056
108-88-3 0.080
71 55-6 0 054
79-00-5 0.054
7g_13_ 1 0057
79-01-6 0.054
75-69-4 0020
1330-20-7 032
75-15-0 3.8
108-94 1 0.36
67 56-1 5.6
79-46-9 (WETOX or
CHOXD) fb
CARBN; or
INCIN.
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kgs unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
160.
10.
2.6.
4.8 mg/l TCLP.
6.0.
6iO.
5.6.
5.6.
5.6.
11.2.
0.75 mg/l TCLP.
6.0.
33.
10.
160.
170.
0.75 mg/l TCLP.
30.
36.
33.
14.
16.
6.0.
10.
6.0.
6.0.
30.
6.0.
. 30.
. 30.
. 4.8 mg/l TCLP.
. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
,. 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
INCIN.
-------
11748
Federal Register / Vol. 60,
No. 41 / Thursday,
March 2, 1995
/ Proposed Rules
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES— Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent
Waste code
F006
F007
F008
F009
F010
F011
F012
Waste description and treatment/reg-
ulatory subcategory 1
F005 solvent waste containing 2-
Ethoxyethanol as the only listed
F001-5 solvent.
Wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating operations except
from the following processes: (1)
Sulfuric acid anodizing or alu-
minum; (2) tin plating on carbon
steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated
basis) on carbon steel; (4) alu-
minum or zinc-aluminum plating on
carbon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping
associated with tin, zinc and alu-
minum plating on carbon steel; and
(6) chemical etching and milling of
aluminum.
Spent cyanide plating bath solutions
from electroplating operations.
Plating bath residues from the bottom
of plating baths from electroplating
operations where cyanides are
used in the process.
Spent stripping and cleaning bath so-
lutions from electroplating oper-
ations where cyanides are used in
the process.
Quenching bath residues from oil
baths from metal heat treating op-
erations where cyanides are used
in the process.
Spent cyanide solutions from salt
bath pot cleaning from metal heat
treating operations.
Quenching wastewater treatment
sludges from metal heat treating
operations where cyanides are
used in the process.
Common name
2-Ethoxyethanol
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total) 7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ..
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total) 7
Cyanides (Amenable)7 ..
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total)7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ..
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total) 7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ..
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Cyanides (Total) 7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ..
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total)7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7 ..
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total) 7
Cyanides (Amenable)7 ..
Lead
Nickel
Silver
CAS2 No.
110-80-5
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
57-12-5
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
57-12-5
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
57-12-5
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
7440-22-4
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
57-12-5
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7440^-02-0
7440-22-4
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11749
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTES— Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters
Wfl<5ta coda Waste description and treatment/reg-
Waste code ulatory subcateg0ry i Common name
• * * *
process wastewaters and oily cool- bis(2-Etnylhexyl) phthalate
stormwater units that do not re- Toluene •
generated from non-contact once- (sum of o-, n>, p-xylene
through cooling waters segregated concentrations).
from treatment form other process Chromium (Total)
§261.31(b)(2) (including sludges
generated in one or more additional
units after wastewaters have been
treated in aggressive biological
treatment units) and K051 wastes
are not included in this listing.
F038 Petroleum refinery secondary Benzene
tion sludge and/or float generated bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
are not limited to all sludges and Phenanthrene
floats Generated in* induced air Phenol
erated in DAF units. Sludges gen- Xylenes-mixed isomers
erated in stormwater units that do (sum of o-, rn-( and p-xy
not receive dry weather flow, lene concentrations)..
sludges and floats generated in ag-
gressive biological treatment units
as defined in §261.31(b)(2) (includ-
ing sludges and floats generated in
one or more additional units after
wastewaters have been treated in
aggressive biological units) and
F037, K048, and K051 are not in-
cluded in this listing.
Concentration in
CAS2 No. mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
* *
83-32-9 0.059
120-12-7 0.059
71-43-2 0.14
56-55-3 0.059
50-32-8 0.061
117-81-7 028
218-01-9 0.059
84-74-2 0057
100-41-4 0.057
86-73-7 0.059
91 20-3 0.059
85-01-8 0.059
108-95-2 0.039
129-00-0 0.067
108-88-3 0.080
1330-20-7 032
7440-47-3
57-12-5
7439-92-1 2.77.
7440-02 0 1.2
0.69
3.98
71-43-2 0.14
50-32-8 0061
117-81-7 0.28
218-01-9 0.059
84-74-2 0.057
100-41-4 0.057
86-73-7 0.059
91-20-3 0.059
85-01-8 0.059
108-95-2 0.039
129-00-0 0.067
108-88-3 0.080
1330-20-7 0.32
7440-47-3 2 77
57-12-5 1 2
7439-92 1 0.069
7440-02-0 3.98
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
*
3.4.
3.4.
.10.
3.4.
3.4.
28.
3.4.
28.
10.
3.4.
5.6.
5.6.
6.2.
8.2.
10.
30.
0.86 mg/l TCLP.
590.
0.37 mg/l TCLP.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
10.
3.4.
28.
3.4.
28.
10.
3.4.
5.6.
5.6.
6.2.
8.2.
10.
30.
0.86 mg/l TCLP.
590.
0.37 mg/l TCLP.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
-------
11750
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
Waste code Waste description and treatment/reg-
ulatory subcategory 1
F039 Leachate (liquids that have per-
colated through land disposed
wastes) resulting from the disposal
of more than one restricted waste
classified as hazardous under sub-
part D of this part. (Leachate result-
ing from the disposal of one or
more of the following EPA Hazard-
ous Wastes and no other Hazard-
ous Wastes retains its EPA Haz-
ardous Waste Number(s): F020,
F021, F022, F026, F027, and/or
F028.).
Common name
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acetophenone
2-Acetylaminofluorene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
4-Aminobiphenyl
Aniline
CAS2 No.
208-96-8
83-32-9
67-64-1
75-05-8
96-86-2 •
53-96-3
1 07-02-8
107-13-1
309-00-2
92-67 1
62 53-3
Concentration in
mg/l3; ortech-
; nologycode4
0059
0059
028
56
0010
0.059
029
:024
0021
0 13
081
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
• TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
Q A
^A.
ifin
^R
Q 7
140
9 Q
flA
n nee
1**
Anthracene ;
Aramite
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC
Benzene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo (b) fluoranthene (dif-
ficult to distinguiah from
benzo (k) fluoranthene).
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bromodichloromethane
Methyl bromide
(Bromomethane).
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
n-Butyl alcohol
Butyl benzyl ohthalate
2-sec-Butyl-4, 6-
dinitrophenol (Dinoseb).
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane (alpha and
gamma isomers).
p-Chloroaniline
Chlorobenzene
Chlorobenzilate
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Chloroform
bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether .
p-Chloro-m-cresol
Chloromethane (Methyl
chloride).
2-Chloronaphthalene
2-Chlorophenol
3-Chloroprophylene
Chrysene
o-Cresol
m-Cresoi (difficult to distin-
guish from p-cresol).
p-Cresol (difficult to distin-
guish from m-cresol.
Cyclohexanone
1,2-Dibromo-3-
chloropropane.
Ethylene dibromide (1,2-
Dibromoethane).
Dibromomethane
120-12-7 0.059 3.4
140-57-8 0.36 2.5.
319-84-6 0.00014 0.066.
319-85-7 0.00014 0066
319-86-8 0.023 0.066.
58-89-9 0.0017 0.066
71^13-2 0.14 10.
56-55-3 0.059 3.4
207-08-9 0.11 68
191-24-2 0.0055 1.8.
50-32-8 0.061 3.4.
75-27-4 0.35 15
74-83-9 0.11 15.
I
101-55-3 0.05!> 15
71-36-3 5.6 26
85-68-7 0.017 28
88-85-7 0.066 2.5.
75-15-0 3.8. 4.8 mg/l TCLP.
56-23-5 0.057 6.0.
57-74-9 0.0033 0.26.
106-47-8 0.46 16
108-90-7 0.057 60
510-15-6 0.10 66
126-99-8 0.057 028
124-48-1 0.057 15.
75-00-3 0.27 60
111-91-1 0.036 7.2
111-44-4 6.033 6.0.
67-66-3 ID.046 6.0
39638-32-9 0.055 72
59-50-7 0.018 14
74-87-3 0.19 30.
91-58-7 0.055 5.6
95-57-8 0.044 5.7
107-05-1 0.036 30
218-01-9 0.059 3.4
95-48-7 0.11 56
108-39-4 0.77 5.6.
106-44-5 0.77 5.6
108-94-1 CI.36 0.75 mg/l TCLP.
96-12-8 (1.11 15.
106-93-4 CI.028 15.
74-95-3 0.11 15.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March
2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
11751
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES— Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters
IA; i /./vte Waste description and treatment/reg- Concentration in
waste coae ulatory subcategory ' Common name CAS2 No. mg/l 3; or tech-
noloav code4
2,4-D (2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid).
o,p#-DDD
p,p#-DDD
o,p#-DDE
p,p#-DDE
o,p#-DDT
p,p#-DDT
Dibenz(a.h) anthracene
Dibenz(a,e)pyrene
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene ..
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,6-DichIorophenol
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
cis-1 ,3-Dichloropropylene ....
trans-1 ,3-Dichloropropylene
Dieldrin ,
Diethyl phthalate
2,4-Dimethyl phenol
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1 ,4-Dinitrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Di-n-propylnitrosamine
1 ,4-Dioxane
Diphenylamine (difficult to
distinguish from
diphenylnitrosamine).
Diphenylnitrosamine (diffult
to distinguish from
diphenylamine).
1 ,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Disulfoton
Endosulfan 1
Endosulfan II
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl cyanide
(Propanenitrile).
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl ether
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate ...
Ethyl methacrylate
Ethylene oxide
Famphur
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
94-75-7 0.72
53-19-0 0.023
72 54-8 0.023
3424-82-6 0.031
72 55-9 0.031
789-02-6 0.0039
50-29-3 0.0039
53-70-3 0.055
192-65-4 0.061
541 73-1 0.036
95-50-1 0.088
106-46-7 0.090
75-71-8 0.23
75-34-3 0.059
107-06-2 0.21
75-35-4 0.025
156-60-5 0.054
120-83-2 0.044
87-65-0 0.044
78-87-5 0.85
10061-01-5 0.036
10061-02-6 0.036 ;
60-57 1 0.017
84-66-2 0.20 .,
1 n^_R7 Q n n^fi
131 11-3 0.047
64-74-2 0.057
100-25-4 0.32
534-52 1 0.28
51 28-5 0.12
121-14-2 0.32
606-20-2 0.55
117-84-0 0.017
621-64-7 0.40
123-91-1 8.67
122 39-4 0.92
86-30-6 0.92
122-66-7 0.087
298-04-4 0.017
939-98-8 0.023
33213-6-5 0.029
1-31-07-8 0.029
72 20-8 0.0028
7421 93-^t 0.025
141-78-6 0.34
107-12-0 0.24 ...
100-41-4 0.057
60-29 7 0.12
117-81 7 0.28
97-63-2 0.14
75-21-8 0.12
52-85-7 0.017
206-44-0 0.068
86-73-7 0.059 •...
76-44-8 0.0012
1024-57-3 0.016
118-74-1 0.055
87-68-3 0.055
77-47-4 0.057
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
10.
0.087.
0.087.
0.087.
0.087.
0.087.
0.087.
8.2.
22.
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.
14.
170.
13.
13.
1.5.
6.2.
0.066
0.13.
0.13.
0.13.
0.13
33.
360.
10.
160.
28.
. 160.
. 0.75.
. 15.
. 3.4.
. 3.4.
. 0.066.
. 0.066.
. 10.
. 5.6.
2.4.
-------
11752
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES— Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent
Waste codp Waste description and treatment/reg-
ulatory subcategory 1 „
M * Common name
HxCDDs (All
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins).
HxCDFs (All
Hexachlorodibenzofurans).
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropylene
Indeno (1 ,2,3-c,d) pyrene ....
lodomethane
Isobutyl alcohol
Isodrin
Isosafrole
Kepone
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol
Methapyrilene
Methoxychlor
3-Methylcholanthrene
4,4-Methylene bis(2-
chloroaniline).
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate
Methyl methansulfonate
Methyl parathion
Naphthalene
2-Naphthylamine
p-Nitroaniline
Nitrobenzene
5-Nitro-o-toluidine
p-Nitrophenol
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitroso-di-n-butylamine ...
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine .
N-Nitrosomorpholine
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine
Parathion
Total PCBs (sum of all PCB
isomers, or all Aroclors).
Pentachlorobenzene
PeCDDs(AII
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins).
PeCDFs (All
Pentachlorodibenzofuran-
s).
Pentachloronitrobenzene ....
Pentachlorophenol
Phenacetin
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Phorate
Phthalic anhydride
Pronamide „...
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)
2,4,6-T
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
TCDDs (AH
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins).
CAS2 No.
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
NA 0.000063
NA 0.000063
67-72-1
0.055
1888-71-7 0.035
193-39-J
0.0055
74-88-4 0.19
78-83-1
5.8
465-73-6 0.021
120-58-1
0.081
143-50-8 0.0011
126-98-7 0.24
67-56-1
91-80-5
72-43-E
56-49-E
101-14-1
75-09-2
78-93-2
108-10-1
80-62-6
66-27-3
298-00-C
Q1 9ft— i
91-59-8
100-01-6
98-95-3
99-55-8
100-02-7
55-1 8-5
62-75-9
924-16-3
10595-95-6
59-89-2
100-75-4
930-55-2
56-38-2
1336-36-3
608-93-5
NA
NA
82-68-8
87-86-5
62-14-2
85-01-8
108-95-2
298-02-2
85-44-9
23950-58-5
129-00-0
110-86-1
94-59-7
93-72-1
93-76-5
95-94-3
NA
5.6
0.081
0.25
0.0055
0.50
0.089
0.28
0.14
0.14
0.018
0.014
n IIRQ
0.52
0.028
0.068
0.32
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
0.089
0.081
0.059
0.039
0.021
0.055
0.093
O.CI67
0.014
0.081
0.7'2
0.7'2 ....
0.055
0.000063
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
0.001.
0.001.
30.
30.
3.4.
65.
170.
0.066.
2.6.
0.13.
84.
0.75 mg/l TCLP.
1.5.
0.18.
15.
30.
30.
36.
33.
160.
4.6.
4.6.
15.
28.
14.
28.
29.
28.
2.3.
17.
2.3.
2.3.
35.
35.
4.6.
10.
10.
0.001.
0.001.
4.8.
7.4.
16.
5.6.
6.2.
4.6.
28.
1.5.
8.2.
16.
22.
7.9.
7.9.
14.
0.001.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday. March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11753
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES— Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters
t«i *„ ,.~t0 Waste description and treatment/reg-
Waste coda ulatory SUbcategory 1
• * *
K006 Wastewater treatment sludge from
the production of chrome oxide
green pigments (anhydrous).
Wastewater treatment sludge from
the production of chrome oxide
green pigments (hydrated).
KOI 8 Heavy ends from the fractionation
column in ethyl chloride production..
K019 Heavy ends from the distillation of
ethylene dichloride in ethylene di-
chloride production.
Common name
TCDFs (All
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans).
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ...
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ...
Tetrachloroethylene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol ...
Toluene
Toxaphene
Bromoform
(Tribromomethane).
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichloromonofluoromethane
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-
trifluoroethane.
tris(2,3-Dibromopropyl)
phosphate.
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes-mixed isomers
(sum of o-, m-, and p-xy-
lene concentrations).
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total)7
Cyanides (Amenable) 7
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Sulfide
Thallium
Vanadium
*
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Chloroethane
Chloromethane
1 ,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
p-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Concentration in
CAS2 No. mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
NA 0.000063
630-20-6 0.057
79-34-6 0.057 :..
127 18-4 0.056
58-90-2 0.030
108-88-3 0.080
8001-35-2 0.0095
75-25-2 0.63
120-82-1 0.055
71-55-6 0.054
79-00-5 0.054
79-01-6 0.054
75-69-4 0.020
95-95-4 0.18
88-06-2 0.035
96-18-4 0.85 ,
76-13-1 0.057
126-72-7 0.11
75-01-4 0.27
1330-20-7 0.32
7440-36-0 1.9
7440-38-2 1.4
7440-39-3 1.2
7440-41-7 0.82
7440-43-9 0.69
7440-47-3 2.77
57-12-5 1.2
57-12-5 0.86
16964-48-6 35
7439-92-1 0.69
7439-97-6 0.15
7440-02-0 3.98
7782-49-2 0.82
7440-22-4 0.43
8496-25-8 14
7440-28-0 1.4
7440-62-2 4.3
* - *
7440-47-3 2.77
7439-92-1 0.69
7440-47-3 2.77
7439-92 1 0.69
* *
75-00-3 0.27
74-87 3 0.19
75-34-3 0.059
107-06-2 0.21
118-74-1 0.055
87-68-3 0.055
67-72-1 0.055
76-01-7 0.055
71 55-6 0.054
111-44-4 0.033
108-90-7 0.057
67-66-3 0.046
106-46-7 0.090
107-06-2 0.21
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
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.
. 2.1 mg/l TCLP.
. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
. 7.6 mg/l TCLP.
. 0.014 mg/l TCLP.
. 0.19 mg/l TCLP.
. 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
. 590.
,. 30.
.. 48.
.. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
.. 0.025 mg/l TCLP.
.. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
.. 0.1 6 mg/l TCLP.
.. 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
.. NA.
.. 0.078 mg/l TCLP.
.023.
*
0.86 mg/l TCLP.
.. 0.37mg/l TCLP.
0.86 mg/l TCLP.
... 0.37mg/l TCLP.
*
6.0.
30.
... 6.0.
... 6.0.
... • 10.
... 5.6.
... 30.
... 6.0.
... 6.0.
6.0.
6.0.
6.0.
... 6.0.
... 6.0.
-------
1
11754
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR 'HAZARDOUS WASTES— Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters
Waste rnHp Waste description and treatment/reg-
ulatory subcategory 1
* * *
K028 Spent catalyst from the
hydrochlorinator reactor in the pro-
duction of 1,1,1-trichloroethane.
* * «
K030 Column bodies or heavy ends from
the combined production of
trichloroethylene and
perchloroethylene.
K035 Wastewater treatment sludges gen-
erated in the production of creosote.
Common name
Fluorene
Hexachloroethane
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetrachlorothylene
1 ,2,4-Tetrachlorobenzene ...
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene ..
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Pentachloroethane
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ...
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ...
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
*
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropylene
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloroethane
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
*
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz (a) anthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
Chrysene
o-Cresol
m-Cresol (difficult to distin-
guish from p-cresol).
p-Cresol (difficult to distin-
guish from m-cresol).
Dibenz(a.h)- anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Concentration in
CAS2 No. mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
86-73-7 0.059
67-72-1 0.055
91-20-3 0.059
85-01-8 0.059
95-94-3 0.055
127-18-4 0.056
120-82-1 0.055
71-55-6 0.054
* *
75-34-3 0.059
156-60-5 0.054
87-68-3 0.055
K7 79 1 n HRR
76-01-7 0.055
630-20-6 0.057
79-34-6 0.057
•i 07 1 ft A n ricfa
71-55-6 0.054
79-00-5 0.054
7440-43-9 0.69 ......
7440-47-3 I2.77
7439-92-1 0.69
7440-02-0 3.98
* *
95-50-1 0.08(3
106-46-7 0.090
87-68-3 0.055
67-72-1 0.055
1888-71-7 0.035
608-93-5 0.055 ..
76-01-7 0.055
95-94-3 0.055
127-18-4 0.056
120-82-1 0.055
* *
83-32-9 0.059
120-12-7 0.059
56-55-3 0.059
50-32-8 0.061
218-01-9 0.059
95-48-7 0.11
108-39-4 0.77
106-44-5 ID.77
53-70-3 0.055
206-44-0 0.068
86-73-7 0.068
193-39-5 0.0055
91-20-3 0.059
85-01-8 0.059
108-95-2 0.039
129-00-0 0.067
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
34
30
56
56
14
60
19.
6.0
6.0.
30.
56
30.
6.0.
60
60
6.0.
6.0
60
0.19 mg/l TCLP.
0.86 mg/l TCLP.
0.37 mg/l TCLP.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
6 0
6.0.
5.6.
30
30
10
60
14
60
19.
3.4.
3.4.
3.4.
34
34
56
56
56
82
3.4
34
34
56
5.6
6.2.
8.2.
K048 ............ Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float
from the petroleum refining industry.
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene .................
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate
Chrysene ...........................
71-43-2 0.14 ...
10.
50-32-8 0.061 34
117-81-7 0.28 28.
218-01-9 0.059 34
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March
2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
11755
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES— Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters
IAM.I., <«~4» Waste description and treatment/reg-
Waste code U|atory subcategory '
K049 Slop oil emulsion solids from the pe-
troleum refining industry.
K050 Heat exchanger bundle cleaning
sludge from the petroleum refining
industry.
K051 API separator sludge from the petro-
leum refining industry.
. Concentration in
Common name CAS2 No. ma/I3; or tech-
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes-mixed isomers
(sum of o-, m-, and p-xy-
lene concentrations).
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total) 7
Lead
Nickel
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate ..
Carbon disulfide
Chrysene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes-mixed isomers
(sum of o-, m-, and p-xy-
lene concentrations).
Cyanides (Total)7
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenol
Cyanides (Total) 7
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate ..
Chrysene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Toluene
Xylenes-mixed isomers
(sum of 0-, m-, and p-xy-
lene concentrations).
Cyanides (Total)7
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Nickel
nology code4
84-74-2 0.057 ...
100-41-4 0.057
86-73-7 0.059
91 20-3 0.059
85-01-8 0.059
108-95-2 0.039
129-00-0 0.067
108-88-33 0.080
1330-20-7 0.32
7440-47-3 2.77
57 12 5 1.2
y^onoo -i f) CO
7440-02-0 3.98
120-12 7 0.059
71-43-2 0.14
50-32-8 0.061
117-81 7 0.28
75-15-0 3.8
2218-01-9 0.059
105-67 9 0.036
100-41-4 0.057
91 20-3 0.059
85-01-8 0.059
108-95-2 0.039
129-00-0 0.067
108-88-3 0.080
1330-20-7 0.32
57 12-5 1.2
7440-47 3 2.77
7439-92-1 0.69
7440-02-0 3.96
50-32-8 0.061
108-95-2 0.039
57 12-5 1.2
7440-47-3 2.77
7439-92 1 0.69
7440-02-0 3.98
83-32-9 0.059
120-12-7 0.059
56-55-3 0.059
71-43-2 0.14
50-32-8 0.061
117-81-7 0.28
2218-01 9 0.059
105-67-9 0.057
100-41-4 0.057
86-73-7 0.059
91 20-3 0.059
85-01-8 0.059
108-95-2 0.039
129-00-0 0.067
108-88-3 0.08
1330-20-7 0.32
57 12 5 1.2
7440-47-3 2.77
7439-92-1 0.69
7440-02-0 3.98
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
28.
10.
3.4.
5.6.
5.6.
6.2.
8.2.
10.
30.
0.86 mg/l TCLP.
590.
0 37 mg/l TCLP.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
3.4.
10.
3.4.
28.
4.8 mg/l TCLP.
3.4.
14.
10.
5.6.
5.6.
6.2.
8.2.
10.
30.
590.
0.86 mg/l TCLP.
0.37 mg/l TCLP.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
3.4
6.2.
590.
0.86 mg/l TCLP.
0.37 mg/l TCLP.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
3.4.
3.4.
3.4.
10.
3.4.
28.
3.4.
28.
10.
3.4.
5.6.
5.6.
6.2.
, 8.2.
. 10.
. 30.
590.
. . 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
-------
11756
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES— Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent
Waste code
K052
*
K061
•
K083
*
K086
Waste description and treatment/reg-
ulatory subcategory1
Tank bottoms (leaded) from the pe-
troleum refining industry.
* *
Emission control dust/sludge from the
primary production of steel in elec-
tric furnaces.
* *
Distillation bottoms from aniline pro-
duction.
* *
Solvent wastes and sludges, caustic
washes and sludges, or water
washes and sludges from cleaning
tubs and equipment used in the for-
mulation of ink from pigments, dri-
ers, soaps, and stabilizers contain-
ing chromium and lead.
Common name
Benzene
Benzo{a)pyrene
o-Cresol
m-Cresol (difficult to distin-
guish from p-cresol).
p-Cresol (difficult to distin-
guish from m-cresol).
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Toluene
Xylenes-mixed isomers
(sum of o-, m-, and p-xy-
lene concentrations).
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total)7
Lead
Nickel
*
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
*
Aniline
Benzene
Cyclohexanone
Diphenylamine (difficult to
distinguish from
diphenylnitrosamine).
Diphenylnitrosamine (dif-
ficult to distinguish from
diphenylamine).
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
Nickel
*
Acetone
Acetophenone
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate ..
n-Butyl alcohol
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Cyclohexanone
o-Dichlorobenzene
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Ethyl acetate
Ethylbenzene
CAS2 No.
71-43-2
50-32-8
95-48-7
108-39-4
106-44-5
105-67-9
100-41-4
91-20-3
85-01-8
108-95-2
108-88-3
1330-20-7
7440-47-3
57-12-5
7439-92-1
7440-02-0
^
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-28-0
7440-66-6
*
62-53-3
71-43-2
108-94-1 .
122-39-^t
86-30-6
98-95-3
108-95-2
7440-02-0
„
67-64-1
96-86-2
117-81-7
71-36-3
85-68-7
108-94-1
95-50-1
84-66-2
131-11-3
84-74-2
117-84-0
141-78-6
100-41-4
Wastewaters
Concentration in
m<3/l3; or tech-
nology code4
0.14
0.061
0.11
0.77
0.77
0.036
0.057
0.059
0.059
0.039
0.08
0.32
2.77
1.2
0.69
3.98
t
1.9
1.4
1.2
0.82
0.69
2.77
0.69
0.15
3.98
0.82
0.43
1.4
2.61
0.81
0.14
0.36
0.92
0.92
0.068
0.039
3.98
*
0.28
0.010
0.28
5.6
0.017
0.36
0.088
0.20
0.047
0.057
0.017
0.34
0.057 ..
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
10.
3.4.
5.6.
5.6.
5.6.
14.
10.
5.6.
5.6.
6.2.
10.
30.
0.86 mg/l TCLP.
590.
0.37 mg/l TCLP.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
2.1 mg/l TCLP.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
7.6 mg/l TCLP.
0.014 mg/l TCLP.
0.19 mg/l TCLP..
0.86 mg/l TCLP.
0.37 mg/l TCLP.
0.025 mg/l TCLP.
5.0 mg/i TCLP.
0.1 6 mg/l TCLP.
0.30 mg/l TCLP.
0.078 mg/l TCLP.
5.3 mg/l TCLP.
14.
10.
0.75 mg/l TCLP.
13.
13.
14.
6.2.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
160.
9.7.
28.
2.6.
28.
0.75 mg/l TCLP.
.6.0
28.
28.
28.
28.
33.
10.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11757
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES— Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters
\M t A/via Waste description and treatment/reg-
wasio 0009 ulatory subcategory 1
• • •
K088 Spent potliners from primary alu-
minum reduction.
• * *
K101 Distillation tar residues from the dis-
tillation of aniline-based compounds
in the production of veterinary phar-
maceuticals from arsenic or
organo-arsenic compounds.
K102 Residue from the use of activated
carbon for decolorization in the pro-
duction of veterinary pharma-
ceuticals from arsenic or organo-ar-
senic compounds.
Common name
Methanol
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sun
of o-, m-, and p-xylene
concentrations).
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total)7
Lead
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
lndeno(1 ,2,3,-c,d)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Cyanide (Total)
Cyanide (Amenable)
Fluoride
.
o-Nitroaniline
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
o-Nitrophenol
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Concentration in
CAS 2 No. mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
67-56-1 5.6
78-93-3 0.28
108-10-1 0.14
75-09-2 0.089
91-20-3 0.059
98-95-3 0.068
108-88-3 0.080
71-55-6 0.054
79-01-6 0.054
1330-20-7 0.32
7440-47-3 2.77
57-12-5 1.2
7439-92-1 0.69
83-32-9 0.059
120-12-7 0.059
56-55-3 0.059
50-32-8 0.061
205-99-2 0.11
207-08-9 0.11
191-24-2 0.0055
218-01-9 0.059
53-70-3 0.055
206-44-0 0.068
193-39-5 0.0055
85-01-8 0.059
129-00-0 0.067
7440-36-0 1.9
7440-38-2 1.4
7440-39-3 1.2
7440-41-7 0.82
7440-43-9 0.69
7440-47-3 2.77
7439-92-1 0.69
7439-97-6 0.15
7440-02-0 3.98
7782-49-2 0.82
7440-22-4 0.43
57-12-5 1.2
57-12-5 0.86
16964-48-8 35
* *
88-74-4 0.27
7440-38—2 1.4
7440-43-9 0.69
7439-92-1 0.69
7439-97-6 0.15
88-75-5 0.028
7440-38-2 1.4
7440-43-9 0.69
7439-92-1 0.69
7439-97-6 0.15
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kgs unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
0.75 mg/l TCLP.
36.
33.
30.
5.6.
14.
10.
6.0.
6.0.
30.
0.86 mg/l TCLP.
590.
0.37 mg/l TCLP.
3.4.
, 3.4.
. 3.4.
. 3.4.
. 6.8.
. 6.8.
. 1.8.
. 3.4.
. 8.2.
. 3.4.
. 3.4.
. 5.6.
. 8.2.
. 2.1.
. 5.0.
. 7.6.
. 0.014.
. 0.19.
. 0.86.
,. 0.37.
,. 0.025.
.. 5.0.
.. 0.16.
.. 0.30.
.. 590.
.. 30.
48.
•
.. 14.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
0.19 mg/l TCLP.
.. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
.. 0.025 mg/l TCLP.
.. 13.
.. 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
.. 0.1 9 mg/l TCLP.
.. 0.37 mg/l TCLP.
.. 0.025 mg/l TCLP.
K-140 Waste solids and filter cartridges from
the production of 2,4,6-
tribromophenol.
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Tolurene
118-79-6 0.035 7.4
108-88-3 0.080 10.
-------
11758
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 7 Proposed Rules
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTES— Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent Wastewaters
Waste code
K156
K157
K158
K159
K160
K161
*
POOS
Waste description and treatment/reg-
ulatory subcategory 1 _
Common name
,
Organic waste (including heavy ends, Acetonitrile
still bottoms, light ends, spent sol- Acetophenone .
vents, filtrates, and decantates) Aniline
from the production of carbamates Benomyl
and carbamoyl oximes.
Benzene
Carbaryl
Carbenzadim .
Carbofuran
Carbosulfan ;..
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
o-Dichlorobenzene
Methomyl
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Naphthalene
Phenol
Pyridine
Toluene
Triethylamine
Wastewaters (including scrubber wa- Carbon tetrachloride
ters, condenser waters, Chloroform
washwaters, and separation wa- Chloromethane ..
ters) from the production of Methomyl ..
carbamates and carbamoly oximes.
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
o-Phenylenediamine
Pyridine
Triethylamine
Bag house dusts and filter/separation Benomyl
solids from the production of Benzene
carbamates and carbamoly oximes. Carbenzadim
Carbofuran
Carbosulfan
Chloroform
Methylene chloride
Phenol
Organics from the treatment of Benzene
thiocarbamate wastes. Butylate
EPTC (Eptam)
Molinate
Pebulate
Vemolate
Solids (including filter wastes, separa- Butylate
tion solids, and spent catalysts) EPTC (Eptam)
from the production of Molinate
thiocarabamates and solids from Pebulate
the treatment of thiocarbamate
wastes.
Toluene
Vemolate
Purification solids (including filtration, Antimony
evaporation, and centrifugation sol- Arsenic ..
ids), baghouse dust and floor Carbon disulfide
sweepings from the production of Dithiocarbamates (total)
dithiocarbamate acids and their
salts.
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
* • .
Acrolein Acrolein
Concentration in
CAS 2 No. mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
• «
75-05-8 5.6
96-86-2 0.010
62-53-3 0.81
17804-35-2 0.036
71-43-2 0.14
63-25-2 0.006 ....
10605-21-7 0.056
1563-66-2 0.006
55285-14-8 0.028 ...
108-90-7 0.057
67-66-3 0.046
95-50-1 0.088
16752-77-5 0.028
75-09-2 0.089 . .
78-93-3 0.28
91-20-3 0.059
108-95-2 0.039
110-86-1 0.014
108-88-3 0.080
121-44-8 0.081
56-23-5 0.057
67-66-3 0.046
74-87-3 0.19
16752-77-5 0.028
75-09-2 0.089
78-93-3 0 28
95-54-5 0.05(5
110-86-1 0.014
121M4-8 0.081
17804-35-2 0.056
71-43-2 0.14
10605-21-7 0.056
1563-66-2 0.00(5
55285-14-8 0.028 ...
67-66-3 0 046
75-09-2 0.089
108-95-2 0.039
71-43-2 0.14
2008-41-5 0.003
759-94-4 0.003 .
991!>_fi7 1 n IW5'
1114 71 —f> n nm'
1929-77-7 0.003
2008-41-5 6.003
759-94-4 0.003
2212-67-1 0.003
t1 114-71-2 0.003
108-88-3 0.080 .
1929-77-7 0.003 ....
7440-36-0 1.9
7440-38-2 1.4
75-15-0 3.8
137-30-4 0.028
7439-92-1 0.69
7440-02-0 3.98
7782-49-2 0.82
* .
107-02-8 0.29
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
*
1.8.
9.7.
14.
1.4.
10
0 14
1 4
0 14
1 4
60
R n
60
0.14.
30
36
5.6
62
16
10
1.5.
6.0.
6.0.
30.
0.14.
30
oc
56
16
1.5.
1.4.
10.
1 4
0 14
1 4
fi n
30
6.2.
10.
1 5
1 4
1.4.
1.4.
1.4.
1.5.
1.4.
1.4.
1.4.
10
1.4.
2.1 mg/l TCLP.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
4.8 mg/l TCLP.
28.
0.37 mg/l TCLP.
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
0.1 6 mg/l TCLP.
*
O Q
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
11759
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
Regulated hazardous constituent
Waste code
*
Waste description and treatment/reg-
ulatory subcategory 1
* *
Common name
*
Barium
Cyanides (Total)7
nuanirifis (Amenable}7
CAS2 No.
7440-39-3
57-12-5
57-12-5
Wastewaters
Concentration in
mg/l3; or tech-
nology code4
1.2
1.2
0.86
Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
mg/kg5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
7.6 mg/l TCLP.
590.
30.
P056 Fluorine
Fluoride (measured in
wastewaters only).
16964-48-8 35 48.
P127 .
P128 .
P185 .
P188 .
P189 .
P190 .
P191 .
P192 .
P194 .
P196 .
P197
P198
P199
P201
P202
P203
P204
P205
Carbofuran
Mexacarbate
Tirpate
Physostigmine salicylate
Carbosulfan
Metotearb
Dlmetilan
Isolan
Oxamyl
Manganese dimethyldithiocarbamate
Formparanate
Formetanate hydrochloride
Methiocarb
Promecarb
m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate
Aldicarb sulfone
Physostigmine ..
Ziram
Carbofuran
Mexacarbate
Tirpate
Physostigmine salicylate
Carbosulfan
Metolcarb
Dimetilan
Isolan
Oxamyl
Dithiocarbamates (total)
•Formparanate
Formetanate hydrochloride
Methiocarb
Promecarb
m-Cumenyl
methylcarbamate.
Aldicarb sulfone
Physostigmine
Dithiocarbamates (total)
1563-66-2
315-18-4
26419-73-8
57-64-7
55285-14-8
1129-41-5
644-64-4
119-38-0
23135-22-0
137-30-4
17702-57-7
23422-53-9
2032-65-7
2631-37-0
64-00-6
0.006 0.14.
0.056 1-4.
0.056 0.28.
0.056 1.4.
0.028 1.4.
0.056 1-4.
0.056 1-4.
0.056 1.4.
0.056 0.28.
0.028 28.
0.056 1-4.
0.056 1-4.
0.056 1-4.
0.056 1-4.
0.056 1.4.
1646-88-4 0.056 0.28.
57-47-6 0.056 :. 1.4.
137-30-4 0.028 28.
U038
*
U042
U093
Chlorobenzilate Chlorobenzilate
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
p-
Dimethylaminoazobenze-
ne.
510-15-6 0.10 6.6.
* *
110-75-8 0.062 - 5.6.
60-11-7 0.13 29.
U134 ....
U168 .
*
U271 .
U277 .
U278 .
U279 .
U280 .
»
U364 .
U365 ,
U366
U367
U372
U373
U375
U376
U377
U378
U379
Hydrogen fluoride Fluoride (measured in
wastewaters only).
2-Naphthylamine » 2-Naphthylamine
Benomyl Benomyl
Sulfallate Dithiocarbamates (total)
Bendiocarb Bendiocarb
Carbaryl Carbaryl
Barban Barban
16964-48-8 35 48.
91-59-8 0.52 15.
* *
17804-35-2 0.056 1.4.
137-30-4 0.028 28.
22781-23-3 0.056 1.4.
63-25-2 0.006 0.14.
101-27-9 0.056 1.4.
Bendiocarb phenol
Molinate
Dazomet
Carbofuran phenol
Carbendazim
Propham
3-Iodo-2-propynyl n-butylcarbamate
Selenium,
(dimethyldithiocarbamate).
Selenium
Potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate ..
Potassium n-hydroxymethyl-n-
methyldithiocarbamate.
Sodium dibutyldithiocarbamate
Bendiocarb phenol
Molinate
Dithiocarbamates (total) .
Carbofuran phenol
Carbendazim
Propham
3-lodo-2-propynyl n-
butylcarbamate.
tetrakis Dithiocarbamates (total)
22961-82-6
2212-67-1
137-30-4
1563-38-8
10605-21-7
122-42-9
55406-53-6
0.056 1.4.
0.003 1-4.
0.028 28.
0.056 1-4.
0.056 1.4.
0.056 1-4.
0.056 1-4.
Selenium
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
137-30^* 0.028 28.
7782-49-2 0.82 0.16 mg/l TCLP.
137-30-4 0.028 28.
137-30-4 0.028 28.
137-30-4 0.028 28.
-------
11760
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Conitinued
Regulated hazardous constituent
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
Waste code
U381
U382
U383
U384
U385
U386
U387
U389
U390
U391
U392
U393
U394
U395
U396
U400
U401
U402
U403
U404
U407
U408
U409 ...
U410
11411
1 The waste
Waste description and treatment/reg-
ulatory subcategory 1
Sodium diethyldithiocarbamate ..
Sodium dimethyldithiocarbamate
Potassium dimethyl dithiocarbamate ..
Metam Sodium
Vemolate
Cycloate
Prosulfocarb
Triallate
Pebulate
Butylate
Copper dimethyldithiocarbamate
A2213
Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate
Ferbam
Bis(pentamethylene)thiuram
tetrasulfide.
Tetramethyl thiuram monosulfide
Tetrabutylthiuram disulfide
Disulfiram
Triethylamine
Ethyl Ziram
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Thiophanate-methyl
Propoxur
Common name
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Vemolate
Cycloate
Prosulfocarb
Triallate ;
EPTC
Pebulate
Butylate
Dithiocarbamates (total)
A2213
Diethylene glycol
dicarbamate
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Dithiocarbamates (total)
Triethylamine
Dithiocarbamates (total)
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Thiophanate-methyl
Thiodicarb
Propoxur
CAS 2 No.
137-30-4
137-30-4
137-30-4
137-30-4
1929-77-7
1134-23-2
52888-80-9
2303-17-5
759-94-1
1114-71-2
2008-41-5
10,7 on A
30558-43-1
KQCO Ofi_1
137-30-4
137-30-4
137-30-4
137-30-4
1°.7 °.n_ d
101-44-8
137-30-4
118-79-6
23564-05-8
114-26-1
Concentration in
mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code4
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.028
0.081
0.028
0.035
0.05(5
0.019
0.056
Concentration in
mg/kgs unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"; or tech-
nology code
28.
28.
28.
28.
1.4.
1.4.
1.4.
1.4.
1.4.
1.4.
1.4.
28.
1.4.
1.4.
28.
28.
28.
28.
28.
1.5.
28.
7.4.
1.4.
1 4
1.4.
Note: NA means not applicable.
19. Section 268.44 is amended by
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§268.44 Variance from a treatment
standard.
(a) Where the treatment standard is
expressed as a concentration in a waste
or waste extract and a waste cannot be
treated to the specified level, or where
the treatment technology is not
appropriate to the waste, the generator
or treatment facility may petition the
,0
,~, c.-i.._L_ o_,J,.,--J- ^.yX""!?^ V\menapiej tor nonwastewaters are to be analyzed usinq Method 9010 or 9012, found in "Test Methods
I by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, with a sam-
wastewaters by sending the waste to a
properly designed and operated BAT/
PSES system, which may not be
achieving the treatment standards found
in § 2(58.48.
*****
20. :in subpart D, § 268.48, the table in
paragraph (a) is revised to read as
follows:
(a) * * *
§ 268.48 Universal Treatment Standards.
Administrator for a variance from the
treatment standard. The petitioner must
demonstrate 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. The petitioner may also
demonstrate that it is treating
underlying hazardous constituents in
characteristically hazardous
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2. 1995 / ProposedRules
11761
§268.48 TABLE UTS—UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS
Regulated constituent/common name
CAS1 No.
Wastewater
standard
Concentration in
mg/l2
30558-43-1
«^la •"""• „. 208-96-8
Acenaphthylene 83-32-9
Acenaphthene • 67-64-1
Acetone •;•;•;-;•; 75-05-8
Acetonrtnle • 96-86-2
Acetophenone 53-96-3
2-Acetylaminonuorene •"" 107-02-8
Acroleln • TO_HR—1
* « «i ................ * *j \i*j^ *
Acrylamkte 107_., ^
Aciylonitrile 1646—88—4
AWicarb sulfone 309-00-2
AkJrin 92-67-1
4-AmInooiphenyl "" 62-53-3
Aniline 120-12-7
Anthracene 140-57-8
319-84-6
319-85-7
... _..,, 319-86-8
oerla-DnO ...
gamma-BHC ~ 101-27-9
Barban """".'". 22781-23-3
Benaocaro 22961-82-6
Bendtocarb phenol •"" 17804-35-2
Benomyl 71-43-2
Benzene ;;""" 56-55-3
Benz(a)thracene 98-87-3
BenL(b)ftorathene"(dIrliciJit'to distingush from benzo(k)iiuoranthene)
Benzo(k)lluorathene (difficult to distinguish from benzo(b)fluoranthene 191-24-2
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 50-32-8
Benzo(a)pyrene 75-27-4
Bromodichloromethane 74-83-9
Bromomethane/Methyl bromide 101-55-3
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether • 71-36-3
n-Butyl alcohol 2008-41-5
Butylate 85-68-7
Butyle benzyl phthalate 88-85-7
2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol/Dinoseb 63^25-2
Carbaryl 10605-21-7
Carbenzadim 1563-66-2
Carbofuran.... """••"•• 1553-38-8
Carbofuran phenol 75_1 g_0
Carbon disulfide 56-23-5
Carbon tetrachloride 55285-14-8
Carbosutfan : •• 57-74-9
Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers) 106-47-8
p-Chloroaniline 108-90-7
Chlorobenzene 510-15-6
Chlorobenzilate 126-99-8
2-Chloro-1,3-butadiene 124-48-1
ChkJrodibromomethane 75-00-3
Choroethane 111 QHH
bis(2-Chloroethoxy)methane 111-44-4
Ws(2-Chloroethyl)ether 67-66-3
Chloroform 39638-32-9
Ws(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether 59-50-7
p-Chtofo-m-cresol 110-75-8
2-Chtoroethyl vinyl ether 74-87-3
Chlofomethane/Methyl chloride 91-58-7
2-Chtoronaphthalene 95-57-8
2-Chlorophenol 107-05-1
3-Chtoropropylene 218-01-9
Chrysene 95-48-7
c-Cresol
m-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from p-cresol)
p-Cresol (difficult to distinguish from m-cresol) 64-00—6
m-Cumenyl methylcarbamate
0.003
0.059
0.059
0.28
5.6
0.010
6.059
0.29
19
0.24
0.056
0.021
0.13
0.81
0.059
0.36
0.00014
0.00014
0.023
0.0017
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.14
0.059
0.055
0.11
0.11
0.0055
0.061
0.35
0.11
0.055
5.6
0.003
0.017
0.066
0.006
0.056
0.006
0.056
3.8
0.057
0.028
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
0.056
Nonwastewater
standard
Concentration in
mg/kg3 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"
1.4
3.4
3.4
160
1.8
9.7
140
NA
23
84
0.28
0.066
NA
14
3.4
NA
0.066
0.066
0.066
0.066
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
10
3.4
6.0
6.8
6.8
1.8
3.4
15
15
15
2.6
1.4
28
2.5
0.14
1.4
0.14
1.4
4.8 mg/l TCLP
6.0
1.4
0.26
16
6.0
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
1.4 •
-------
11762 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
§ 268.48 TABLE UTS—UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS—Continued
Regulated constituent/common name
CAS1 No. i
Wastewater
standard
Concentration in
mg/l2
Nonwastewater
standard
Concentration in
mg/kg3 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"
Cycloate 1134-23-2
Cyclohexanone 108-94—1
o,p'-DDD ZZZ!ZZZZ"Z 53-19-0
P,P'-DDD 72-54-8
o,p'-DDE 3424-82-6
p,p'-DDE 72-55-9
o,p'-DDT 789-02-6
P.P'-DDT 50-29-3
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 53-70-3
Dibenz(a,e)pyrene ".'".'".'. 192-65-4
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane '..'..'.'.'.'.'. 96-12-8
1,2-Dibromoethane/Ethylene dibromide "."".'.'.'.".". 106-93-4
Dibromomethane 74_95_3
m-Dichlorobenzene !Z""ZZ"! 541-73-1
o-Dichlorobenzene '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'". 95-50-1
p-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7
Dichlorodifluoromethane 75_71_8
1,1-Dichloroethane "ZZ""!" 75-34-3
1,2-Dichloroethane "!!""!Z"!!i! 107-06-2
1,1-Dichloroethylene 75-35-4
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene ZZ""Z!!" 156-60-5
2,4-Dichlorophenol 120-83-2
2,6-Dichlorophenol !!!!""!!!Z!!! 87-65-0
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyaceticacid/2,4-D '".'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 94-75-7
1,2-Dichloropropane !"ZZ!!!! 78-87-5
cis-1,3-Dichloropropylene 10061-01-5
trans-1,3-Dichloropropylene 10061-02-6
Dieldrin !."""!""! 60-57-1
Diethylene glycol, dicarbamate 5952-26-1
Diethyl phthalate '.'.'„".". 84-66-2
p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene ""' 60-11-7
2-4-Dimethyl phenol .;... \ 105-67-9
Dimethyl phthalate 131-11-3
Dimetilan ZZ""!"!"!Z! 644-64-4
Di-n-butyl phthalate 84-74-2
1,4-Dinitrobenzene ,..™j 100-25-4
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol ZZ!""" 534-52-1
2,4-Dinitrophenol '.'.'.'.'".'.'. 51-28-5
2,4-Dinitrotoluene !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 121-14-2
2,6-Dinitrotoluene '.'.". 606-20-2
Di-n-octyl phthalate ZZ!!!!!!!!!!!! 117-84-0
Di-n-propylnitrosamine "'" 621-64-7
1,4-Dioxane ?. '""". 123-91-1
Diphenylamine (difficult to distinguish from diphenylnitrosamine) 122-39-4
Diphenylnitrosamine (difficult to distinguish from diphenylamine) 86-3r>8
1,2-Dephenylhydrazine 122-66-7
Disulfoton !!!!!!!!!!!!! 298-04-4
Dithiocarbamates (total) 137-30-4
Endosulfanl !.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 939-98-8
Endosulfan II 33213-6-5
Endosulfan sulfate !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1-31-07-13
Endrin 72—20—IB
Endrin aldehyde 7421-93^4
|PJp ZZZZZZZZ" 759-94^4
Ethyl acetate 141-78-13
Ethyl benzene !""ZZ"Z! 100-41—4
Ethyl cyanide/Propanenitrile ."!."!!!!"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"! 1Q7-12-0
Ethyl ether '"m\ 60-29-7
bis(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate """ZZ!!""Z""" 117-81-7
Ethyl methacrylate .'."!."."!!!!!!."!!!!! 97-63-i>
Ethylene oxide Z"Z" 75-21-li
Famphur 52—85—7
Fluoranthene 206-44-0
Fluorene !.."Z"""ZZ 86-73-7
Formetanate hydrochloride 23422-53-9
Formparanate 17702-57-7
Heptachlor 76-44-1J
0.003
0.36
0.023
0.023
0.031
0.031
0.0039
0.0039
0.055
0.061
0.11
0.028
0.11
0.036
0.088
0.090
0.23
0.059
0.21
0.025
0.054
0.044
0.044
0.72
0.85
0.036
0.036
0.017
0.056
0.20
0.13
0.036
0.047
0.056
0.057
0.32
0.28
0.12
0.32
0.55
0.017
0.40
0.22
0.92
0.92
0.087
0.017
0.028
0.023
0.029
0.029
0.0028
0.025
0.003
0.34
0.057
0.24
0.12
0.28
0.14
0.12
0.017
0.068
0.059
0.056
0.056
0.0012
1.4
0.75 mg/l TCLP
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
0.087
8.2
NA
15
15
15
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.2
6.0
6.0
6.0
30
14
14
10
18
18
18
0.13
1.4
28
NA
14
28
1.4
28
2.3
160
160
140
28
28
14
170
13
13
NA
6.2
28
0.066
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
1.4
33
10
360
160
28
160
NA
15
3.4
3.4
1.4
1.4
0.066
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules 11763
§ 268.48 TABLE UTS—UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS—Continued
Regulated constituent/common name
CAS1 No.
Wastewater
standard
Concentration in
mg/l2
Nonwastewater
standard
Concentration in
mg/kg3 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"
Heptachlor epoxkte
Haxachlorobenzene
Hexachtorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
HxCDDs (All Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins) NA
HxCDFs (All Hexachlorodibenzofurans) NA
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloropropylene
Indeno (1,2.3-c.d) pyrene •
lodomethaneec
3-lodo-2-propynyln-butylcarbamate 55406-53-6
Isobutyl alcohol
Isodrin 456-73-6
ST.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .-....•
Isosafrole •
Kepone
Methacrylonitrile
Methanol •
Methapyrilene •
MethicSarb
Methomyl ••- , •
Melhoxychlor •• •
3-Methyteholanthrene •
4.4-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) •
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Methyl methacrylate ,,
Methyl methansulfonate
Methyl parathion • -
Metolcarb •
Mexacarbate •
Molinate
Naphthalene - 9-
2-Naphthylamine •
o-Nitroanillne -
p-Nitroanillne
Nitrobenzene
5-Nitro-o-toluldine
c-Nitrophenol
p-Nitrophenol • •
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
N-Nitrosc-di-n-butylamine
N-Nitrosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomorpholine •
N-Nitrosopiperidine
N-Nitrosophyrrolidine
Oxamyl
Parathion
Total RGBs (sum of all PCS isomers, or all Aroclors) 1336-36-3
Peculate 1114-71-2
Pentachlorobenzene
PeCDOs (All Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins)
PeCDFs (Alt Pentachlorodibenyofurans)
Pentachloroethane
Pentachloronltrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol 87-86-5
Phenacetin °f-44-2
Phenanthrene - °-°~°
Phenol -
o-Phenylenediamine
Phorate •
Phthalteadd ,
Phthalte anhydribe ••-
Physostigmlne • "I7,"!
Physostigmine salteylate57-64-7
0.016
0.055
0.055
0.057
0.00063
0.00063
0.055
0.035
0.0055
0.19
0.056
5.6
0.021
0.056
0.081
0.0011
0.24
5.6
0.081
0.056
0.028
0.25
0.0055
0.50
0.089
0.28
0.14
0.14
0.018
0.014
0.056
0.056
0.003
0.059
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
0.056
0.014
0.10
0.003
0.055
0.000063
0.000035
0.055
0.055
0.089
0.081
0.059
0.039
0.056
0.021
0.055
0.055
0.056
0.056
0.066
10
5.6
2.4
0.001
0.001
30
30
3.4
65
1.4
170
0.066
1.4
2.6
0.13
84
0.75 mg/l TCLP
1.5
1.4
0.14
0.18
15
30
30
36
33
160
NA
4.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
5.6
NA
14
28
14
28
13
29
28
2.3
17
2.3
2.3
35
35
0.28
4.6
10
1.4
10
0.001
0.001
6.0
4.8
7.4
16
5.6
6.2
5.6
4.6
28
28
1.4
1.4
-------
11764 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
§ 268.48 TABLE UTS—UNIVERSAL TREATMENT STANDARDS—Continued
Regulated constituent/common name
Promecarb
Pronamide
Propham
Propoxur
Prosulfocarb
Pyrene
Pyridine
Safrole
Silvex/2,4,5-TP
1 ,2,4,-5-Tetrachlorobenzene
TCDDs (All Tetrachlorobidenzo-p-dioxins)
TCDFs (All Tetrachlorodibenzofurans)
1 ,1 ,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Thiodicarb
Thiophanate-methyl
Tirpate
Toluene
Toxaphene
Triallate
Tribromomethane/Bromoform
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichloromonofluoromethane
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Tricholorphenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid/2,4,5-T
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane
Triethylamine
tris-(2,3-Dibromopropyl) phosphate
Vemolate
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes-mixed isomers (sum of o-, m-, and p-xylene concentrations)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (Total)
Cyanides (Total)4
Cyanides (Amenable)4
Fluoride 5
Lead
Mercury-Nonwastewater from Retort
Mercury-All Others
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Sulfide
Thallium
Vanadium5
Zinc5
1 nAC moon*. /->K • 1 A b. » O • TT^Z Z " ~
CAS ' No.
OR31 1S7_n
P^QSO— Rft— "?
1 99— 49 Q
114 9fi— 1
COORR— fin— Q
100 fir*_n
11ft— RR—1
Q4_KQ_7
QT— 79 1
QK_CM 0
NA
MA
fi^ft_9ft-fi
7Q— 3d— ft
197 1A— 1
<*ft— Qft_9
CjQRRQ— 9R_ft
9**<;fi4_ftR_ft
9R41 Q_7^_R
H ftQ_QQ_q
flflftl — ^^i—O
OQn 1
74^Q_Q7_fi
7439-97-6
7/tilO fl° ft
77fl9— -4Q_O
744(1— 99— il
ftyjQft— OR^ft
744Pi_9ft_A
744H- fi9 9
7440-66-6
\Vastewater
standard
Concentration in
mg/l2
A riKft
ft noo
ft ftRft
ft ftft*^
ft 79
ft ftK*\
ft ftnnnfii
ft ftftftftA**
ft ftK7
ft ft^7
; n R^
01 A
ft 79
04 H
n ^9
ft ftA
KJA
0-4C
2.61
Nonwastewater
standard
Concentration in
mg/kg3 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP"
0.2
ft nm
U.^o
10
.4
b.U
D.U
oU
.5
D.U
on
2.1 mg/l TCLP
o.O mg/l TCLP
7.6 mg/l TCLP
0.014 mg/l TCLP
0.19 mg/l TCLP
u.oo mg/l TCLP
o9u
oU
NA
0.37 mg/l TCLP
u.u^o mg/l I OLP
5.0 mg/l TCLP
.16 mg/l TCLP
0.30 mg/l TCLP
NA
0.078 mg/l TCLP
0.23 mg/l TCLP
5.3 mg/l TCLP
a combination of a chemical •
^^TT^SKSKgr1 constituents are
n " ,s^ndcDds f?^w mtew??.rs ^ exP"lessed in m& ** &*&>> °n analysis of composite sainpleji.
(E £ T?LP) and.cyan'des. (Total and Amenable) the nonwastewater treatment standards expressed as a concentration
A=P!rthba4en **% Inc'neratlon In units operated in accordance with the technical requirements of 40 CFR part 264, subpart O
65 subar UP°" combustion in fuel substitution units operating in accordance with applicable technical reouire-
accordin9 to provisions -n 4™CFR 268-40(d)- A"
or 4n PF noo=hn
RP265' subPar °-.°r
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday, March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
11765
4Bo!h Cyanides (Total) and Cyanides (Amenable) for nonwastewaters are to be analyzed using Method 9010 or 9012, found in "Test Methods
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", EPA Publication SW-846, as incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11, with a sam-
ple size of 10 grams and a distillation time of one hour and 15 minutes. cocoon
8 These constituents are not "underlying hazardous constituents" in characteristic wastes, according to the definition at §268.2(i).
NOTE: NA means not applicable.
21. Appendix XI is added to part 268 to read as follows:
APPENDIX XI TO PART 268.—METAL BEARING WASTES PROHIBITED FROM DILUTION IN A COMBUSTION UNIT ACCORDING
TO 40 CFR 268.3(b)1
Waste code
Waste description
D004 Toxicity Characteristic for Arsenic.
D005 Toxicity Characteristic for Barium.
D006 Toxicity Characteristic for Cadmium.
D007 Toxicity Characteristic for Chromium.
D008 Toxicity Characteristic for Lead.
D009 Toxicity Characteristic for Mercury.
D010 Toxicity Characteristic for Selenium
D011 Toxicity Characteristic for Silver. .
F006 Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations except from the following processes: (1) sulfunc acid anodizing of
aluminum; (2) tin plating carbon steel; (3) zinc plating (segregated basis) on carbon steel; (4) aluminum or zinc-plating on car-
bon steel; (5) cleaning/stripping associated with tin, zinc and aluminum plating on carbon steel; and (6) chemical etching and
milling of aluminum.
FOQ7 Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating operations.
F008 Plating bath residues from the bottom of plating baths from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process.
FQ09 ' Spent stripping and cleaning bath solutions from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process.
P01Q Quenching bath residues from oil baths from metal treating operations where cyanides are used in the process.
F011 Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot cleaning from metal heat treating operations.
F012 Quenching waste water treatment sludges from metal heat treating operations where cyanides are used in the process.
FQ19 '.'. Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of aluminum except from zirconium phosphating in alu-
minum car washing when such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process.
K002 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of chrome yellow and orange pigments.
K003 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of molybdate orange pigments.
K004 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of zinc yellow pigments.
K005 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of chrome green pigments.
K006 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of chrome oxide green pigments (anhydrous and hydrated).
K007 Wastewater treatment sludge from the production of iron blue pigments.
K008 Oven residue from the production of chrome oxide green pigments.
K061 Emission control dust/sludge from the primary production of steel in electric furnaces.
K069 Emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting. .
KQ71 Brine purification muds from the mercury cell processes in chlorine production, where separately prepunfied brine is not used.
K100 Waste leaching solution from acid leaching of emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting.
K106 Sludges from the mercury cell processes for making chlorine.
P010 Arsenic acid H3AsO4.
P011 Arsenic oxide As2Oj.
P012 Arsenic trioxide.
P013 Barium cyanide.
P015 Beryllium.
P029 Copper cyanide Cu(CN).
P074 Nickel cyanide Ni(CN)2.
P087 Osmium tetroxide.
P099 Potassium silver cyanide.
P104 Silver cyanide.
P113 Thallic oxide.
P114 Thallium (I) selenite.
P115 Thallium (I) sulfate.
P119 Ammonium vanadate.
P120 Vanadium oxide V2O5.
P121 Zinc cyanide.
U032 Calcium chromate..
U145 Lead phosphate.
U151 Mercury.
U204 Seienious acid.
U205 Selenium disulfide.
U216 Thallium (I) chloride.
U217 Thallium (I) nitrate.
1A combustion unit is defined as any thermal technology subject to 40 CFR part 264, subpart O; part 265, subpart O; and/or part 266, subpart
-------
11766
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 41 / Thursday. March 2, 1995 / Proposed Rules
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602; 33 U.S.C. 1321 by adding the following entries to Table
ana 1361' 2 in chronological order by effective
23. Section 27i.l(j) is amended by date in the Federal Register:
«-v*» t-»vfvjiiv/ii ft/ ±tj.{jj j.a aniciiuuu Uy ^
22. The authority citation for part 271 adding the following entries to Table 1 § 271.1 Purpose and scope.
ontinues to read as follows: m chronological order by date of *****
continues to read as follows:
TABLE 1-—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
publication in the Federal Register, and (j)
Promulgation date
Title of regulation
FEDERAL REGISTER ref-
erence
Effective date
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective date
Self-implementing provision
RCRA citation
" *
[Insert date 90 days from Prohibition on land disposal of newly listed and identi- 3004(g)(4) (C) and
date of publication of final fled wastes.. TMUIHA
rule]. JUU4(m).
[Insert date 2 years from Prohibition on land disposal of radioactive waste •
date of publication of final mixed with the newly listed or identified wastes in-
rulel- eluding soil and debris. |
3004(g)(4) (C) and 3004
. (m).
FEDERAL REGISTER ref-
erence
[Insert date of publication
of final rule] FR [Insert
FR page numbers]. .
Ditto.
Ditto.
[FR Doc. 95-4746 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-60-P
-------
------- |