Tuesday
August 22, 1995
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 148 et al.
Land Disposal Restrictions—Phase IV:
Issues Associated With Clean Water Act
Treatment Equivalency, and Treatment
Standards for Wood Preserving Wastes
and Toxicity Characteristic Metal Wastes;
Proposed Rule
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 148, 268, and 271
[EPA530-Z-35-011; FRL-5280-6]
RIN 2050 AE05
Land Disposal Restrictions—Phase IV:
Issues Associated With Clean Water
Act Treatment Equivalency, and
Treatment Standards for Wood
Preserving Wastes and Toxicity
Characteristic Metal Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA, the Agency).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is addressing issues
arising from the September 25,1992
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in
Chemical Waste Management v. EPA,
976 F. 2d (D.C. Cir. 1992) on the
equivalency of treatment in wastewater
treatment systems regulated under the
Clean Water Act (CWA) to treatment
required by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). Specifically,
the Agency is considering whether to
regulate potential releases, to air or
ground water, of hazardous constituents
from surface impoundments treating
wastes that were hazardous when
generated, but have been diluted to
render them nonhazardous. Such wastes
are prohibited from land disposal unless
adequately pretreated.
In addition, EPA is proposing
treatment standards under the land
disposal restrictions (LDR) program for
wastes from wood preserving operations
and for Toxicity Characteristic (TC)
metal wastes. These treatment
standards, when finalized, must be met
in order to land dispose these hazardous
wastes.
These potential requirements and
treatment standards must be proposed
by August 11,1995 to satisfy the terms
of a proposed consent decree and a
settlement agreement.
Today's proposal also includes
simplified land disposal requirements,
streamlined state authorization
procedures, a proposal not to ban
"nonamenable" wastes from treatment
impoundments, and discussion of a
possible exclusion from regulations for
certain recycled wastes from wood
preserving operations.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule
must be submitted by November 20,
1995.
ADDRESSES: The public must send an
original and two copies of their
comments to Docket Number F-95-
PH4P-FFFFF, located in the EPA RCRA
Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, room 2616, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. (Also see the
section under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION: regarding the paperless
office effort for submitting public
comments.) The RCRA Docket is open
from 9:00 am to 4:00 pm Monday
through Friday, except for Federal
holidays. The public must make an
appointment to review docket materials
by calling (202) 260-9327. The public
may copy a maximum of 100 pages from
any regulatory document at no cost.
Additional copies cost $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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll-
free) or (703) 412-9810. For specific
information, contact the Waste
Treatment Branch (5302W), Office of
Solid Waste (OSW), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460; phone (703)
308-8434. For technical information
regarding standards for Clean Water Act
(CWA) systems, ask for Mary
Cunningham or Elaine Eby; for technical
information on the treatment standards
1111U1 llluliwij, *_/** •.**•" »- •**
for wood preserving wastes, ask for Jose
Labiosa; for TC metal wastes, ask for
Anita Cummings. For policy questions,
ask for Sue Slotnick. For questions on
the clean-up of the Part 268 regulations,
ask for Douglas Heimlich. For
information on the capacity analyses,
ask for Pan Lee of the Capacity Programs
Branch (OSW), phone (703) 308-8440.
For information on the regulatory
impact analyses, contact Linda Martin
of the Regulatory Analysis Branch
(OSW), phone (202) 260-0062.
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"
campaign. For further information on
the submission of diskettes, contact the
Waste Treatment Branch at the phone
number listed above.
Glossary of Acronyms and Terms
BOAT—Best Demonstrated Available
Technology
CAA—Clean Air Act
CWA—Clean Water Act
EP—Extraction Procedure
HSWA—Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (to RCRA)
ICR—ignitable, corrosive, and reactive
wastes, or, Information Collection
Request (in section Xl.D.)
ICRT—ignitable, corrosive, reactive, and
toxic characteristic wastes
ICT—ignitable, corrosive, and toxic
characteristic wastes
LDR—Land Disposal Restrictions
MCL—Maximum Contaminant Level
MSW—Municipal Solid Waste
MSWLF—Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
NESHAP—National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
OCPSF—Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and
Synthetic Fibers industry
ppmw—parts per million by weight
RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
TC—Toxicity Characteristic
TCLP—Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure
TJHC—underlying hazardous constituent
UTS Universal Treatment Standards
VOCs—volatile organic compounds
Table of Contents
I. Options to Ensure That Underlying
Hazardous Constituents in
Decharacterized Wastes are Substantially
Treated Rather Than Released Via Leaks,
Sludges, and Air Emissions from Surface
Impoundments
A. Summary
B. Background
C. Applicability of Potential Approaches to
"Industrial D" Management Units
D. Potentially Affected Industries
E. Results of Sampling and Risk
Assessment
1. Sampling data
2. Risks
F. Overview of Options
G. Option 1
H. Option 2
1. Introduction
2. Applicability
3. Proposed Management Standards lor Air
Emissions
4. Proposed Management Standards for
Leaks
5. Proposed Management Standards for
Sludges
6. Recordkeeping Requirements for Leaks
and Sludges
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 43655
7. Sampling and Analysis
I. Option 3
II. Proposal Not to Ban Nonamenable Wastes
from Land-Based Biological Treatment
Systems
A. Background
B. Rationale for Proposing Not to Ban
Nonamenable Wastes From Biological
Treatment Systems
III. Improvements to Land Disposal
Restrictions Program
A. Clean up of Part 268 Regulations
B. Simplification of Treatment Standard for
Waste Code F039
C. POLYM Method of Treatment for High-
TOC Ignitable D001 Wastes
IV. Exclusion for Recycled Wood Preserving
Process Wastewaters
V. Treatment Standards for Newly Listed and
Identified Wastes
A. Background
B. Treatment Standards for Soil
Contaminated with Newly Listed Wastes
C. Treatment Standards for Wood
Preserving Wastes
1. Identification of wastes
2. Proposed Treatment Standards
3. Review of Available Characterization
Data
4. Determination of Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT)
5. Proposed Regulation of Dioxin and
Furan Constituents in F032
D. Treatment Standards for Toxic
Characteristic Metal Wastes
1. Rationale for Applying Universal
Treatment Standards (UTS) to Toxic
Characteristic Metal Wastes (D004-D011)
2. Proposed Revision of UTS for Beryllium
3. Treatment Standard for Previously
Stabilized Mixed Radioactive and
Characteristic Metal Wastes
VI. Mineral Processing Waste Issues
VII. Environmental Justice
A. Applicability of Executive Order 12898
B. Potential Effects
VIII. Capacity Determinations
A. Introduction
B. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
1. Available Capacity
2. Surface Impoundment Sludges, Leaks,
and Air Emissions
3. Newly Identified Characteristic Metal
Wastes
4. Wood Preserving Wastes
5. Mixed Radioactive Wastes
6. Phase IV Wastes Injected into Class I
Wells
IX. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
B. Abbreviated Authorization Procedures
for Specified Portions of the Land
Disposal Restrictions Phase II, III, and IV
Rules
C. Effect on State Authorization
X. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant to
Executive Order 12866
1. Methodology Section
2. Results
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
XI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
I. Options to Ensure That Underlying
Hazardous Constituents in
Decharacterized Wastes are
Substantially Treated Rather Than
Released Via Leaks, Sludges, and Air
Emissions from Surface Impoundments
A. Summary
EPA's recently proposed Phase III
LDR rule (60 FR 11702, March 2,1995),
addressed wastewater discharges
involving characteristic wastes that are
deactivated through dilution and treated
in surface impoundments. The Phase III
rule proposed treatment standards that
can be met at or prior to the point of
discharge, (also referred to as "end-of-
pipe"). Today's proposed rule addresses
whether such treatment in surface
impoundments results in cross-media
releases, via leakage, air emissions, or
disposal of untreated sludges, that can
be so excessive that the impoundment
effectively functions as a disposal unit.
The Agency is essentially examining
standards for air emissions, leaks to
ground water, sludges, and wastewater
discharges (proposed in Phase III) at the
same time. This provides an
opportunity to comprehensively
examine all the risks, applicable
treatment technologies, benefits, costs,
and existing regulatory controls
associated with addressing
decharacterized wastes that are treated
in surface impoundments. EPA received
public comments to the Phase III rule,
but because of scheduling constraints,
was not able to fully review them before
issuing this notice. Decisions on
controlling releases will be made after
careful consideration of public
comments on both proposals. The
Agency may choose either to not
promulgate LDR requirements for these
releases, or to set management standards
when warranted by excessive cross-
media transfer of hazardous
constituents. A third option is to require
that decharacterized wastes be treated
(not merely diluted) to meet Universal
Treatment Standards (UTS) before entry
into surface impoundments. EPA is not
in favor of the third option, as it is likely
to disrupt treatment needed for
compliance with the Clean Water Act
(CWA) limitations and standards, and
impose high costs without targeting
risks adequately.
B. Background
In the 1984 Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), Congress prohibited land
disposal of hazardous waste unless the
waste meets treatment standards
established by EPA. The statute requires
that these treatment standards
substantially diminish the toxicity or
mobility of hazardous waste such that
short- and long-term threats to human
health and the environment are
minimized. RCRA section 3004(m). In
response, EPA has developed a series of
rulemakings under the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) Program setting forth
standards for treatment of hazardous
waste.
The Third Third rule (55 FR 22520,
June 1,1990) contained treatment
standards and prohibitions for
hazardous wastes that exhibited one or
more of the following characteristics:
Ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity (40
CFR 261.21-261.24). The Agency also
established a "deactivation" treatment
standard for ignitable, corrosive, and
reactive (ICR) wastes. Under this
standard, ICR wastes could be diluted
until they no longer exhibited the
hazardous characteristic (i.e., the waste
was "deactivated"). Once deactivated,
these wastes could be placed in land
disposal units without further
treatment, unless the Agency
specifically required that hazardous
constituents in the waste be treated. The
Agency further established that
prohibitions on dilution did not apply
to most characteristic wastes that are
decharacterized by dilution and then
managed in disposal units subject to
regulation under the CWA or the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
These portions of the rule were
partially vacated and remanded in
Chemical Waste Management v. EPA,
976 F. 2d 2, cert, denied 113 S.Ct. 1961
(1992). In CWMv. EPA, the court held
that wastes decharacterized by dilution
may be placed in a nonhazardous
surface impoundment or a
nonhazardous injection well only if the
toxic constituents in that waste are
treated to the same extent as they would
be under the treatment standards
mandated by RCRA section 3004(m)(l).
976 F. 2d at 23. In other words,
treatment standards must result in the
treatment of all toxic constituents (i.e.,
the underlying hazardous constituents,
or UHCs) to minimize threats to human
health and the environment. Treatment
that only removes the hazardous
characteristic does not necessarily
suffice.
The principal holdings of CWM v.
EPA with respect to characteristic
wastes were 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 threats posed by
-------
43656 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
hazardous wastes, as well as removal of
the characteristic property, id. at 16, 17,
23; as a result, dilution is permissible as
an exclusive method of treatment only
for those characteristic wastes that do
not contain UHCs "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, no longer exhibit a
characteristic(s), and are then managed
in centralized wastewater management
land disposal units (i.e., subtitle D
surface impoundments or injection
wells) are legal only if it can be
demonstrated that hazardous
constituents are reduced, destroyed, or
immobilized to the same extent as they
would be pursuant to otherwise-
applicable RCRA treatment standards,
id. at 7. EPA refers to this as the
"equivalency determination" and it is at
the heart of the discussion of potential
cross-media transfers in today's rule.
The court further held that the
deactivation treatment standard for
ignitable and corrosive wastes (which
allowed the hazardous characteristic to
be removed by any type of treatment,
including dilution) did not fully
comport with RCRA section 3004(m).
This was because the deactivation
treatment standard could be achieved by
dilution, and section 3004(m) "requires
that any hazardous waste be treated in
such a way that hazardous constituents
be removed from the waste before it
enters the environment." 976 F. 2d at
24. The court thus remanded the rules
dealing with centralized wastewater
management involving land disposal.
EPA addressed one portion of the
equivalence issue when it proposed the
Phase III LDR rule (60 FR 11702, March
2,1995). That rule proposes, among
other things, treatment standards for the
end-of-pipe discharges from surface
impoundments to surface waters or
POTWs. For further information on the
court decision and the Agency's
responses, see the January 19,1993,
Notice of Data Availability (58 FR 4972)
and Supplementary Information Report;
the LDR emergency Interim Final rule
(58 FR 29860, May 24, 1993); the LDR
Phase II rule (59 FR 47982, September
19,1994); and the LDR Phase III
proposed rule (60 FR 11702, March 2,
1995).
The Agency entered into a settlement
agreement setting out a schedule for
fulfilling the court's mandate. The
settlement agreement reads:
EPA agrees to sign a proposed rulemaking
on the issue of equivalency of treatment in
a CWA system that uses surface
impoundments . . . EPA agrees to describe
in detail in that notice of proposed
rulemaking (but not necessarily recommend
or endorse) the following option: regulations
limiting release from surface impoundments
used in CWA treatment systems of hazardous
constituents from ICT wastes managed in
such impoundments, where the release is
due to volatilization or leakage, and
treatment standards under section 3004(m)
for hazardous constituents from ICT wastes
in impoundment sludges. After considering
any public comments received, EPA agrees to
sign a notice of final rulemaking taking final
action on the issue and option * * *
Therefore, the Agency is required to
address these issues at this time
although there may have been higher
environmental priorities if EPA had sole
discretion to order its agenda.
The central legal and policy issue
addressed in this proposal is if and
when releases of hazardous constituents
from surface impoundments which are
part of a treatment train for
decharacterized wastes are so extensive
as to effectively invalidate the treatment
process as a means of LDR compliance.
Put another way, the D.C. Circuit
intended to allow continued use of
treatment surface impoundments to
treat decharacterized wastes, provided
the extent of treatment is equivalent to
usual RCRA treatment. If there are
releases of hazardous constituents to the
environment before treatment
concludes, in the form of air releases,
leaks to ground water, or deposition in
sludges, has permanent disposal
occurred so as to invalidate the
treatment process?
EPA's view is that, at the least,
something more than the bare release of
a hazardous constituent is needed to
trigger this invalidation. The court did
not explicitly state that its equivalence
test, or any other part of the opinion,
necessitated control of all hazardous
constituent releases from surface
impoundments. For example, one of the
court's formulations of its holding is
that "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. The focus
here is on the wastewaters being treated,
and the amount of hazardous
constituents removed from those
wastewaters, not other types of wastes
(like sludges) or other types of releases.
See also id. at 7, 20 (focus on treatment
of waste "streams", i.e. liquids in an
impoundment); 23 n. 8 (reduction of
mass loadings of hazardous constituents
of wastestream entering and exiting an
impoundment); 24 (court indicates that
decharacterized wastes are not held
permanently in impoundments, which
is true of wastewaters but not for all
wastewater treatment sludges).
The court likewise did not see that
hazardous constituents in deposited
sludges must be treated. The court in
fact did not speak to the principle stated
by EPA in the Third Third rule that
generation of a new treatability group is
considered to be a new point of
generation and thus a new point for
determining whether a waste is
prohibited. 55 FR at 22661-662. Under
this principle, unchallenged in the
litigation, wastewater treatment sludges
not exhibiting a characteristic are not
prohibited wastes, notwithstanding that
they may derive from prohibited
wastewaters.
Perhaps more fundamentally, the
court clearly did not intend to require
that treatment standards be met
invariably by treatment preceding
impoundment-based management
systems: "RCRA requires some
accommodation with [the] Clean Water
Act". 976 F. 2d at 20; see also id. at 23,
indicating that to some degree RCRA
need not mandate wholesale disruption
of existing wastewater treatment
impoundments, providing the CWA
treatment system really achieves
treatment equivalent to RCRA's: "In
other words, what leaves a CWA
treatment facility can be no more toxic
than if the wastestreams were
individually treated pursuant to the
RCRA treatment standards." A
draconian reading that any releases of
hazardous constituents from a treatment
impoundment effectively invalidate that
impoundment's treatment operations
could thwart the court's holding that
such treatment is to be allowed
provided equivalent treatment occurs.
There are suggestions in the opinion,
however, that at some point the LDR
standard is not satisfied if the
magnitude of hazardous constituent
releases is sufficiently great. The whole
thrust of the opinion is to assure that
RCRA treatment requirements are not
thwarted by cross-media transfers of
untreated hazardous constituents,
whether by dilution or by escape from
treatment units. Id. at 22, 24, 29-30; see
also id. at 17,18 vacating treatment
standards for ignitable and reactive
wastes because the Agency had done
nothing to address the risk of excessive
volatilization or reactivity during the
treatment process. The court also
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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 43657
extent hazardous constituents leak or
volatilize from impoundments, or from
inadequately treated sludges, it can be
argued that permanent disposal of
untreated hazardous constituents is
occurring, although, since no treatment
unit is absolutely release-free (there are
certainly releases of hazardous
constituents from combustion units, for
example), the more fruitful inquiry is
the extent of the release.
Putting this together, EPA initially
believes the best reading of this part of
the opinion to be to distinguish between
impoundments performing essentially
as treatment units from those that are
also operating as permanent disposal
units due to the extent of cross-media
transfers of untreated hazardous
constituents. The portion of the opinion
vacating standards for ignitable and
reactive wastes supports such a reading,
since the court required the Agency to
find "that the risk of * * * emissions
* * * is minimal, or * * * require
actions to minimize that risk." 976 F. 2d
at 17, thus focusing on the extent of
release from the treatment unit, not just
the fact that a release occurred. Under
this reading, the Agency could evaluate
whether the risk from the various types
of releases is great enough to warrant
control. A finding that there is
insufficient risk would mean that the
impoundment is not engaging in a type
of cross-media transfer of untreated
hazardous constituents that invalidates
its treatment function, and therefore that
decharacterized wastes can be treated in
the impoundment to effect the necessary
accommodation between RCRA and the
CWA.
A second pervasive distinction in the
opinion is between treatment units
(including treatment surface
impoundments) and permanent disposal
units, accommodation to allow
centralized wastewater management
being allowed for the former but not the
latter. See, e.g., 976 F. 2d at 24, 25.
There are some potential
differentiations among types of surface
impoundments along these lines. A
common division of wastewater
treatment is into primary, secondary,
and tertiary treatment. Primary
treatment involves removal of
conventional pollutants (e.g., oil and
grease, total suspended solids) or
equalization. Secondary treatment
involves aggressive treatment steps to
remove or destroy hazardous
constituents, examples being biological
treatment for organics, or chemical
precipitation for metals. Tertiary
treatment involves polishing effluent
before final discharge. Impoundments
engaged in primary treatment most
clearly resemble hazardous constituent
disposal units because such units treat
hazardous constituents only
incidentally. Secondary and tertiary
impoundments, on the other hand, do
engage in significant treatment of
hazardous constituents. Thus, possible
Phase IV controls would logically be
directed at primary impoundments, the
type of wastewater management
impoundment most resembling
permanent disposal due to the lesser
degree of treatment occurring in the
unit.
It is also possible to argue that any
leak to ground water or deposition of
hazardous constituents in sludge at
levels exceeding the UTS (or some
comparable release of hazardous
constituents to air) renders treatment
across a wastewater treatment system
not equivalent. EPA does not view this
reading as compelled. There is no such
explicit language in the opinion. As
already stated, such a reading also
would likely destroy the very
accommodation between RCRA and the
CWA the court deemed necessary. Nor
would such a reading make policy sense
if releases from treatment surface
impoundments remain insignificant,
and the treatment system is in fact
achieving the same mass reductions of
hazardous constituents, through
destruction and removal rather than
through release, as conventional RCRA
treatment (see 976 F. 2d at 23 n. 8).
EPA's present, preferred reading of
the opinion is consequently to establish
the parameters which distinguish
permanent land disposal impoundments
from those performing the type of
treatment to be accommodated under
the court's opinion. These parameters
can be defined by limiting the extent of
hazardous constituent releases to air,
ground water and through sludges to
levels that do not pose significant risk.
In addition, primary treatment
impoundments are the most natural
target for these controls.
C. Applicability of Potential Approaches
to "Industrial D" Management Units
Today's options to address surface
impoundment releases specifically
apply to Subtitle D (nonhazardous)
surface impoundments that receive
decharacterized wastes. Subtitle D
surface impoundments that do not
manage decharacterized wastes are not
affected. The options in today's
proposal do not necessarily set a
precedent for any future regulations
concerning non-hazardous industrial
wastes. The Agency, in partnership with
the States, is investigating the
possibility of developing voluntary
standards for the safe management of
non-hazardous industrial wastes.
D. Potentially Affected Industries
Based on an analysis of available
information, the Agency estimates that
300 facilities are managing, in CWA
treatment systems, decharacterized
wastes containing hazardous
constituents above UTS. (Hereafter, the
use of the term "CWA treatment
systems" includes CWA-equivalent
systems as defined by 40 CFR 268.37,
and other nonhazardous waste surface
impoundments.) Wastewater treatment
in surface impoundments involves three
basic functions:
• Equalization/settling (known as
primary or prebiological treatment);
• Biological treatment (known as
secondary treatment); and
• Postbiological settling/polishing
(known as tertiary or postbiological
treatment).
Equalization/settling ponds settle
solids out of the wastewaters and
equalize concentrations to subsequent
treatment units. Being the first units in
the system to receive the wastewaters,
they receive the highest loadings of
contaminants.
Biological treatment units function
primarily to break down or remove
organic compounds in the wastewater.
At this point in the treatment process,
the concentrations of organics in the
surface impoundment are greatly
reduced, and therefore, the risks from
leaks and sludges are considerably
lower in these units. Part of the
concentration reduction, however, is
due to volatilization, and air emissions
can be significant from such units.
Postbiological treatment units will
receive contaminants at significantly
reduced concentrations. As a result,
lower concentrations of hazardous
constituents can be expected in the air
emissions, leaks, and sludges, and
therefore resultant risks are also lower.
E. Results of Sampling and Bisk
Assessment
I. Sampling Data
The Agency reviewed available
information on air emissions, leaks, and
sludges. These data were collected for
the development of effluent guidelines
under the CWA. They cover industries
that typically treat wastewater in
biological treatment systems that
incorporate surface impoundments.
During the last two years, the Agency
was informed by representatives of the
regulated industry that they would
provide EPA with more current and
complete data characterizing
wastewaters in surface impoundments
receiving decharacterized waste. At the
time of publication of this proposal,
EPA had not received any such data.
-------
43658 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
Information available to the Agency
indicates that decharacterized
wastestreams containing UHCs may leak
out of surface impoundments at levels
of concern. These data also indicate that
there may be a significant number of
wastestreams that could exceed the
regulatory threshold for total volatile
organics. In addition, the Agency
conducted a review of the chemical
concentrations of UHCs in
decharacterized wastes (based on the
effluent guidelines data) and the
concentrations of constituents of
concern in various RCRA F and K
wastewaters. Based on this analysis, the
Agency found that in many instances
that decharacterized wastestreams have
similar hazardous constituents present
and at similar concentrations as listed
hazardous wastestreams. Estimated
sludge concentrations based on
industrial wastewater treatment system
data indicate that surface
impoundments handling
decharacterized wastes are likely to
generate sludge that contain UTS
constituents in excess of the treatment
standards. EPA solicits additional data,
particularly constituent concentrations
from actual sampling of wastewaters in
surface impoundments receiving
decharacterized wastes. A detailed
discussion of the data sources, analyses,
and specific examples of releases above
UTS levels supporting this proposal can
be found in the document entitled,
"Technical Support Document-
Options for Management Standards for
Leaks, Sludges, and Air Emissions From
Surface Impoundments Accepting
Decharacterized Wastes" which is
located in the RCRA docket.
2. Risks
Although the wastes affected by the
court opinion and the equivalence
options in this section of the preamble
are not hazardous wastes, they are likely
to contain some of the same hazardous
constituents, possibly even at the same
levels, as are found in listed and
characteristic wastes. The hazardous
constituents in listed and characteristic
wastes must be treated to meet UTS
before land disposal.
EPA conducted a screening level risk
assessment that did not take into
account site-specific hydrogeologic
conditions or relative proximity of
drinking water wells to surface
impoundments. Using the sampling data
described above, EPA estimated
baseline (current) risks from releases
from leaks and air emissions, as well as
ground water contamination from
sludge disposal. Samples were taken at:
raw wastewater, equalization ponds,
influent to pre-bio ponds, pre-bio
ponds, effluent from pre-bio ponds,
influent to biological ponds, effluent
from biological ponds, effluent from
post-bio ponds, influent to wastewater
system, and effluent from wastewater
system. (The terms "pond" and "surface
impoundment" are used
interchangeably in this preamble.) Using
Office of Water Effluent Guidelines data,
EPA calculated central tendency and
high-end baseline risks from leaks and
sludges for wastewater treatment
systems in five industries:
Pharmaceuticals; Pulp and Paper;
Pesticides; Metal Products and
Machinery; and Organic Chemicals,
Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF).
Using Generator Survey point-of-
generation data, EPA calculated central
tendency and high-end baseline risks
from leaks and sludges for wastewater
treatment systems from Inorganic
Chemicals; and, Electronic and
Electrical Components. The Agency
used standard exposure assumptions of
1.4 liters/day ingestion, and a 9-year
exposure period for 350 days per year.
Cancer risks are summed across
constituents.
Following are the highest risks EPA
estimated. These risks are from pre-
biological surface impoundments unless
otherwise noted. (The samples from
influent to a biological pond are
assumed to be measures of constituent
concentrations of wastewaters in pre-bio
ponds rather than bio ponds.) For the
central tendency analysis of risks from
leaks, EPA found potentially significant
health risks in the Pharmaceuticals,
OCPSF, Inorganic Chemicals, and
Electronic and Electrical Components
industries. In the Pharmaceuticals
industry, one raw wastewater sample
out of 11 and one biological pond
influent sample out of 7 may pose
potentially significant cancer health risk
exceeding the 10 ~s cancer risk
threshold; methylene chloride and
acrylonitrile, respectively, are the
constituents of concern. In the OCPSF
industry, EPA found three raw
wastewater samples out of 51 indicate
cancer risks in excess of a 10 ~5
individual lifetime cancer risk level.
Acrylonitrile is the most prevalent
carcinogenic constituent in amounts
above levels of concern. Also in the
OCPSF industry, nine samples at the
biological pond influent out of 34 at the
biological pond influent indicate cancer
risks in excess of a 10~s level, of which
six samples indicate cancer risks in
excess of 10 ~4. In the Inorganic
Chemical industry, one point of
generation sample out of 51 may pose
potentially significant cancer health
risks in excess of the 10 ~s cancer risk
threshold, and one point of generation
sample exceeds the 10 ~4 cancer risk
threshold. Methylene chloride and
beryllium are the constituents of
concern. In the Electric and Electrical
Components industry, 32 point of
generation samples contain potentially
significant cancer health risks in excess
of 10 ~5, of which 13 samples present
cancer risk between 10 ~4 to 10 ~5; 11
samples present cancer risk between
10 "3 to 10 ~4; and, 8 present cancer risk
in excess of 10 ~3. Methylene chloride
and beryllium are the constituents of
concern. The Agency continues to
evaluate additional industries based on
available data. The risk analyses for
these data will be placed in the RCRA
docket for this proposal.
In its analysis of leaks using high-end
assumptions, EPA found potentially
significant health risks (above 10 "5) at
sampling points in the Pharmaceuticals,
Pesticides, Pulp & Paper, OCPSF,
Inorganic Chemicals, and Electronics
and Electrical Components industries.
In the Pharmaceuticals industry, 14
samples out of 38 at the raw wastewater,
equalization pond, biological pond
influent, and effluent from post-
biological ponds (a measure of risk from
a post-bio pond) present potentially
significant cancer health risks in the
range of 10~3 to 10~5; constituents of
concern include methylene chloride,
acrylonitrile, chloroform, 1,2-
dichlorethane and alpha-bhc. In the
Pesticides industry, three samples out of
11 at the influent to a pre-bio pond
exceed the 10~5 cancer risk threshold;
the constituent of concern for all three
samples is methylene chloride. In the
Pulp & Paper industry, three samples of
12 at the influent to the wastewater
treatment system and one sample of 15
at the effluent from the wastewater
treatment system (sample from a bio or
post-bio pond) may pose potentially
significant sources of cancer risk
(estimates in the range of 10 ~4 to 10 ~5);
constituents of concern are chloroform,
1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1,2,2
tetrachloroethane and bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate at the influent and methylene
chloride and chloroform at the effluent.
In the OCPSF industry, about one-third
(20 of 51) samples of the raw wastewater
samples present cancer risks in excess
of 10 ~-s. One half (9 samples) present
cancer risks in excess of 10 ~4. About
one-third (13 of 34) of the biological
pond influent samples indicated cancer
risks in excess of 10 ~s; all samples but
one indicated cancer risks in excess of
10 ~4. In the Inorganic Chemicals
industry, two point of generation
samples present potentially significant
cancer health risk in excess of 10 ~3;
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 43659
methylene chloride and beryllium are
the constituents of concern. Finally, in
the Electronics and Electrical
Components industry, 11 point of
generation samples (out of 295) present
potentially significant cancer health risk
in excess of 10 ~4; 21 samples present
cancer health risk in excess of 10 ~3;
methylene chloride and beryllium are
the constituents of concern.
For sludges, EPA estimated the risks
from disposal in an unlined,
nonhazardous landfill after the sludges
are dredged from a surface
impoundment. Using estimated sludge
concentrations in the OCPSF industry,
EPA conducted both a central tendency
and high-end analysis. In the central
tendency analysis, one pre-bio sample
(of 87) presents cancer risk in excess of
10 ~4 and one bio sample (of 74)
presents risk in excess of 10 ~5;
acrylonitrile is the constituent causing
both exceedances. In the high-end
analysis, two pre-bio samples (of 87)
present cancer risk in excess of 10 ~5;
and one bio sample (of 74) presents
cancer risks in excess of 10 ~4;
acrylonitrile and 1,4-dichlorobenzene
are the causes.
To assess the potential risk posed by
air emissions, EPA examined samples at
the point of generation of the
wastewater. Across all industries, one-
fifth of samples (290 to 363 of 1562
samples) exceed 100 parts per million
(ppmw) by weight of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Under the recent
RCRA Subpart CC final standards, air
emission control requirements of the
rule apply to affected units if hazardous
waste placed in the unit is determined
to have an annual average volatile
organic concentration equal to or greater
than 100 ppmw based on the organic
composition of the hazardous waste at
the point of waste origination. See
§ 264.1083 (promulgated at 59 FR 62928
(December 6, 1994)). Preliminary results
show that 15 percent of samples (87 to
117 of 690 samples) from the
Pharmaceutical, Pulp and Paper,
Pesticide, and Metal Product and
Machinery industries exceed 100
ppmw. In the OCPSF industry, 48 to 59
percent of the sample facilities (75 to 92
of 157 facilities) assessed had at least
one sample of wastewater that exceeded
the 100 ppmw limit. For a detailed
discussion of risks and regulatory
impacts, see the background document
"Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Proposed Phase IV Land Disposal
Restrictions Rule," which was placed in
the docket for today's proposed rule.
F. Overview of Options
In general terms, the risks due to
cross-media releases have the potential
to vary from insignificant to significant.
EPA is considering three types of
options for addressing this issue. The
first option is not to issue LDR
requirements, but rather to rely on other
Agency programs to address these
releases under current rules or future
efforts (i.e., Clean Air Act (CAA)
standards, RCRA Corrective Action,
State programs, and others). The second
option is to develop controls that focus
on the subset of situations that pose
excessive risk and are not addressed by
existing requirements or those under
development. Finally, the third option
is to require that decharacterized wastes
be treated (not merely diluted) to meet
Universal Treatment Standards (UTS)
before entry into surface
impoundments. This forces
modification at facilities that do, as well
as those that do not, pose risks from
leaks, air emissions, and sludges. None
of the options would apply to units
which satisfy the Minimum Technology
Requirements or the statutory no-
migration standard.
The Agency is neutral between the
first and second options. The second
option is necessarily more complicated
than the other two, and so is discussed
here at greater length; it should not
thereby be inferred that this is EPA's
preferred approach. The third option
was also considered, but EPA is not
recommending it because of potential
disruption to needed wastewater
treatment, high costs to affected
industries, and lack of targeted risk
reduction.
G. Option 1
Option 1 relies on the Phase III rule
to satisfy the equivalence standard
enunciated by the D.C. Circuit. As
noted, that rule would link LDR and
CWA end-of-pipe standards to assure
that mass removal of UHCs occurs to the
same extent in CWA impoundment-
based treatment systems as it does in
conventional RCRA treatment systems.
As discussed above, the court's opinion
does not explicitly require more.
If ostensible treatment impoundments
generally acted as conduits for extensive
cross-media transfers of untreated
hazardous constituents, it is not clear
that the standard enunciated by the
court would be satisfied. However, there
are existing or forthcoming regulatory
mechanisms which tend to protect
against such wholesale releases.
Following is a brief description of
what coverage federal and State
regulations may provide to control
excessive releases from surface
impoundments receiving
decharacterized wastes. For more
information, see the following in the
RCRA Docket: "Technical Support
Document—Options for Management
Standards for Leaks, Sludges, and Air
Emissions From Surface Impoundments
Accepting Decharacterized Wastes," and
the Executive Summary of the
"Regulatory Impact Analysis of the
Proposed Phase IV Land Disposal
Restrictions Rule."
The Toxicity Characteristic (TC),
which exists for 39 of the 212 UHCs,
cannot be exceeded in the wastewater or
sludges contained in the surface
impoundments, and therefore, provides
some control. See, e.g. 976 F.2d at 24 fn.
10. Also, approximately 42% of the
facilities with impoundments which
receive decharacterized wastes are
RCRA Treatment, Storage, or Disposal
Facilities (TSDFs). RCRA TSDFs have at
least one unit at the facility which
requires a RCRA Subtitle C permit.
Under RCRA § 3004(u), the primary
cleanup authority for permitted TSDFs,
releases of hazardous constituents from
solid waste management units at such
facilities are subject to corrective action.
TSDFs that have not yet received
permits, and are operating under
interim status, are subject to cleanup
under § 3008(h), which provides EPA
with similar authority to compel
corrective action. Surface
impoundments affected by today's
proposed rule are solid waste
management units; releases from these
impoundments are subject to corrective
action on a site-specific basis. While the
State or EPA has the authority to control
emissions from Subtitle D surface
impoundments at Subtitle C TSDFs not
only during corrective action, but also
during normal operations, they may
choose not to do so, primarily because
of priorities, resources, and perceived
risk.
EPA also is presently implementing
Section 112 of the CAA to impose
technology-based standards for
hazardous air pollutants at enumerated
major sources, requiring control by
means of Maximum Available Control
Technology (MACT). These rules are
subject to explicit deadlines, and
already address wastewater treatment
impoundments in certain industries
potentially affected by the Phase IV rule
(e.g. the Hazardous Organics National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) at 59 FR 19402,
April 22, 1994), or will address such
impoundments. Several rules have been
promulgated addressing air emissions
from portions of the hazardous of the
organic, benzene, chromium
electroplating, ethylene oxide,
halogenated solvent, polymers and
resins, petroleum, and ferroalloy
industries. Examples of forthcoming
-------
standards are the MACT for the
pharmaceutical industry and the pulp
and paper industry. In addition,
NESHAPs that may affect portions of the
petroleum, metal plating, organic
chemical and inorganic chemical
industries are scheduled for
promulgation in 1995 and 1996. EPA
believes, however, that some surface
impoundments in the potentially
affected universe of industries will not
be covered by these CAA regulations.
For a detailed description of coverage by
CAA rules, see the Table entitled
"NESHAP Programs Identified in
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda" in the
"Technical Support Document-
Options for Management Standards for
Leaks, Sludges, and Air Emissions From
Surface Impoundments Accepting
Decharacterized Wastes," and see also
the background document entitled
"Description of Process to Determine
the Potentially Affected Universe for the
Phase IV LDR Rule."
With regard to other on-going ettorts,
EPA is actively investigating whether to
list additional wastes as hazardous, and
is investigating the possibility of
developing voluntary guidelines for
Subtitle D facility standards that would
more broadly address non-hazardous
industrial wastes.
In addition to federal controls, some
States have environmental controls on
surface impoundments that receive
nonhazardous industrial waste, such as
ground water monitoring for hazardous
constituents, leachate collection
systems, sludge management programs,
and cleanup authorities. Thirty-six
States have at least some regulations
that may be relevant to the cross-media
concerns in this rule. Among those
States, requirements to prevent ground
water contamination from surface
impoundments vary considerably.
States with the most requirements
include such controls as specific liner
requirements, leachate collection and
removal systems, ground water
monitoring, closure and post-closure
plans, corrective action, and permits. In
contrast, States with less comprehensive
programs may require only two or three
of these requirements, or may apply
them only to dischargers, only to non-
dischargers, or in other ways limit the
applicability of their programs.
However, EPA does not have
information on key factors to help it
assess the degree to which State
programs can be relied upon to prevent
excessive releases from surface
impoundments via leakage. For
example, it is not known which
constituents are monitored, what
concentrations are considered
acceptable levels, or whether the State
requirements mentioned above apply to
existing units, or only to new ones. For
a more detailed assessment of how State
programs protect ground water from
contamination from the type of surface
impoundments at issue in this rule, see
"Technical Support Document-
Options for Management Standards for
Leaks, Sludges, and Air Emissions From
Surface Impoundments Accepting
Decharacterized Wastes," in the RCRA
Docket.
State controls on sludge from
nonhazardous surface impoundments
are generally far less than the controls
for preventing leaks. EPA's information
is that thirty-seven states have no sludge
requirements. Other states, such as
Alabama, Florida, and Missouri, have
minimal requirements under their
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits for
sludge management. Pennsylvania
requires sludge to be removed annually
from storage surface impoundments. In
California, sludge must be disposed in
a landfill or monofill. One of the states
with more controls is Michigan, which
requires a plan for sludge monitoring,
treatment, transportation, storage, and
disposal, along with a hydrogeological
study if there is a threat to ground
water.
With respect to air emissions, the
Agency recognizes that State
Implementation Plans, or SIPS, which
are mandated under the Clean Air Act,
may provide some control. EPA solicits
information on the extent to which State
and Tribal programs control leaks,
sludge, and air emissions from surface
impoundments receiving
decharacterized wastes.
H. Option 2
1. Introduction
Option 2 is an intermediate approach
between saying the LDRs do not apply
and saying they do apply in the
traditional manner. In defining this
regulatory option for consideration, EPA
tried to accomplish seven basic
objectives: (1) Focus controls on those
situations that present risks that amount
to significant permanent disposal; (2)
avoid duplication with other Agency
requirements; (3) provide flexibility in
dealing with site-specific factors and
cost-effective control alternatives; (4)
recognize the effective treatment
function performed by waste water
treatment impoundments, and avoid
needlessly invalidating such function;
(5) identify controls that protect human
health and the environment; (6)
minimize implementation burden; and
(7) create incentives for alternative
controls (state, tribal or federal) to
address significant releases from such
units and so render LDR controls
unnecessary.
2. Applicability
To focus on risks, Option 2 excludes
from control those situations which are
expected to pose little risk. First it
excludes wastewaters that do not have,
at the point of generation, hazardous
constituents present above the UTS.
Such wastes obviously are not
prohibited from land disposal. Second,
wastewaters with de minimis amounts
of hazardous constituents are
excluded—i.e., not prohibited. (Criteria
for determining de minimis situations
would be identical to those proposed in
the Phase III rule for discharges to UIC
wells.) Third, sludges and leaks from
biotreatment and post-biotreatment
units would not be covered due to the
lower risks posed by these units. Fourth,
characteristic wastes which at the point
of generation do not exceed 100 ppmw
of total volatile organics on an annual
average would not be subject to air
emission controls. Fifth, surface
impoundments containing underlying
hazardous constituents at
concentrations below a trigger level
(e.g., 10 times the Maximum
Contaminant Level, or MCL) would not
be addressed for leaks. Finally, none of
the Option 2 standards would apply if
the impoundment satisfies Minimum
Technology Requirements or the
statutory no migration standard. These
applicability principles are explained in
more detail below.
To avoid duplication with other
requirements, EPA would defer to other
federal rules which establish controls
addressing the same situations. Deferral
would occur where the existing program
addressed the specific UHCs of concern.
In the case of air emissions, EPA would
defer to standards regulating total
volatile organics, as adequately covering
air emissions of UHCs from this type of
treatment. In addition to existing
regulations, there are some CAA air
emission limits under development.
Inefficiencies and confusion could
occur if Option 2 controls were applied
and soon superseded by upcoming CAA
standards. Facilities subject to CAA
standards for hazardous air pollutants
(in particular, those promulgated
pursuant to CAA § 112) in the near
future thus would not be covered by
Option 2 air emission controls. In the
case of releases to ground water, EPA
would defer to certain existing
programs, as is explained in more detail
below. .
This option also would recognize the
existence of the types of controls
mentioned above in connection with
-------
r
Federal Register / Vol.
~~
Option 1. Thus, if an impoundment is
located at a permitted TSDF, no further
control would be adopted under Phase
IV. EPA Regional, State, or Tribal limits
which control releases of specific UHCs
from impoundments also would be
considered controlling and so make
Phase IV controls unnecessary.
Option 2 provides flexibility in
dealing with site-specific factors and
cost-effective control alternatives.
60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, i995^Proposed Rules
43661
Facilities have the choice of treating the
characteristic wastestream to meet U Ib
before entering a surface impoundment,
thus avoiding any management
standards enumerated in the option.
This option also incorporates alternative
means of compliance proposed in the
Phase III rule, namely an exception tor
de minimis decharacterized
wastestreams (i.e., prohibited
wastewaters containing de nuiumis
amounts of UHCs) and an option
allowing the requisite mass reduction ot
hazardous constituents to be achieved
by means of pollution prevention rather
than wastewater treatment. For a
simplified guide to which facilities
would be affected by option 2, see the
following now chart entitled Figure 1.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
43662 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6560-60-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 43663
For those facilities which do not meet
the criteria to screen out the low risk
situations, and are not subject to other
federal, State, or Tribal limits to address
the UHCs of concern, Option 2 would
provide controls similar to those
currently applied to other industrial
wastes. Air emissions would be subject
to the substantive requirements for
surface impoundments of RCRA Subpart
CC. (59 FR 62896; December 6,1994.)
Leaks would necessitate ground water
monitoring for UHCs, and corrective
action would be triggered if ground
water exceeds levels of concern. Sludges
would be subject to UTS when removed
from the surface impoundment. The
following sections provide a more
detailed description of these potential
requirements.
To minimize implementation burdens
make many of the requirements self-
implementing, and set minimal
reporting/recordkeeping requirements.
All of the requirements would be
effective two years after promulgation,
due to a proposed national capacity
variance (see Section VIII of this rule).
Under circumstances when the air
emission, leaks, or sludge control
equipment required to comply with the
standard cannot be operational at an
existing facility by the two-year
deadline, an implementation schedule
for installation of the equipment would
have to be developed and placed in the
facility operating records. In such cases,
the facility owner or operator would
have to have all controls in operation no
later than 48 months after the effective
date. Furthermore, surface
impoundments that have stopped
receiving decharacterized wastewaters
on or before the date of promulgation
would not be subject to any of the
requirements proposed today. Surface
impoundments that stop receiving
decharacterized wastewaters after the
date of promulgation and on or before
the date two years after promulgation
would be subject only to the
recordkeeping requirements. Where
alternative non-RCRA standards are set
by EPA, States, or Tribes (e.g., CAA
standards for air emissions), deferral to
standards means there is no RCRA
requirement.
The following sections describe
management standards the Agency is
considering for leaks, sludges, and air
emissions from surface impoundments
accepting decharacterized wastes. EPA
seeks comment on these standards,
including the possibility of adopting
standards for certain of the potential
problems and not others, e.g., finalizing
standards for leaks and air emission
control, but not for sludge control.
Additionally, Option 2 would apply
controls on air emissions for all three
types of surface impoundments (pre-
biological, biological, and post-
biological), while limiting sludge and
leak controls to pre-biological units
only, based on the risk findings. The
statute already specifies more lenient
regulatory controls for biological and
post-biological treatment
impoundments. Section 3005(j)(3)
exempts from minimum technology
requirements hazardous waste
biological and post-biological surface
impoundments. Such impoundments
must in general be performing
aggressive biological treatment (or
performing post-biological treatment),
be in compliance with CWA permits
and with generally-applicable ground
water monitoring requirements, and be
achieving significant degradation of
toxic pollutants. This provision
recognizes that such treatment
impoundments both perform an
important treatment function and pose
less risk than other impoundment types.
Today's proposal is premised on similar
findings. EPA seeks comment on all
combinations of applying the three
types of controls (leaks, sludges, and air
emissions) to all three types of
impoundments.
3. Proposed Management Standards for
Air Emissions
a. Scope. Option 2 would extend
requirements of Subpart CC regulations
to surface impoundments in CWA,
CWA-equivalent, or nonhazardous
wastewater treatment systems that
accept wastes decharacterized by
dilution. Subpart CC rules would not
apply directly under this option, since
that rule applies only to units managing
hazardous waste. § 264.1080(a).
However, substantive requirements,
borrowed from that rule, could apply to
surface impoundments receiving
prohibited, decharacterized wastes. The
specific standards in this option would
be: general standards (264.1082), waste
determination procedures (§264.1083),
surface impoundment unit standards
(§ 264.1085), closed-vent and control
device standards (§ 264.1087),
inspection and monitoring procedures
(§264.1088), recordkeeping
requirements (§ 264.1089), and reporting
requirements (§264.1090). The
provisions would only apply to affected
surface impoundments'used to manage
decharacterized wastes if the
decharacterized waste (containing UHCs
above UTS at the point of generation)
placed in the unit is determined to have
an average volatile organic
concentration greater than or equal to
100 ppmw based on the organic
composition of the waste at the point of
generation. Averaging periods of up to
1 year in duration would be utilized for
each individual wastestream. The types
of requirements EPA is considering are
quite similar to those required generally
under the CAA for control of volatile
organic hazardous air pollutants (e.g.,
see the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (59
FR 19402, April 22, 1994) and the
Benzene Waste Operations NESHAP (58
FR 3072, January 7, 1993)). For a
simplified guide to the management
standards for air emissions, see the
following flow chart entitled Figure 2.
BILLING CODE 6560-60-P
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday. August 22. 1995 / Proposed Rules
iiili!
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
43665
b. Applicability. For each surface
impoundment identified in today's rule
to which the extended subpart CC
requirements apply, the owner or
operator would be required to use the
air emission controls specified herein
except when the decharacterized waste
placed in the surface impoundment
meets certain conditions.
(i.) Volatile organic concentration
exemption. Under this option, a surface
impoundment accepting
decharacterized waste would not be
considered to engage in impermissible
transfer of untreated hazardous
constituents to the ambient air if all the
prohibited waste (i.e., the
decharacterized waste) placed in the
impoundment is determined to have an
average volatile organic concentration
less than 100 ppmw based on the
organic composition of the waste at the
point of generation. Establishing the
trigger concentration of point of
generation, rather than point of
placement in an impoundment, is
designed to prevent dilution and
volatilization of organics in the waste.
59 FR at 62915. This feature of the
option thus dovetails with the central
concern of the D.C. Circuit in allowing
dilution rather than destruction/removal
via treatment for hazardous
constituents.
(ii.) Treated hazardous waste
exemption. Under this option, each
affected surface impoundment that
manages a characteristic waste that has
been decharacterized by dilution but
contains UHCs above UTS and has an
average volatile organic concentration
equal to or greater than 100 ppmw, as
determined by the procedures found in
§ 264.1083, is required to be managed in
accordance with the applicable Subpart
CC requirements. See § 264.1085.
Realizing that many organic UHCs likely
to be present in characteristic waste
being treated in a surface impoundment
are also VOCs, and because the Agency
wishes to be consistent with other air
regulations and therefore necessitate
control, the Agency believes that total
VOCs is an appropriate measure for
determining when potential releases
through air emissions would be
excessive. 976 F.2d at 17. The owner or
operator would install and operate the
specified air emission controls on every
affected unit used in the waste
management sequence from the point of
generation (as it applies to the specific
prohibited wastestream) through the
point where the organics in the waste
are removed or destroyed in accordance
with § 264.1082. If the decharacterized
wastestream is not treated to meet these
requirements, then all surface
impoundments at the facility used in
the waste management sequence for this
decharacterized waste would be
required to use the air emissions
controls specified in the extended
subpart CC surface impoundment
standards.
The extended subpart CC standard
would thus provide owners or operators
of surface impoundments accepting
decharacterized wastes with several
alternatives for determining when
wastes have already been treated
sufficiently so that surface
impoundments would not have to meet
the air emission control requirements.
Put another way, the organic component
of the prohibited wastes would be fully
treated before land disposal and so the
impoundment would not be subject to
control. Types of treatment processes
that would obviate the need for further
control are an organic destruction,
biological degradation, or organic
removal process that reduces the
organic content of the decharacterized
waste and is designed and operated in
accordance with certain conditions
specified in the rule, or combustion in
an incinerator, boiler or industrial
furnace.
The requirements for a destruction,
biological degradation, or removal
process that reduces the organic content
of the waste are specified in the
extended Subpart CC rule as follows:
(1) It must reduce the volatile organic
concentration of the waste to meet a site-
specific treatment process exit concentration
limit determined by an equation (specified in
the rule) that accounts for the portion of the
reduction due to dilution; or
(2) It must be a single process that achieves
an organic reduction efficiency of 95 percent
or greater on a mass basis, and reduces the
average volatile organic concentration of the
wastestream exiting the process to a level less
than 50 ppmw; or
(3) It must be a biological process that
either (a) achieves an organic reduction
efficiency equal to or greater than 95 percent,
and achieves an organic biodegradation
efficiency for the process equal to or greater
than 95 percent, or (b) achieves a total actual
organic mass biodegradation rate for all
decharacterized wastes treated by the process
equal to or greater than the required organic
mass removal rate for the process.
c. Surface impoundment management
standards. If the prohibited,
decharacterized wastes are not
pretreated, the requirements under the
subpart CC standards for surface
impoundment air emission control
equipment specify that the owner or
operator install and operate on each
affected surface impoundment a cover
(an air supported structure or cover) that
is vented through a closed-vent system
to a control device meeting the
requirements specified in 264.1085(d).
As an alternative, an owner or operator
may place the waste in a surface
impoundment equipped with a floating
membrane cover meeting the
requirements specified in 264.1085(e).
d. Closed-vent system and control
device requirements. Since emissions
from impoundments would be captured
and vented, this option contains
provisions to assure that the vented
emissions are treated properly before
release. See 976 F.2d at 17. The subpart
CC standards, which would be utilized
under this option, require that each
control device achieve at least a 95
percent reduction in the total organic
content of the vapor stream vented to
the device or, in the case of an enclosed
combustion device, a reduction of the
total organic content of the vapor stream
to a level less than or equal to 20 ppmw
on a dry basis corrected to 3 percent
oxygen. These requirements are
generally the same as those used in EPA
air rules. See 59 FR 19402 and 59 FR
62896.
e. Inspection and monitoring. To
ensure that emission control equipment
is properly operated and maintained,
the extended subpart CC standards
would require the owner and operator to
visually inspect certain emission control
equipment items semiannually. For
example, emission control equipment
covers on surface impoundments would
be checked semiannually by facility
employees to ensure that (1) equipment
is being used properly (e.g., covers are
closed and latched except when an
opening must be used to add, remove,
inspect, or sample the waste in the
surface impoundment or to inspect,
maintain, replace, or repair equipment
located inside the surface impoundment
or to vent gases or vapors from the
surface impoundment) and (2)
equipment is being maintained in good
condition (e.g., no visible holes, gaps,
tears, or splits have developed in
covers).
Continuous monitoring of control
device operation is required under the
subpart CC standards. This involves the
use of automated instrumentation to
measure critical operating parameters
that indicate whether the control device
is operating correctly or is
malfunctioning. Semiannual leak
detection monitoring using Method 21
under 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, is
required for certain cover components
to ensure gaskets and seals are in good
condition and for closed-vent systems to
ensure all fittings remain leak-tight. In
addition, each closed-vent system must
be monitored for leaks using Method 21
at least once per year.
The extended subpart CC standards
would require that the owner or
-------
43666 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
operator repair a cover fitting found to
be leaking within 15 days of detection.
Repair of control equipment on a
surface impoundment may be delayed
beyond 15 calendar days under certain
circumstances. To delay repair, the
owner or operator would have to
document that the repair cannot be
completed without emptying the
contents of the unit and also that
removing the unit from service would
result in the unscheduled cessation of
production from the process unit or
operation of the waste management unit
that is generating the decharacterized
waste. Repair of this control equipment
would have to be completed the next
time the process unit or waste
management unit is generating the
decharacterized waste managed in the
surface impoundment is shut down.
/. Recorakeeping requirements. The
extended requirements of the subpart
CC standards would require the owner
or operator to record certain information
in the on-site facility operating logs or
files. This information is to be readily
available for review by authorized
representatives of the EPA. Consistent
with 40 CFR 264.73 and 40 CFR 265.73,
the rule requires that air emission
control equipment design records and
certain other records be maintained in
the facility operating record until
facility closure. Records and results of
waste determinations, inspections, and
monitoring are required to be kept for at
least three years from the date of entry.
The information to be collected and
recorded includes: the results of all
waste determinations such as of volatile
organic concentrations at the point of
waste generation and organic vapor
pressure; design specifications for
closed-vent systems and control devices
and certain control equipment; emission
control equipment inspection and
monitoring results; Methods 27 test
results; control device exceedances and
actions taken to remedy them; leak
repairs; management of carbon removed
from carbon adsorption systems;
identification of incinerators, boilers, or
industrial furnaces used to treat
decharacterized waste in accordance
with the general requirements of the
rule; documentation for biological
wastewater treatment units using air
emission controls in accordance with
the rule requirements; and identification
of equipment fittings designated as
unsafe or difficult to monitor or inspect.
g. Reporting requirements. The
extended requirements of subpart CC
standards would require an owner or
operator to submit reports to the EPA
only when circumstances occur at the
facility resulting in noncompliance with
certain provisions of the rule. Each
report required under the extended
subpart CC standards would be
submitted to the EPA Regional office
having jurisdiction for that particular
location. The report would be signed
and dated by an authorized
representative of the facility owner or
operator.
An owner or operator subject to the
extended requirements of 40 CFR 264
subpart CC would have to report to the
EPA all circumstances resulting in
placement of a decharacterized waste in
a surface impoundment subject to the
proposed rule and not using air
emission controls required by the rule
when either of the following conditions
occur: (I) The characteristic waste has a
volatile organic concentration equal to
or greater than 100 ppmw as determined
on a mass-weighted average basis at the
point of waste origination, or (2) the
process used to treat the characteristic
waste fails to meet the applicable
conditions specified in the rule. The
owner or operator would have to submit
a written report within 15 calendar days
of the time that the owner or operator
becomes aware of the circumstance.
An owner or operator subject to the
extended requirements of 40 CFR part
264, subpart CC and using a control
device in accordance with the
requirements of the rule would be
required to submit a semiannual written
report to the EPA. This report would
describe each occurrence during the
previous 6-month period when a control
device is operated continuously for 24
hours or longer in noncompliance with
the applicable operating values defined
in 40 CFR 264.1035(c)(4) or when a flare
is operated with visible emissions as
defined in 40 CFR 264.1033(d). An
owner or operator would not be
required to submit this report for a 6-
month period during which all control
devices at a facility subject to the
extended subpart CC standards are
operated by the owner or operator so
that during no period of 24 hours or
longer did a control device operate
continuously in noncompliance with
the applicable operating values defined
in the rule.
4. Proposed Management Standards for
Leaks
a. Scope. If surface impoundments
receiving decharacterized wastes (i.e.,
prohibited wastes) are leaking
excessively, arguably disposal of
untreated UHCs is occurring at a level
which invalidates the treatment
function of the impoundment (i.e.,
which constitutes an impermissible
cross-media transfer of hazardous
constituents. 976 F.2d at 17.). In
addressing this possibility, this option
presents facilities with a sequence of
monitoring, detection, and correction
mechanisms to assure that
impoundments do not leak UHCs at
these levels, and thus allows continued
use of the impoundment as part of a
system achieving RCRA-equivalent
treatment. Thus, facilities choosing to
adopt the ground water protection
approach set out below could continue
to use impoundments to treat
decharacterized wastewaters.
An alternative to adopting a ground
water protection program is to treat
decharacterized wastes before they
reach the impoundment, to segregate
them altogether, or to retrofit the
impoundment so that it meets section
3005(j)(ll) minimum technology
requirements. These options remain
available at any time to a facility, so that
a facility would not be locked in to the
ground water protection alternative if it
wishes to pursue alternative means of
compliance. There is a caveat, however.
If a facility chooses to comply with the
ground water protection alternative and
later detects impermissible levels of
contamination in the ground water at
the well sites, the contamination would
still have to be remediated as set out in
this proposed rule, even if the facility
begins to divert or pretreat the
prohibited characteristic wastestream at
that time. The logic for this is that there
would have been documented disposal
of prohibited wastes not treated to meet
LDR standards. In such circumstances,
the Agency has available to it the
remedy that the illegally disposed waste
must be retrieved and properly
managed. (See U.S. v. Structural Metals,
Inc. Civil Action No. SA—91—CA—201
(W.D. TX May 27, 1992)—a consent
decree requiring that 3600 tons of
illegally disposed hazardous waste be
removed from a landfill and properly
treated before being disposed.)
Option 2 would adopt, with
modifications, certain sections of the
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill rule
(referred to herein as the MSWLF rule)
at 40 CFR Part 258 Subpart E, for the
control of leaks and the application of
corrective action to the following
affected units: surface impoundments in
CWA, CWA-equivalent, or
nonhazardous wastewater treatment
systems that accept wastes
decharacterized by dilution. The
specific standards in this option include
portions of ground water monitoring
systems (§258.51); ground water
sampling and analysis requirements
(§ 258.53); assessment monitoring
program (§ 258.55); assessment of
corrective action measures (§ 258.56);
selection of remedy (§258.57);
implementation of the corrective action
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
43667
program (§ 258.58). For a simplified
guide to applicability criteria and
management standards for leaks, see
Figure 3.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
43668
Federal Renter / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday. August 22. 1995 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6560-60-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 43669
b. Applicability. The proposed
management standards for leaks would
only apply to owners and operators of
facilities that generate characteristic
wastes that at the point of generation
(and prior to decharacterization) contain
UHCs at concentrations that are greater
than UTS levels. The UHCs that are
present at greater than UTS are known
as "regulated constituents." Only these
regulated constituents must be
considered in complying with the
management standards for leaks. UHCs
present in a characteristic waste at
levels less than or equal to UTS are not
subject to the proposed management
standards for leaks. If these
decharacterized wastes are discharged
to a surface impoundment that meets
the substantive minimum technology
requirements of 40 CFR 268.4, the Phase
IV leak requirements would not apply.
The Agency's primary concern with
regard to leaks from these surface
impoundments is the potential for
regulated constituents to migrate to the
ground water in significant
concentrations. The most direct method
available for assessing the presence of
regulated constituents in the ground
water is groundwater monitoring.
However, the Agency believes it would
be overly burdensome and unnecessary
to achieve the rule's intended purposes
to require every surface impoundment
that manages decharacterized wastes to
install ground water monitoring wells.
As a result, the Agency is proposing that
regulated constituents for which an
MCL has been promulgated under
section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA), codified under 40 CFR
part 141, must be present at
concentrations in the surface
impoundment wastewaters that meet or
exceed 10 times the MCL before ground
water monitoring is warranted. Thus, if
the MCL for a hazardous constituent is
1 mg/1 and the hazardous constituent is
present in surface impoundment
wastewaters at less than 10 mg/1, no
groundwater monitoring would be
required. The Agency believes that the
use of MCLs as a trigger level for ground
water monitoring is appropriate because
MCLs are a reasonable benchmark of
risk posed to human health from a
drinking water source. By using a trigger
of 10 times the MCL, the Agency is
taking into account the reasonable
dilution and attenuation that would
occur as constituents migrate in the
substrate. This trigger level corresponds
to the dilution and attenuation factor
(DAF) of 10 (at the point of release to
the aquifer) currently under
consideration for the Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR) proposal.
For UHCs that do not have MCLs, the
Agency is proposing the following
approach. In the absence of an MCL, the
state or tribal risk-based number (i.e., 10
times the state or tribal ground water
protection number) would be used for
the regulated constituent (see 40 CFR
258.55(i)). In the absence of both an
MCL and state or tribal risk-based
number, the UTS level—the directly
RCRA-equivalent level—would be used
for the regulated constituent.
c. Surface impoundment management
standards. The Agency is proposing to
use annual sampling of the wastewaters
in the surface impoundment to
determine if regulated constituents are
present at concentrations that exceed
the trigger level. Sampling and analysis
need only be conducted for those
regulated constituents identified in the
characteristic waste at the point of
generation. If a new decharacterized
wastewater is accepted by the surface
impoundment, then the owner or
operator would be required to
characterize the new decharacterized
wastewater at point of generation to
identify additional regulated
constituents prior to the next annual
sampling date. Annual sampling must
be continued for as long as the unit is
receiving decharacterized wastes.
Sampling and analysis is discussed in
further detail in the technical support
document entitled, "Technical Support
Document for Leaks, Sludges, and Air
Emissions—Phase IV."
To determine if a trigger level has
been exceeded, the owner or operator
would calculate an annualized average
concentration for each regulated
constituent identified. This annualized
average will account for process
fluctuations and process upsets and
would appropriately represent the
wastewaters in the surface
impoundment. At a minimum, the
owner or operator would be required to
include at least four sampling events
(i.e. quarterly), and a minimum of four
independent samples from each
sampling event. (See "Technical
Support Document—Options for
Management Standards for Leaks,
Sludges, and Air Emissions From
Surface Impoundments Accepting
Decharacterized Wastes" in the RCRA
docket for more information on
sampling.)
d. Ground water and corrective action
management standards. EPA is
proposing that the ground water
monitoring and corrective action
regulations for municipal solid waste
landfills (MSWLFs) under the Subtitle D
program (Solid Waste Disposal Facility
Criteria, 56 FR 50978, October 9, 1991)
be adopted with minor modifications for
the monitoring and remediation of
surface impoundments subject to
today's proposed rulemaking. EPA
believes that the ground water
monitoring and corrective action
standards in the MSWLF rule, as
modified in today's rule, are appropriate
and protective for the surface
impoundments subject to today's
rulemaking. Thus, under this option, an
impoundment choosing to operate with
these measures would be considered a
treatment impoundment not engaging in
permanent disposal of waste. Put
another way, the impoundment could
be part of a treatment process that can
perform LDR-equivalent treatment. EPA
is not, however, intending that the
approach outlined in today's proposed
rule is necessarily appropriate for other
industrial solid waste management
units.
Many states have ground water
protection programs that include ground
water monitoring and corrective action
that may apply to the types of units that
EPA is covering in today's proposal. To
the extent that state programs require
ground water monitoring and corrective
action that include the UTS constituents
of concern (or can be modified to cover
those constituents) and are substantially
similar to today's proposal (i.e.,
frequency of monitoring, requirements
regarding ground water monitoring
wells), EPA would defer to those State
and Tribal Programs. The owner/
operator would have to demonstrate that
there exists a State or Tribe numerical
limit for each regulated constituent and
document that in their operating
records. For those constituents not
covered by State or Tribal limits, today's
rule would apply. Further, facilities
affected by today's rulemaking that have
existing ground water monitoring and
corrective action programs that are not
required by State or federal government
may be able to continue those programs
in lieu of the regulations proposed here.
(i) MSWLF rule. Under this option,
EPA is proposing to adopt some, but not
all provisions of the MSWLF
regulations, which are promulgated
under 40 CFR Parts 257 and 258. The
sections of Part 258 that EPA would
adopt with minor modifications are in
Subpart E: Ground Water Monitoring
and Corrective Action. These are:
Ground Water Monitoring Systems
(§ 258.51); Ground Water Sampling and
Analysis Requirements (§ 258.53);
Assessment Monitoring Program
(§ 258.55); Assessment of Corrective
Measures (§ 258.56); Selection of
Remedy (§258.57); and Implementation
of the Corrective Action Program
(§ 258.58). The section in Subpart E not
being considered in today's rule is
-------
43670
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
section § 258.54, which requires a
ground water monitoring detection
program. General descriptions of the
sections and changes that EPA is
proposing for adoption in today's rule
are provided below and under the
following section titled "Specific
Requirements".
Self-Implementing Provisions
The MSWLF regulations are
structured to be either self-implemented
by an owner or operator or implemented
in "approved states" through approval
and interaction with state regulatory
agencies. The MSWLF rule was
designed so that states with federally
approved programs could define ground
water protection and corrective action
programs for individual MSWLFs that
accounted for site-specific factors.
In referencing the MSWLF rule for
ground water monitoring and corrective
action activities for surface
impoundments under today's rule, the
Agency is proposing to adopt only those
provisions that are self-implementing.
EPA would modify the applicability of
the MSWLF rule such that any
provisions that require state approval
would not apply. EPA is aware,
however, that some of the site-specific
provisions in the MSWLF rule that ^
would not be available under today's
proposed rule might be reasonable
approaches for monitoring surface
impoundments. For example,
§ 258.51(b) allows the director of an
approved state to approve a multi-unit
ground-water monitoring system, rather
than require separate ground water
monitoring systems for each unit.1 At
some facilities subject to today's rule
with closely spaced surface
impoundments, multi-unit monitoring
may be protective and less expensive to
install and monitor. EPA seeks comment
on whether the multi-unit provision and
any other site-specific provisions in the
MSWLF rule that would not be available
should be allowed to be self-
implemented by facilities subject to
ground-water monitoring and corrective
action under the Phase IV rulemaking.
' The multi-unit system must be as protective of
human health and the environment as individual
monitoring systems, based on factors including the
number, spacing, and orientation of the units, the
hydrogeologic setting, site history, engineering
design of the units, and type of waste accepted in
the units. In addition to approval of the multi-unit
system, § 258.51(d) requires that the number,
spacing, and depths of monitoring systems must be
certified by a "qualified ground water scientist" or
by the director of an approved state. In today's
rulemaking, certification by the qualified ground
waster scientist would be required, rather than
approval by the state. In the absence of state
approval, this certification would help ensure that
a protective multi-unit monitoring system was
installed (independent certification of certain
ground water monitoring and corrective provisions
is discussed further below).
Certification of a Self-Implementing
Program
In the MSWLF rule, the Agency stated
that independent party review and
certification of certain self-implemented
programs or demonstrations required by
the rule is necessary to ensure technical
adequacy of critical ground water
monitoring and corrective action
milestones. Four provisions adopted
from the MSWLF rule require
certification by an independent
"qualified ground water scientist": (1)
Number, spacing and depths of
monitoring systems (§ 258.51(d)); (2)
determination that contamination was
caused by another source or that a
statistically significant increase resulted
from an error in sampling analysis or
evaluation (§258.55(h)(2)); (3)
determination that compliance with a
remedy requirement is not technically
practicable (§ 258.58(c)(l)); and (4)
completion of remedy (§ 258.58(f)).
The Agency defined a "qualified
ground water scientist" at § 258.50 and
discussed the relevant background and
experience needed for these
professionals to certify ground water
monitoring and corrective action
requirements in the MSWLF rule. This
definition is also promulgated under
§ 260.10 for certain ground water
monitoring, but not corrective action,
certifications under the hazardous waste
program. Individuals who qualify to
certify ground water regulatory
milestones under either the Subtitle D
or C programs would also qualify to
certify the ground water requirements
adopted under today's rulemaking.
Owners or operators of surface
impoundments that undergo corrective
action under today's rulemaking should
ensure that any "qualified ground-water
scientists" working in the Subtitle C
program are qualified to certify
corrective action requirements in
addition to ground water monitoring
requirements.
(ii) Ground water monitoring.
Installing a ground water monitoring
system. For today's proposed rule, EPA
would require within one year of
triggering ground water monitoring (that
is, when a regulated constituent is
detected at levels above regulatory
concern in the surface impoundment),
the owner/operator must install a
ground water monitoring system and
begin monitoring those wells for all
regulated constituents. The Agency
believes that it is appropriate to monitor
for all the regulated constituents in the
wells for the following reasons: (I)
There will no longer be any type of
monitoring conducted in the surface
impoundment (as long as the chemical
composition of the waste remains the
same at the point of generation); (2)
monitoring of all regulated constituents
is similar to the requirements
established under the MSWLF rule
where analysis of a number of
constituents is required to determine the
severity of a leak; and (3) it is essential
to accurately characterize the chemical
composition of a ground water release
in order to aid in the corrective action
plan, if necessary. EPA believes that
allowing one year will enable owner/
operators sufficient time to properly
characterize their site and install ground
water monitoring wells that will meet
the performance standards of 258
Subpart E. EPA is aware that many sites
with less complex hydrogeology and
few units may not need the entire year
to install their systems and commence
monitoring. Facilities with existing
monitoring systems that meet the
applicable performance standards of
Subpart E, Part 258 ground water
monitoring systems will be required to
begin monitoring for the UTS
constituents regulated under today's
rule at the next planned monitoring
period under existing monitoring
programs, or within one year.
Establishing a Ground Water Monitoring
Program
The ground water monitoring program
in today's proposed rule focuses on a
different set of constituents than those
in the MSWLF rule. Owners or
operators subject to today's rule are
required to sample waste water in the
affected surface impoundments to
determine if they have to install ground
water monitoring systems. If ground
water monitoring is triggered, owners or
operators are required to undertake a
monitoring program under § 258.55 of
the MSWLF rule to monitor for only
those UHCs that are present in the
decharacterized waste prior to its
dilution and disposal in the surface
impoundment treatment system.
The ground water monitoring system
must include a sufficient number of
wells at the appropriate location and
depth to determine background level
and the quality of the ground water at
the relative point of compliance. The
relative point of compliance is required
to be less than or equal to 150 m from
the waste management unit boundary
located on land owned by the facility.
The MSWLF rule allowed for the
director of an approved state to
determine an alternative boundary.
Today's rule is not allowing an
alternative boundary, but rather requires
the owner/operator to select the relative
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 43671
point of compliance as stated above, and
document this in the facility's records.
If statistically significant levels of
these constituents are detected above
the constituent-specific ground water
protection standards as determined by
§ 258.55(h) of the MSWLF rule, the
owner or operator is required to
undertake corrective action to bring
levels of the regulated constituents in
the ground water to below the ground
water protection standards. In contrast,
under the MSWLF detection monitoring
regulations, which are not being
considered under this option, owners or
operators are required to monitor for a
list of constituents from specified lists
(see Appendix I to Part 258).
Constituents on this list are generally
thought to be present at MSWLFs, have
physical and chemical properties that
cause them to be early indicators of a
release from a unit and are easy and
inexpensive to analyze. The MSWLF
rule has provisions to modify the
detection monitoring list via the
overseeing regulatory authority if
parameters are not reasonably expected
to be found in ground water at the site.
In contrast, the UHCs that the owner or
operator is monitoring for under
proposed Option 2 may not have fate
and transport characteristics that would
provide earliest indication of a release.
However, EPA does not at this time
have information to indicate whether
the list of indicator parameters
monitored for under the MSWLF
detection monitoring program are
present at the surface impoundments
subject to today's proposed rule.
Monitoring for constituents that are not
present obviously would not provide
protection from releases of site-specific
UHCs. For these reasons, EPA is not
proposing to adopt the requirement for
facilities to monitor the ground water
under the detection ground water
monitoring program specified in 258.54.
EPA is, however, proposing to require
facilities to directly implement a
program to monitor the regulated
constituents in the ground water.
Detecting Releases
Today's proposed rule also would
have a different approach when releases
have been detected. When constituents
are found under MSWLF rule detection
monitoring at levels that trigger the next
phase of monitoring (assessment), the
owner/operators are required to analyze
the ground water for a broad list of
constituents (Appendix II to Part 258 of
the MSWLF rule) that may be present to
better characterize the nature of the
release. Facilities that move to
corrective action generally are required
to address all ground water
contamination, rather than a subset of
facility-specific UHCs. Today's
proposed rule does not require facilities
to scan for the § 258 Appendix II
constituents because EPA's authority is
limited to the UHCs in the prohibited
wastes that are required to receive
RCRA-equivalent treatment. Rather,
owner/operators under today's rule
would be required to move directly to
assessment of corrective measures upon
detecting that releases are statistically
significant.
Corrective Action
If corrective action is required, this
means that untreated UHCs are being
released to the environment at an
excessive level. The impoundment thus
is not performing equivalent treatment.
An operator can, however, capture and
treat the constituents via corrective
action, which would have the effect of
re-validating the surface impoundments
treatment function.
EPA is aware that owners or operators
undertaking corrective action under
today's proposed approach might de
facto remediate constituents other than
the regulated constituents in the ground
water. For example, a ground water
extraction system with an air stripping
treatment unit designed to remove site-
specific regulated constituents could
also strip and collect other VOCs
present in the ground water. Facilities
may also be required to remediate all
ground water contamination under
other state or federal actions or may
remediate additional contamination
voluntarily because of concern over
liability associated with leaving ground
water partially contaminated.
Alternatives to Ground Water
Monitoring
EPA is aware that the MSWLF rule
does not adequately allow for
alternatives to ground water monitoring
when ground water monitoring is not
practicable or would not detect early
releases. For example, some landfills are
located in arid regions where depth to
ground water may exceed many
hundreds of feet. In such a situation,
ground water monitoring wells located
at the margin of a unit might not
intercept a release, as it might move
laterally as well as vertically prior to
intercepting the ground water at great
depth. In addition, such wells would
not detect a release until considerable
contamination has entered the
subsurface. EPA is currently developing
a proposed rule to allow for alternative
monitoring systems for remote, small
arid landfills where monitoring of the
unsaturated zone would afford early
detection of releases before the release
migrates to the ground water. EPA has
not included a related provision in
today's proposed rule, because existing
information indicates that the affected
facilities are located adjacent to bodies
of water, where ground water under the
facility would be close to the surface. As
with other ground water monitoring
programs, EPA encourages owners or
operators to install innovative
monitoring systems, such as vadose
zone monitoring, in addition to ground
water monitoring, if those systems
would aid in the early detection of
releases.
(iii) Integration of option 2 with
existing programs.—EPA is aware that
many of the facilities that would be
subject to the requirements of Option 2
will be undergoing ground water
monitoring and corrective action under
existing state or federal authorities.
Approximately one half of the universe
of affected facilities will be RCRA
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or
disposal facilities (TSDFs) that are
permitted or operating under interim
status. As noted above, at these
facilities, the surface impoundments
subject to the Phase IV rule will be
"solid waste management units"
(SWMUs) that are eligible for corrective
action under § 3004(u) and (v),
§ 3008(h), § 7003, and other authorities,
such as CERCLA § 106. These surface
impoundments, as SWMUs, may or may
not be undertaking ground water
monitoring or corrective action when
the Phase IV rule becomes effective.
Similarly, certain states already require
ground water monitoring or corrective
action of surface impoundments,
regardless of their status under RCRA
Subtitles C or D. Further, some facilities
affected by today's rulemaking may be
conducting ground water monitoring
and corrective action activities that are
not required by a State or federal
government.
As stated above, to the extent that
state programs require ground water
monitoring and corrective action that
include the UTS constituents of concern
(or are modified to cover those
constituents) and are substantially
similar to today's proposal (i.e.,
frequency of monitoring, requirements
regarding ground water monitoring
wells), EPA is deferring to those State
and Tribal programs. However, EPA
anticipates that many of these state or
federal corrective action ground water
monitoring programs will not require
monitoring of all of the regulated
constituents identified by facilities
subject to today's rule. Owners or
operators could need to modify existing
ground water monitoring programs to
add any UHCs (and their associated
-------
43672 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
ground water protection standards
under 258.55(h)) that are not currently
being monitored to avoid any of the
potential Phase IV controls.
EPA also seeks comment on a ground-
water monitoring approach not
proposed in today's rule. As an
alternative, facilities that are triggered
into ground water monitoring under
today's rule would be required to
undertake a detection monitoring
program under 258.54, rather than
commence directly with an assessment
program. The purpose of a detection
monitoring program in the MSWLF rule
is to detect releases by monitoring a set
of constituents or parameters that
provide a reliable indication of ground
water contamination. In the MSWLF
rule, Appendix I to Part 258 was
developed as a list of organic and
inorganic constituents that are likely to
be found in the ground water if releases
occur from a MSWLF. As stated earlier,
EPA does not believe that this list is
appropriate for the facilities that are
subject to today's rulemaking, as they do
not have the type and variety of wastes
that are typically found in landfills.
Under this alternate option, EPA would
not require facilities under today's
rulemaking to monitor for Appendix I
Part 258 parameters under their
detection monitoring programs. Instead,
facilities would be required to monitor
for indicator parameters (such as
specific conductance, total organic
carbon, or total organic halogen), waste
constituents, or reaction products that
provide a reliable indication of the
presence of hazardous constituents in
ground water. If statistically significant
levels were detected above background
conditions of these indicator
parameters, the facility would be
required to undertake assessment
monitoring, wherein the facility would
analyze for the presence of UTS
constituents, assess the potential for
offsite releases, and initiate an
assessment of corrective measures. This
approach would shift the focus of the
initial ground water monitoring program
to the detection of releases, rather than
the detection of site-specific UHCs that
are regulated in today's rule. The
MSWLF rule, under 258.54(1) and (2),
lists several factors to allow an owner or
operator to deviate from the Appendix
I list under the approval of a state
director. Under this alternative
approach, facilities would establish an
alternate list through self-
implementation, rather than by state
approval.
(iv) Summary of specific requirements
for ground water monitoring and
corrective action from the MSWLF rule
§258.51 ground water monitoring
systems.—This section requires ground
water monitoring systems (if constituent
levels in impoundments exceed certain
levels) to meet certain requirements and
design specifications. Systems are
required to monitor both background
water quality and ground water at the
point of compliance.
§ 258.53 Ground Water Sampling
and Analysis. This section requires that
the owner/operator follow certain
sampling and analysis procedures,
including quality assurance and quality
control, and specifies the number of
samples taken and the statistical
procedures to be followed.
§ 258.55 Assessment Monitoring
Program. As discussed above, EPA is
proposing to require that owners or
operators that would be compelled to
undergo ground water monitoring under
today's rule bypass the MSWLF rule
detection monitoring program and
undertake assessment monitoring
directly. The purpose of the assessment
monitoring program in today's proposed
rule would be to monitor ground water
for the presence of site-specific
regulated constituents determined to be
present in the decharacterized
wastestream at the point of generation,
and to assess whether any statistically
significant releases need to undergo
corrective action. The assessment
monitoring program contains
requirements for sample number and
determination of background for
constituents, criteria for moving into
corrective action and additional
monitoring requirements under
corrective action. This section also
requires the owner/operator to establish
ground water protection standards for
each of the regulated constituents as
follows: (1) If an MCL is available, the
MCL is the ground water protection
standard; (2) if there is no MCL, the
background concentration is used as the
ground water protection standard; and
(3) if the background concentration is
greater than the MCL, the background
level is the ground water protection
standard. The Agency believes that it
may not be reasonable to require the
owner or operator to reduce the
concentrations of hazardous
constituents below background. (See 56
FR 51087, October 9, 1991). Although
background levels are not health-based
standards, they are a practical
measurement of what can be achieved
by remediation and today's proposal
would not preclude a State or other
entity from requiring an owner or
operator to clean up contamination
below background levels where it is
warranted. As noted earlier, specific
federal (e.g., 3004(u) corrective action),
state, local, or tribal levels also could be
used in lieu of these levels.
Furthermore, in light of the self-
implementing nature of these specific
standards for leaks for surface
impoundments, the Agency is not
adopting the provisions of 268.55(1)
which address the site specific
protection standards.
As discussed above, EPA will not
require owner/operators under
assessment monitoring to scan the
ground water for constituents listed in
Appendix II to Part 258. Instead,
facilities will move directly to
assessment of regulated constituents as
required in §258.56 if statistically
significant levels of contaminants are
found to exceed the ground water
protection standard. More information
on the required monitoring program can
be found in "Technical Support
Document—Options for Management
Standards for Leaks, Sludges, and Air
Emissions From Surface Impoundments
Accepting Decharacterized Wastes" in
the RCRA Docket.
§ 258.56 Assessment of corrective
measures.—Within 90 days of finding
that any of the regulated constituents
have been detected at a statistically
significant level exceeding the ground
water protection standards, the owner/
operator must undertake an assessment
of corrective measures that addresses
specified criteria.
As discussed above, today's rule
would also introduce the new
requirement into § 258.57 that once it is
determined that corrective measures are
necessary, the facility would be required
to implement one of the following: (1)
cease discharge of the decharacterized
wastestream into the surface
impoundment as soon as is practical
(i.e., reroute decharacterized
wastestream to a tank) or (2) installation
of a double liner and leachate collection
system.
§258.57 Selection of remedy. Based
on the results of the assessment required
by § 258.56, the owner/operator must
select a remedy that meets several
protectiveness standards. This section
also requires that the owner/operator
consider several evaluation factors
when selecting a remedy and establish
a schedule for initiating and completing
the remedial activities. This section also
allows for no remediation under
enumerated circumstances, e.g., ground
water is already contaminated by
multiple sources and clean up of release
would provide no significant reduction
of risk. The Agency has determined that
since these remediation waivers are not
self-implementing, they will not be
adopted as part of this proposal.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
43673
§258.58 Implementation of the
corrective action program. This section
requires that once a remedy is selected,
the owner/operator must implement a
corrective action program that
demonstrates compliance with the
ground water protection standards
established under § 258.55. If necessary,
the owner/operator must also take
interim measures to protect human
health and the environment. Other
requirements in this section include
implementing alternative methods or
techniques for remediation if the
selected remedy is not effective, and
criteria for establishing when meeting
the ground water protection standard
cannot practicably be achieved.
5. Proposed Management Standards for
Sludges
a. Scope. Under Option 2, the Agency
would require management standards
for sludges from prebiological surface
impoundments in CWA, CWA-
equivalent, or nonhazardous wastewater
treatment systems that accept
decharacterized wastes, when the
sludges are removed from the
impoundments for land disposal
elsewhere. Data available to the Agency
indicate that UHCs may be present in
the decharacterized wastewaters and
may be transferred to sludges in these
impoundments at concentrations that
pose a threat to human health and the
environment. The Agency has limited
data indicating biological or post-
biological surface impoundment sludges
do not pose significant risks when
disposed. Nor would the Agency expect
significant concentrations of hazardous
constituents to be present. A more
detailed discussion of today's proposed
rule can be found in the technical
support document entitled, "Technical
Support Document for Leaks, Sludges,
and Air Emissions—Phase IV."
b. Rationale. The approach for sludges
under this option is conceptually
similar to that proposed for the ground
water and air exposure scenarios. If
sludges contain hazardous constituents
in excess of levels that pose a risk to
human health or the environment (see
976 F. 2d at 17), this form of cross-
media transfer of hazardous constituents
could be considered too excessive to
allow the impoundment to be
considered an equivalent form of
treatment, unless the sludges were to be
treated to remove that risk. Under this
option, the evaluation would be made at
the time sludges are removed from the
impoundment, not while the sludges
remain within an impoundment. This is
because EPA does not believe in-place
sludges would be a release pathway
separate from the leaks pathway. Put
another way, by controlling leaks (as
explained in the previous section), any
risks posed by sludges while in the
impoundment should be accounted for.
Consequently, any potential incremental
risk would arise when the sludges are
disposed elsewhere. (Cf. RCRA section
3005 (j) (11) indicating that treatment
standards for hazardous sludges do not
apply while sludges are in the
impoundment, and thus apply only
when the sludges are removed and land
disposed).
EPA is proposing the technology-
based UTS as the benchmark for
evaluating whether sludges are capable
of posing significant risk. This approach
could be replaced when the Agency
develops risk-based levels through the
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
process. In the interim, the UTS
standards serve as the best available
measure of when threats are minimized,
and treatment to those levels certainly
satisfies any requirement of equivalent
treatment.
EPA also reiterates that, as a legal
matter, it can be argued that even no
treatment of sludges is equivalent to
subtitle C LDR controls. This is because
generation of sludges is usually a new
point of generation at which the newly-
generated waste is reevaluated to
determine if it is subject to the LDR
standards. If non-hazardous, the sludges
would not be so subject (i.e., would not
be prohibited wastes). See 55 FR 22661-
62. Thus, literal application of an
equivalence test would result in no
treatment of these sludges, since the
sludges will be non-hazardous wastes
by definition (they cannot be hazardous
wastes because they are being generated
in subtitle D impoundments), and so
would not require further treatment
under the standard subtitle C approach.
c. Applicability. For a simplified
guide to applicability criteria and
management standards for sludges, see
Figure 4.
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-P
-------
Examine the FoNowbig to
Determine H the Surface
Impoundment may be
Excluded from the
Management Standards
tor Sludge*:
Evaluate Sludges at
the Time they are
Removed from the
Surface Impoundment
Y
p
' m • •- *
Surface •npounomem
Is not Subject to
Management Standards
for Sludge*
Does the
ludge Contain
any Regulated
Constituents at
Concentrations
Exceeding
UTS
treat Sludges (by Means
other than Dilution) to
Meet UTS Prior to Land
Disposal
• Pre-Wologlcal surface Impoundments are used for physical and chemical
treatment of raw or partially treated wastewater streams. Blotoglcal surface
Impoundments are used tor biological treatment of wastewater streams. Post-
buSoglcal surface Impoundments are used to clarify biologically treated wastewater
prior to additional treatment or discharge.
Figure 4: Option 2 - Applicability Criteria and Management Standards for Sludges
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 43675
d. Determining UHC concentrations in
surface impoundment sludges. The
Agency would require sampling of the
sludges removed from prebiological
surface impoundments at the time the
sludges are removed to determine if the
concentrations of LJHCs in the removed
sludge exceed UTS. Representative
sampling and analysis of the sludge
need only be conducted for those UHCs
identified in the characteristic
wastewater at the point of generation. A
more detailed discussion of
representative sampling and analyses is
provided in the technical support
document entitled, "Technical Support
Document for Leaks, Sludges, and Air
Emissions—Phase IV."
e. Management standards. If the
concentration level of one or more of the
UHCs exceeds UTS, then the sludge
must be treated by means other than
dilution to meet UTS. If the surface
impoundment will no longer be
receiving decharacterized wastewaters,
then the owner or operator would be
required to conduct representative
sampling of the sludges when sludges
are next removed from the
impoundment. No further sampling of
removed sludges would be required
after decharacterized wastes are no
longer received by the unit.
6. Recordkeeping Requirements for
Leaks and Sludges
Under Option 2, the Agency would
establish recordkeeping requirements
for leaks and sludges. An owner or
operator that utilizes surface
impoundments in CWA, CWA-
equivalent, or non-hazardous
wastewater treatment systems to manage
decharacterized wastes would have to
maintain records of any test results,
waste analyses, or other determinations
for at least three years.
7. Sampling and Analysis
The Agency would like to point out
that the sampling and analysis
requirements are not overly
burdensome. Owners and operators that
would be affected by today's proposed
Phase IV rules would only be required
to perform a minimum number of
analyses. Generator knowledge could be
used in lieu of sampling and analysis.
See section I.D.S.c. for a discussion of
what constitutes acceptable generator
knowledge.
I. Option 3
A final option to address the potential
problem of releases of hazardous
constituents from decharacterized
wastes in surface impoundments is to
require that such wastes meet UTS for
the UHCs before entering the
impoundment (unless the impoundment
satisfies Minimum Technology
Requirements or the statutory no
migration standard). A waste could be
aggregated and diluted, but achievement
of UTS for the hazardous constituents
would have to be accomplished by mass
removal/destruction before entering a
surface impoundment. The pollution
prevention compliance alternative and
the de minimis exemption would be
allowed for Option 3. For a simplified
guide to Option 3, see Figure 5.
BILLING CODE 6560-60-P
-------
I
Does
the Facility
Generate a
Characteristic
Hazardous
Waste that Is
Decharact
by Dilution
Document
how Waste
meets
Exclusion
Criterion
Does the
characterized
Waste Meet the De
Minlmis Waste
Exclusion
riterion
7
Examine the Following to Determine if the
Decharacterized Waste may be Excluded
from the Management Standards:
Waste is Not Subject
to Management Standards
Has the
Facility Met the
Pollution Prevention
Compliance
Alternative
Exclusion
Criterion
7
Document
how Waste
meets
Exclusion
Criterion
Wast* Managed in a
Wa«<« to Not Subject
to Management Standards
Surface Impoundment^
In a CWA. CWA-eflutvalent,
or Other Non-hazardous
Wastewater Treatment
Owner/Operator must
Document Waste
Analyses or Generator
Knowledge Used.
Owner/Operator must
Reevahiate Waste if
Process or Other Chang*
Occurs Affecting the Waste.
Is
the Waste
Redirected
to Tank-based
Treatment
7
Document Demonstration
of Change In Management
Practices from Surface
Impoundments to Tank
Based Treatment
DOM the
Decharacterized
Waste Contain UHCs
at Concentrations
Greater than UTS
•« the Point of
Waste Must
be Treated by
Means other
than Dilution to
Meet UTS Prior
to Discharge
to the Surface
Impoundment
Impoundment
Meet the Subtitle C
Minimum
Technology
Impoundment
Meet the Statutory
No Migration
Standard
7
Waste Is not Subject
to Management
Standards
Figures: Option 3 - Applicability Crileri. .id Compliance
AH«rn.til« f.r Surface Impoundment. Accepting Dech.r.ct«m«d W«t«»
W
O5
OJ
"fl
CD
CL
CD
log.
w»"
05
p
Z
o
05
s1
CD
O-
03
IS3
to
CO
CO
"d
I
o
CD
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 43677
It should be noted that this option is
already available as a means of
complying with any of the requirements
in Option 2. The question here is
whether this should be the only
alternative allowed. EPA's view is that
it should not be the exclusive approach,
for reasons of law and policy. This
approach destroys the very
accommodation between the CWA and
RCRA upheld by the B.C. Circuit. It
would invalidate impoundment-based
treatment systems, even if such
treatment systems can be shown to be
equivalent to RCRA treatment within
the meaning of the opinion. Since the
court hinted that RCRA "requires" some
accommodation with the CWA on this
issue (976 F. 2d at 20), there is some
question whether EPA even has the
authority to mandate the approach. The
Agency believes the approach unwise in
any case, and has so stated in the Third
rule itself as well as later discussions.
Very simply, impoundment-based
wastewater treatment systems can be
effective means of treating
decharacterized wastewaters, and can
do so without undermining core values
of RCRA and the LDR program.
Consequently, such treatment should
not be effectively invalidated by
requiring all treatment of characteristic
wastes to occur upstream of
impoundments.
II. Proposal Not to Ban Nonamenable
Wastes From Land-Based Biological
Treatment Systems
Summary: EPA believes that
prohibiting certain decharacterized
wastes from land-based wastewater
treatment systems on the basis of
whether the constituents in those wastes
are "amenable" to biological treatment
is unnecessary at this time. Instead, EPA
is proposing to prevent excessive
environmental contamination of
hazardous constituents that leave
surface impoundments. Technical
obstacles present another reason not to
ban nonamenable wastes.
A. Background
The Environmental Technology
Council (ETC) has suggested that EPA
develop regulations restricting Subtitle
D surface impoundment disposal of
organic compounds and metals resistant
to biological degradation in these units.
The Chemical Manufacturer's
Association (CMA) provided EPA with
comments on ETC's suggested approach.
These strategies focused on identifying
those constituents which are relatively
resistant to biological degradation in
order to develop regulations setting
maximum acceptable concentrations for
these constituents in surface
impoundment influent. The Phase III
proposed LDR rule summarizes the ETC
and CMA positions, and discusses
several technical issues (41 FR 11717).
ETC's comment is included in the
rulemaking docket for the Phase HI
proposal.
B. Rationale for Proposing Not to Ban
Nonamenable Wastes From Biological
Treatment Systems
EPA has carefully considered the
policy and technical issues raised by the
suggestion to ban nonamenable wastes
from biological treatment
impoundments. The Agency believes
that the key issue of whether such
impoundments serve as transfers of
nonamenable constituents to air, leaks,
sludges, or discharges to surface waters
is best addressed by the Phase III end-
of-pipe limits on constituents, coupled
with the options in Section I of this
preamble. The provisions in Phase III
and Phase IV are designed to protect
human health and the environment
from hazardous constituents in surface
impoundments, therefore, there is no
need to regulate nonamenable wastes.
Additionally, if constituents are not
excessively migrating to ground water
through leaks, to air through emissions,
adsorbing onto sludge sediments, or
being discharged at the end of pipe,
then EPA can be reasonably certain that
treatment in the impoundment is
adequate.
Furthermore, EPA believes that the
technical impediments to banning
nonamenable wastes from biological
treatment impoundments are
significant. First, the design and
operating conditions of biological
treatment can vary widely. Second, the
"amenability" of constituents at the
point of generation may not reflect the
ultimate amenability in the biological
treatment system. Finally, variations in
the influent stream composition,
acclimation of the biomass, and the
effect of other constituents add another
level of uncertainty to the process of
determining the amenability of a
particular waste stream. These multiple
uncertainties make an accurate
assessment of amenability on the level
of the stream or of the constituent
extremely difficult.
III. Improvements to Land Disposal
Restrictions Program
A. Clean Up of Part 268 Regulations
In today's rule, EPA is proposing to
"clean up" existing regulatory language
that is outdated, confusing, or
unnecessary. Some sections are
clarified, some have been condensed,
while others are altogether removed.
Comments are solicited on the proposed
changes that follow.
1. Section 268.4
Section 268.4(a)(2)(iv) would be
changed to read, "Recordkeeping. The
sampling, analysis, and recordkeeping
provisions of §§ 264.13 and 265.13
apply." The existing language in § 268.4
duplicates the substantive requirements
of §§ 264.13 and 265.13. Referencing the
§§ 264.13 and 265.13 requirements in
§ 268.4 clarifies that there are no
additional recordkeeping requirements
at § 268.4; the general facility
recordkeeping requirements apply, thus
the LDR program does not add
additional burden.
2. Section 268.5
Section 268.5(e) would be amended to
clarify that an applicant could be
granted additional time (up to one year)
beyond the one-year case-by-case
extension; when first applying for the
case-by-case extension, the applicant
would be required to show that the
additional time (beyond the extension
in the first year) would be necessary to
provide capacity to treat the applicant's
waste. Comments are requested on this
issue.
3. Section 268.7
Much of the language specifying what
must be included on LDR notifications
at § 268.7 needs revision; therefore, this
section is proposed to be rewritten to
reflect changes, clarify the existing
notification requirements, and generally
simplify the requirements for generators
of hazardous waste. The proposed
changes in § 268.7(a) would result in
renumbering of the paragraphs. The new
numbering scheme for this section is
used in this discussion. Also, the
generator paperwork requirements are
proposed to be consolidated into a table
at § 268.7(a)(4), and the treatment
facility requirements into a table at
§268.7(b)(4).
References in Part 268 to LDR
treatment standards that have
previously been found in tables in
§§ 268.41, 268.42, and 268.43, are
proposed to be changed to refer to the
consolidated table in § 268.40—
Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Wastes.
References to § 268.32 and RCRA
3004(d), California List wastes, are
removed, because the treatment
standards for these wastes have been
superseded by subsequent treatment
standards.
In § 268.7(a)(3), the rule requires that
to each receiving land disposal facility,
a notification must go with each
shipment of restricted waste that meets
-------
^n^SS^^?^
1995 / Proposed Rules^
^——•^^^^" —-
^identify the method
eories the Evaluating ^»- • - -
wasiBa»"»rr—- , tS ' Chemical Methods
—r^0:--- K^3*s=>-
ssssa^*",,,,,,, s^Sff^j-sffl
T -:_„ T-noaciire in luuajr " r rlptailS Ol Ult5 ica>- "
_..u«r> Q reference ior u.tsian«» _ «^ir>n <
5 Sections 268.30-268.37
- OR« 11-268.37 are proposed
Sections 268'^ lhe treatment
to be removed bef us£"_ese sections
standards for-wastes£ the^ ^^
are now in effect, thus al u^ ^^
are now prohibited^ i ^ ^ ^^ needed
process
te does not under this section
required to references to §§ 2t
Itodttds^i268-40
— r ^.\f
in this proposed rule.
6's proposed, c .be removed
Ptes
if generators are
2«SS5wSi
§ 268.32 of this part ^^ ^^^ ^
are re
ilUJi v «-
details of the test method
6. Section 268.9
proposed to be ^fto treatment
because it '""^^.42, and
Sen superseded by Umversa I
Treatment S^d organic
are California
tobe
List wastes
when
and also as a
sta
need to know the
^^
waste
dat ^
There is, therefore no neea
.
Treatment
*->iA*"" *~— -i * *•* or^Vl
was,ecodesdonoaahh
in naraeraph IdJUJv.!1)-l" °u
— SS^Er,,
==»«!sSB5*
longer needed. dtobe
Appendix IX is prop
a
. There i^ .longer any
t'±5S=~s;""
the LDR notification. This is nu
• ^^.nrio hpcause sucn
substantive change, u 4Q CFR
HSEHfesr-
January 3,1995).
•**• r* r
removed and reserve
summarizes
that are pro[
Phase 111 pro'_
Furthermore,
_1_ *«
in the
u proposal.
ncy finalizes the
Aff
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
43679
and 268.7(b), there is no need for
summary tables in the appendix.
The Agency is committed to
identifying new ways the LDR program
can be simplified, and will continue to
seek additional opportunities for such
streamlining efforts in the future.
B. Simplification of Treatment Standard
for Waste Code F039
Summary: Today's proposal
simplifies the presentation of the
treatment standard for multisource
leachate, which is waste code F039.
Discussion: With the promulgation of
the Universal Treatment Standards
(UTS) in the Phase II rule (59 FR 47982),
there is no longer a need for the separate
list of constituents for F039 which
currently appears in the table titled
"Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Wastes" at 40 CFR 268.40. EPA
proposes that F039 meet all the UTS for
the constituents at § 268.48, with the
exceptions of fluoride, vanadium, and
zinc. In other words, while F039
remains the waste code for leachate
from hazardous waste disposal facilities,
the treatment standards for wastewater
and nonwastewater forms of individual
constituents now reference the UTS
(§ 268.48), with the exceptions of
fluoride, vanadium, and zinc.
C. POLYM Method of Treatment for
High-TOC Ignitable D001 Wastes
Summary: EPA proposes to add
polymerization (POLYM) to the set of
required methods of treatment
designated Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BOAT) for high-TOC
ignitable (D001) wastes resulting from
commercial polymerization processes.
Discussion: Polymerization (POLYM)
processes convert deactivated waste into
a chemically stable plastic in the same
manner that commercial plastics were
formed with the reagent which is being
disposed of as a high-TOC D001 waste.
The National Marine Manufacturer's
Association contacted EPA with
concerns that the May 1993 Interim
Final Rule (58 FR 29860) prohibited the
practice of polymerizing excess
polyester/styrene waste left over from
the manufacture of modular shower
stalls and recreational boats. The
prohibition was actually established in
the 1990 Third Third (55 FR 22520). In
these manufacturing processes
polyester/styrene reacts with methyl
ethyl ketone peroxide in a mold to form
fiberglass. The ignitable waste
polyester/styrene and MEK peroxide are
the wastes of concern.
Waste polyester/styrene monomers
and MEK peroxide are commonly
disposed of by reacting small quantities
together to create fiberglass scraps. The
waste polyester/styrene monomers and
MEK peroxide are currently regulated as
high-TOC ignitable wastes for which the
current standard is treatment by CMBST
(combustion) or by RORGS (recovery of
organics) before land disposal. Neither
CMBST nor RORGS allows for
polymerization of high-TOC ignitable
wastes into inert materials which do not
exhibit any characteristics of toxicity,
ignitability, corrosivity or reactivity.
The Agency believes that the ongoing
practice of polymerizing characteristic
wastes to a noncharacteristic inert mass
adequately protects human health and
the environment.
Today's rule proposes POLYM as an
alternative to CMBST or RORGS for
those high-TOC D001 wastes which are
chemical components in the
manufacture of plastics. POLYM
requires the addition of a polymerizing
component or catalyst to the discarded
high-TOC D001 monomer stream
intended for land disposal. POLYM is
defined as "Formation of complex high-
molecular weight solids through
polymerization of monomers in high-
TOC D001 nonwastewaters." The
Agency notes that the accumulation
time provisions for on-site storage of
hazardous waste in tanks (40 CFR
262.34) allow facilities to store waste
monomers and catalysts up to 90 days
after the ignitable components are
discarded provided that these wastes are
kept in adequate tanks. (40 CFR
IV. Exclusion for Recycled Wood
Preserving Process Wastewaters
Summary: In response to wood
preserving industry concerns that
production wastewaters being reclaimed
are improperly classified as solid waste
under RCRA Subtitle C, EPA is
providing an opportunity for the
industry to supply information that
could potentially form the basis for an
industry-wide variance.
Discussion: EPA has recognized that
certain wastes from wood preserving
and surface protection, most notably
drippage, are reclaimed and then
returned to the wood preserving process
for reuse (see 53 FR 53311). The Agency
received numerous comments to its
proposed wood preserving rule claiming
that waste recycling and reuse practices
at wood preserving and surface
protection plants should be excluded
from the definition of solid waste.
In its December 6, 1990 wood
preserving listing, EPA rejected that
claim. The Agency stated that the
current regulations correctly classify
drippage and wastewaters from the
wood processing industry destined for
reclamation as solid waste since the
capture and conveyance mechanisms
used in the operation do not meet the
terms of the § 261.4(a)(8) closed-loop
exclusion (see 53 FR 50460). While
rejecting any broad attempt to exclude
these wastes from the definition of solid
waste, the Agency did point out a
variance provision in the regulations,
§ 260.30 and § 260.31(b), that could
apply to the wood preserving industry.
The provision allows for variances to be
granted on a case-by-case basis to
individual facilities, provided that an
EPA Regional Administrator or
authorized State Director makes a
determination that a particular
reclamation operation is an essential
part of the production process, taking
into account a number of criteria,
including how carefully the material is
handled before it is reclaimed (see 53
FR 50460).
The Agency's rationale for creating
the § 260.30 and § 260.31(b) variance
was that it may be inappropriate to
regulate a reclamation process under
RCRA when the process is an essential
part of production, assuming the
secondary materials being reclaimed are
not part of the waste disposal problem.
Section 260.31(b) lists a number of
criteria to be considered by a regulator
when determining whether a
reclamation operation meets the terms
of this provision. Although this variance
was originally intended to be granted on
a case-by-case basis, if these criteria can
be demonstrated on an industry-wide
basis, EPA will consider a conditional
exclusion. Comments are requested on
the extent to which the reclamation of
production wastewaters from the wood
preserving industry meet the criteria
found in§260.31(b).
Section 260.31(b)(3), which requires
the regulator to take into account "the
extent to which the material is handled
before reclamation to minimize loss," is
of particular interest in evaluating this
reclamation operation. In the wood
preserving industry, this would
certainly apply to releases from a drip
pad, clearly a waste and clearly a
potential part of the waste management
problem (damage cases described in 53
FR 53323), and the extent to which such
releases could be prevented. It appears
that prevention of drip pad releases
could be adequately achieved through
compliance with 40 CFR 264, Subpart
W (drip pads). EPA is interested in
receiving comments on any alternative
and perhaps better ways that the
industry might meet the § 260.31(b)(3)
standard.
As part of an ongoing effort to revise
the current definition of solid waste,
EPA is taking a close look at the
regulations for on-site recycling. In the
-------
43680
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
meantime, we are willing to consider
quicker action on wood processing
production wastewaters, provided we
receive adequate information to make an
industry-wide determination that the
reclamation operation is an essential
part of production and that the
secondary materials being reclaimed are
not likely to be a part of the waste
disposal problem.
V. Treatment Standards for Newly
Listed and Identified Wastes
A. Background
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA, which
were enacted on November 8, 1984,
largely prohibit the land disposal of
untreated hazardous wastes. RCRA
requires EPA to promulgate treatment
standards for a waste within six months
after determining it is hazardous (RCRA
section 3004(g)(4)).
The Agency did not meet this latter
statutory deadline for all of the wastes
identified or listed after the 1984
amendments. As a result, a suit was
filed by the Environmental Defense
Fund (EOF) EPA and EOF signed a
consent decree that establishes a
schedule for adopting prohibitions and
treatment standards for newly identified
and listed wastes. (EDF v. Reilly, Cir.
No. 89-0598, D.D.C.). Today's notice
proposes treatment standards for two of
those waste groups: wood preserving
wastes and metal wastes that are
considered hazardous under the revised
Toxicity Characteristic (TC).
B. Treatment Standards for Soil
Contaminated With Newly Listed
Wastes
The Agency has stated a presumption
that the treatment standards for as-
generated wastes are generally
inappropriate or unachievable for soils
contaminated with hazardous wastes,
within the meaning of 40 CFR 268.44(a)
(see 55 FR 8759-60, March 8, 1990). It
has been the Agency's experience that
contaminated soils are significantly
different in their treatability
characteristics from the wastes that have
been evaluated in establishing the
BDAT standards, and thus, will
generally qualify for a treatability
variance under 40 CFR 268.44. For
guidance on treatability variances for
soils, see the EPA Fact Sheet entitled
"Regional Guide: Issuing Site-Specific
Treatability Variances for Contaminated
Soils and Debris from Land Disposal
Restrictions" (OSWER Publication
9839.3-08FS). For RCRA actions, the
Regional Administrator was delegated
the authority to deny or grant these
variances in a non-rulemaking
procedure under 40 CFR 268.44(h) on
April 22, 1991. These variances may be
granted by State agencies in States
authorized for § 268.44. Variance
authority for CERCLA actions is
discussed in LDR Guides 6A (revised
Sept. 1990) and 6B (OSWER 9347.3-
06FS and 9347.3-06BFS).
EPA is proposing a national capacity
variance for soil and debris
contaminated with Phase IV newly
listed wastes. If the capacity variance is
made final, any site-specific treatability
variance would not be necessary during
the period the capacity variance is in
effect.
C. Treatment Standards for Wood
Preserving Wastes 2
Summary: NEPA is proposing to
apply Universal Treatment Standards
(UTS) to wood preserving wastes (F032,
F034, and F035).
1. Identification of Wastes
F032—Wastewaters, process
residuals, preservative drippage, and
spent formulations from wood
preserving processes generated at plants
that currently use or have previously
used chlorophenolic formulations.3
F034—Wastewaters, process
residuals, preservative drippage, and
spent formulations from wood
preserving processes generated at plants
that use creosote formulations.
F035—Wastewaters, process
residuals, preservative drippage, and
spent formulations from wood
preserving processes generated at plants
that use inorganic preservatives
containing arsenic or chromium.
Wastes from the wood preserving
industry, F032, F034, and F035, were
listed as hazardous on December 6,
1990, (see 55 FR 50450). EPA is
proposing to regulate specific
constituents from each of these
hazardous wastes groups. (A list of the
hazardous constituents proposed for
regulation are found within the Table at
the end of this preamble discussion.)
These wastes are generated during the
treatment or preservation of wood
products such as poles, crossarms,
timbers, rail road ties, and fence posts.
Pentachlorophenol, creosote, and
inorganic arsenical and/or chromated
salts are the primary active ingredients
that are used to preserve wood products.
2 These listings do not include K001 bottom
sediment sludge from the treatment of wastewater
from wood preserving processes that use creosote
and/or pentachlorophenol.
3 This treatment standard would apply except
where potentially cross-contaminated wastes have
had the F032 waste code deleted in accordance
with section 40 CFR 261.35 and where the generator
does not resume or initiate use of chlorophenolic
formulations.
The application of these chemicals
generate wastewaters, process solid
residuals, preservative drippages, and
spent formulations. The listing
document for F032, F034, and F035
provides additional information on the
processes generating each of these
wastes.
2. Proposed Treatment Standards
After reviewing the available
characterization data on untreated and
treated wastes that are believed to be at
least as difficult to treat as F032, F034,
and F035, EPA has determined that UTS
are technically achievable for the
constituents proposed for regulation in
F032, F034, and F035. (The BDAT
background document provides
information on EPA's rationale for
developing and applying UTS to these
wastes. Also see LDR Phase II final rule,
59 FR 47982, September 19, 1994, for
further discussion of UTS.) EPA is thus
proposing that each constituent
proposed for regulation in F032, F034,
and F035 comply with its applicable
UTS in the treatment standard table at
40 CFR 268.40, as a prerequisite for land
disposal.
EPA believes that this proposal is
consistent with EPA's efforts to ease
compliance burdens by setting one
treatment standard for the same
regulated constituent in various wastes.
Wood preserving facilities currently
manage these hazardous wastes at
commercial hazardous waste
management facilities that manage
wood preserving wastes as well as other
hazardous wastes prohibited from land
disposal. These commercial treatment
facilities will likely commingle wood
preserving wastes with other similar
wastes in treatment trains that achieve
UTS. Furthermore, the data available on
the treatment of wastes believed to be as
difficult, or more difficult, to treat as
F032, F034, and F035 support the
achievability of UTS.
3. Review of Available Characterization
Data
EPA has reviewed available
characterization data on F032, F034,
and F035 from documents supporting
the listing of these wastes as hazardous.
EPA has also used additional data
gathered by EPA on F035 during 1991
(EPA's 1991 study), which include data
on untreated and treated F035 wastes
(with the exception of one study that
describes the bench scale treatment of a
CCA formulation believed to simulate
the treatment of F035 wastewaters) from
three wood preserving facilities; from
untreated and treated F035 wastes
commingled at a hazardous waste
treatment facility prior to their
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
43681
stabilization with lime and cementious
agents; from an EPA in-house
treatability study of F035 via
stabilization with lime, fly ash, and
cementious agents; and, from an EPA in-
house feasibility study to selectively
remove arsenic, chromium, and copper
from a synthetic simulated F035
wastewater.
Other literature consulted includes
EPA's Preliminary Data Summary for
the Wood Preserving Segment of the
Timber Products Processing Point
Source Category, September 1991 (EPA
440/1-91/023) (referred to here as the
1991 Preliminary Data Summary of the
Wood Preserving Industry (1991
PDSWPI)). Other documents reviewed
include 1986-1990 summary abstracts
on the treatment of F032, F034, and
F035 contaminated soils at Superfund
sites, other literature published on the
treatment of wood preserving and
petroleum refining contaminated soils,
and data submitted by commenters on
the Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking of October 21, 1990
(ANPRM) (see 56 FR 55160) and the
LDR Phase II rule of September 19, 1994
(59 FR 47980).
4. Determination of Best Demonstrated
Available Technology (BOAT)
a. Nonwastewaters. For
nonwastewater forms of F032 and F034,
the proposed treatment standards of
each of the organic constituents are
based on the combustion of wastes
believed to be as difficult, or more
difficult, to treat as P'032 and F034. For
metals in nonwastewater forms of F032,
F034, and F035, EPA has determined
that stabilization is BOAT for chromium
(total), and that vitrification is BOAT for
arsenic.
b. Wastewaters. For wastewater forms
of F032 and F034, the proposed UTS for
each organic constituent are based on
treatment technologies such as
biological treatment, steam stripping,
carbon absorption, or by a train of two
or more wastewater treatment
technologies. The proposed treatment
standards for metals in wastewater
forms of F032, F034, and F035 are based
on lime addition followed by
sedimentation, and filtration for arsenic
and in chemical precipitation followed
by sedimentation for chromium. Like
chromium, copper, lead, and zinc are
also amenable to chemical precipitation
followed by filtration.
EPA believes that the treatment
technologies supporting the proposed
UTS are also BOAT for F032, F034, and
F035. This is because they are
demonstrated for wastes as difficult or
more difficult, to treat. EPA also
believes that none of the hazardous
constituents in F032, F034, and F035
are likely to interfere with the treatment
of the constituents proposed for
regulation. In addition, EPA reviewed
the performance of other thermal and
non-thermal treatment or recovery
technologies demonstrated on wastes
similar to F032, F034, and F035. EPA
believes that these other technologies
can reach or can be optimized to meet
the proposed UTS limits. Therefore, the
Agency is not prohibiting the use of
other technologies capable of achieving
the proposed treatment standards except
for those constituting land disposal or
impermissible dilution.
5. Proposed Regulation of Dioxin and
Furan Constituents in F032
EPA has found in F032 hornologues of
polychlorinated di-benzo-p-dioxins
(PCDDs) and polychlorinated di-
benzofurans (PCDFs). These homologue-
isomers are a result of impurities from
formulations that employ
chlorophenolic chemicals such as
pentachlorophenol (PCP) and other
chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons. EPA
is proposing treatment standards that
would require meeting a concentration
that does not exceed 1 ppb (also
expressed as ug/kg) for all the PCDD and
PCDF homologue and isomer
constituents proposed for regulation.
EPA also requests data on the treatment
of these constituents.
Commenters to the ANPRM of April
1991, were concerned that the selection
of PCDD and PCDF as hazardous
constituents in nonwastewater forms of
F032 could result in commercial
treatment facilities refusing to manage
F032 wastes due to public sensitivities
about these chemicals. Some
commenters urged EPA not to regulate
PCDD and PCDF but rather, to regulate
surrogate constituents such as
pentachlorophenols, gross parameters
such as total suspended solids and oil
and grease levels, or precursor
constituents of PCDD and PCDF such as
"hexachlorobenzene, 1,2,4-
trichlorobenzene, and 1,2,4,5-
tetrachlorobenzene". Only one
commenter, however, submitted data on
the use of alternate constituents- The
data consisted of the influent
characterization data for wastewaters
treated via biological treatment and the
end-of-pipe treated effluents. The data
did not include the concentrations of
PCDD and PCDF that were achieved in
the biosludges and end-of-pipe treated
wastewater effluents; thus EPA is
unable to determine how the monitoring
of alternative constituents or gross
parameters can ensure the destruction of
PCDD and PCDF constituents.
Other commenters requested that EPA
defer or forgo the regulation of PCDD
and PCDF in F032. They believe that
regulation of other hazardous
constituents in F032 will provide PCDD
and PCDF with adequate treatment. No
data were provided to support these
statements.
EPA believes that the regulation of
PCDD and PCDF is necessary to ensure
their destruction. PCDD and PCDF are
relatively insoluble in wastewaters.
Because they tend to adhere to
suspended particles, they may go
untreated through wastewater treatment
systems. Also, PCDD and PCDF can be
solubilized in oils, and thus may go
untreated through biological treatment
systems. In contrast, EPA has data from
the combustion of hazardous wastes and
soils which shows that the combustion
of PCDD- and PCDF-constituents wastes
in two stage combustion devices leaves
behind incineration ash and other
residues with PCDD and PCDF levels
below 1 ppb. Other performance data
include residues from other thermal
destruction devices such as supercritical
oxidation (Hubber Process) and infrared
incineration (Shirco reactor).
Another consideration in proposing
regulation of PCDD and PCDF is that
FO32 can potentially contain
concentrations of up to 300 ppb in
wastewaters and between 1 ppb to
140,000 ppb in nonwastewaters. These
concentrations become more significant
if they are allowed to go untreated in
non-thermal treatment technologies
such as separation and filtration. EPA
has identified one commercial facility
currently permitted to combust wastes
that may have PCDD and PCDF
constituents with concentrations one to
two orders of magnitude higher than
those levels found in F032.
For nonwastewater forms, the
proposed treatment standards are based
on the performance of combustion. For
wastewater forms, the proposed
treatment standards are based on the
performance of biological treatment. As
mentioned earlier, other aggressive
oxidation technologies such as infrared
incineration (Shirco process),
supercritical oxidation (Hubber
process), and pyrolytical destruction
devices can also achieve the proposed
treatment standards. EPA requests
comments on the use of non-thermal
treatment technologies that have been
optimized to treat PCDD and PCDF in
wastes as difficult to treat as F032. In
particular, EPA requests comments on
whether non-thermal technologies such
as chemical dechlorination via the use
of the Alkaline Polyethylene Glycolate
(APEG or KPEG) process or the Based
Catalyzed Decomposition process and
-------
43682
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
ultraviolet (uv) photolysis are also
capable of achieving limits at or below
the proposed UTS limits for dioxins and
furans in wastewater and
nonwastewater forms of F032. EPA has
been testing the applicability of the BCD
Process and APEG on various
chlorinated wastes and contaminated
soil, and wood preserving wastes. EPA
expects to make the results of the BCD
treatability studies available to the
public in the fall of 1995.
PROPOSED BOAT STANDARDS FOR F032, F034, F035
[Wastewaters and nonwastewaters]
Constituent
Phenols:
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
PAHs:
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz (a,h) anthracene
Fluorene
lndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Dioxins and Furans:
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
Pentachlorodibenzofurans
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
Inorganics:
Arsenic
Chromium (total)
Wastewaters
maximum for
any 24 Hr.
composite
Total com-
position
(mg/l)
0.039
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.089
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.061
*0.11
0.059
0.055
0.059
0.0055
0.059
0.059
0.067
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
0.000063
0.000035
0.000063
1.4
2.77
Nonwastewa-
ters maxi-
mum for any
grab sample
Total com-
position
(mg/kg)
6.2
14.0
7.4
7.4
7.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
*6.8
3.4
8.2
3.4
3.4
5.6
5.6
8.2
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.001
5.0
0.86
Constituents proposed for regulation
F032
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
F034
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
F035
X
X
* Because Benzo(b)fluoranthene and Benzo(k)fluaranthane coelute on gas chromatography columns, this constituent is regulated as a sum of
the two compounds.
D. Treatment Standards for Toxic
Characteristic Metal Wastes
I. Rationale for Applying Universal
Treatment Standards (UTS) to Toxic
Characteristic Metal Wastes (D004-
D011)
In the Third Third LDR Rule (55 FR
22520), EPA established treatment
standards for the metal wastes that were
characteristic by the Extraction
Procedure (EP) test. Since promulgation
of the TC rule in September 1990, the
Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) is used to determine whether a
metal waste is characteristic. Wastes
that are characteristic by the TCLP but
not by the EP are considered newly
identified wastes and are not currently
subject to the land disposal restrictions.
Today, EPA is proposing to apply
treatment standards to all characteristic
metal wastes. In addition, the Agency is
proposing to change the treatment
standard levels for characteristic metal
wastes from those established in the
Third Third rule at the characteristic
levels to previously promulgated UTS
levels for metal constituents.
Furthermore, when promulgated, the
characteristic metal wastes must be
treated not only to meet today's
proposed treatment standards, but also
to meet treatment standards for any
UHCs reasonably expected to be present
in those wastes at the point of the
wastes' generation. This approach is
consistent with the promulgated
requirements for other characteristic
wastes (D012-D043) (see 59 FR 47982
September 19, 1994).
EPA promulgated the UTS for organic,
metal, and cyanide constituents on
September 19, 1994 (see 59 FR 47982).
The UTS eliminated differences in
concentration limits for the same
constituent in order to provide a better
assessment of treatability, to reduce
confusion, and to ease compliance and
enforcement. (The complete table of
UTS is located at 40 CFR 268.48 and the
levels have been incorporated in the
treatment standard table at § 268.40.)
The UTS replaced the existing metal
constituent treatment standards for all
listed wastes, and constituted applicable
levels for underlying hazardous metal
constituents (metal UHCs) in ignitable,
corrosive and TC organic wastes. As
explained above, they did not apply to
TC waste codes D004-D011, nor did
they replace the treatment standards
promulgated in the Third Third rule for
EP metals.
EPA performed a comprehensive
reevaluation of the available treatment
performance data from both listed and
characteristic wastes for all metal
constituents in the UTS table in order to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
43683
determine whether the metal UTS levels
are appropriate to transfer to TC metals.
The Agency has determined that a
transfer of UTS is appropriate based on
treatment levels achieved for the
characteristic wastes and the metal
concentrations in untreated wastes used
for UTS being more highly
contaminated than the characteristic
wastes. Some of the historic data on
treatment of characteristic wastes
simply reflects a design to remove the
characteristic, not a true measure of the
treatability by stabilization and HTMR
(see "BDAT Background Document for
Toxicity Characteristics Metal Wastes
D004-D011)" in the RCRA docket). EPA
is proposing that the metal UTS are the
LDR treatment standards for
characteristic metal wastes. This means,
in effect, that most of the metal
treatment standards are proposed to be
changed, however, a few treatment
standards are not. Tables at the end of
this section provide the old level, the
new level, and whether or not the
treatment standard is proposed to be
changed.
The UTS for metal nonwastewaters
can be achieved by high temperature
metals recovery (HTMR) or stabilization.
HTMR is a common technology for the
extraction and recovery of metals from
complex matrices. HTMR is based
primarily on pyrometallurgical
separation principles. HTMR has been
demonstrated to be applicable to almost
all metals in a relatively wide variety of
matrices. This is primarily due to the
thermodynamic and kinetic reactivity of
these metals (and other inorganics
present) at the high temperatures and
oxidation states in the unit. Depending
on the type of HTMR unit and the
temperatures utilized, nonwastewater
residues that would be classified as
slags, are likely to be produced.
Conventional stabilization
technologies include cementious and
pozzolanic stabilization with the
potential addition of specialized
reagents for the enhancement of
structural stability, curing time, and/or
reduced leachability. The reduction in
teachability of the hazardous metal
constituents of the wastes is
accomplished by the formation of a
lattice structure (i.e., chemical bonds)
that binds or entraps the metals in a
solid matrix. Before addition of the
stabilizing agents, the forms of the
metals in the wastes need to identified.
Often pretreatment involving chemical
conversion of the metals in the wastes
to a more favorable oxidation state or to
a different metallic salt must be
performed or the stabilization could be
relatively ineffective or incomplete.
2. Proposed Revision of UTS for
Beryllium
In today's rule, EPA is proposing to
change the UTS for beryllium to 0.04
mg/1 TCLP. After UTS were
promulgated, additional data on TC
metals were submitted to the Agency.
These grab sample data were from a
HTMR facility and were comprised of
480 data points from their in-house
metal treatment processes. These data
were submitted as "Confidential
Business Information." While UTS
nonwastewater limits for metals specify
a grab sample, the data used to develop
the standards included both grab and
composite samples. These data
demonstrated HTMR could not
necessarily achieve the limits using grab
samples. Out of the 40 data points for
beryllium, five exhibited levels
exceeding the UTS level of 0.014 mg/1
TCLP. A log-normal statistical analysis,
based on QA/QC Methodology, was
performed on these beryllium data
points. Based on this analysis, the
Agency is proposing to modify the
beryllium UTS level to 0.04 mg/1 TCLP.
The Agency believes that this proposed
level provides assurance that metal
nonwastewater standards can comply
with UTS using grab samples.
The Agency also reevaluated the new
cadmium data submitted. Based on a
log-normal statistical analysis the
cadmium data, the UTS level of 0.19
mg/1 TCLP is essentially at the 99th
percentile. The Agency, therefore, does
not see a need to modify this standard
and is not proposing a change in the
previously promulgated cadmium UTS
level. However, due to the two data
exceedances out of the 40 data point
samples submitted, the Agency is
soliciting further data.
The issue of grab versus composite
sampling has been raised as needing
clarification. As previously
promulgated, these metal treatment
standards specify grab samples. If grab
sampling creates inconsistencies in
achieving UTS levels for a treatment
process, the facility should evaluate its
process and submit data to EPA in
support of their treatment process (40
CFR 268.41 and 55 FR 22539 June 1,
1990). The use of grab versus composite
standards does not mean more frequent
sampling is necessary. Grab samples
normally reflect maximum process
variability, and thus will reasonably
characterize the range of treatment
system performance. The sampling
analysis for both wastewater and
nonwastewater is composite and grab
respectively (40 CFR 268.41 and
268.43).
3. Treatment Standard for Previously
Stabilized Mixed Radioactive and
Characteristic Metal Wastes
Some radioactive wastes which
exhibit a hazardous characteristic for a
metal have been stabilized to meet the
existing LDR standards, but may not be
land disposed until after Phase IV is
finalized. Such circumstances could
result in treated wastes not meeting the
revised standards. For example, as part
of the West Valley Demonstration
Project, approximately 21,000 drums of
mixed radioactive/formerly metal
characteristic wastes have been
stabilized to meet the current LDR
treatment standards for metals.) The
wastes at the West Valley site are being
stored awaiting development of disposal
capacity. Because of siting difficulties
for radioactive wastes, it is expected to
take more than three years to develop
disposal capacity. There is a good
possibility that when these treated
wastes are disposed, the Phase IV final
rule will be in effect and the metal
portion will be subject to the more
stringent Universal Treatment Standard
levels. If this were the case, the wastes
would require re-treatment to achieve
UTS prior to disposal. Such a practice
would present significant risks. Opening
the drums and grinding the already
treated mass of stabilized waste to re-
treat could expose workers, and
possibly others, to unacceptable levels
of metal containing dusts and
radioactivity.
The Agency believes the prior
stabilization of such wastes achieves the
statutory minimized threat standard,
and to require re-treatment would not
only minimize threat, but could increase
it. Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
allow characteristic metal mixed wastes,
that have undergone stabilization prior
to the effective date of the Phase IV final
rule, to comply with the LDR metal
standards that were in effect at the time
the waste was stabilized. Mixed
radioactive/characteristic metal wastes
that are stabilized after the effective date
of Phase IV would be subject to the
metal treatment standards in the Phase
IV rule.
-------
43684
Arsenic (D004)
Barium (D005)
Cadmium (D006)
Chromium (Total) (D007)
Lead (D008)
Mercury-retort residues
Mercury—all others (D009)
Selenium (D010)
Silver (D011)
PBOPOSHD CHANGES FOR
Arsenic (D004)
Barium (D005)
Cadmium (D006)
Chromium (Total) (D007)
Lead (D008) »-••••"•
Mercury-retort residues (D009)
Mercury—all others (D009) ....
Selenium (D010)
Silver (D011)
VI. Mineral Processing Waste Issues
EPA is planning revisions to the
regulations pertaining to mineral
processing wastes, including the
definition of solid waste, the rules
applying to mixtures of Bevill-exemp
wastes and those which are not Bevil -
Exempt, application of land disposal to
characteristic mineral processing
wastes, and responses to various court
remands. The Agency plans to address
these issues in a supplemental proposal
to today's rule.
VII. Environmental Justice
A. Applicability of Executive Order
12898
EPA is committed to address
environmental justice concerns and is
assuming a leadership role in
environmental justice initiatives to
enhance environmental quality for all
residents of the United States The
Agency's goals are to ensure that no
segment of the population, regardless of
rtcTcolor, national origin, or income
bears disproportionately high and
adverse human health and
environmental effects as a resul.of
EPA's policies, programs, and activities,
and all people live in clean and
SstahiJble'communities. In response to
the Executive Order and to concerns
voiced by many ff°"P*t°^^$"L0
Agency, EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response formed an
Environmental Justice Task Force to
analyze the array of environmental
justice issues specific to waste programs
and to develop an overall strategy to
identify and address these issues
(OSWER Directive No. 9200.3-17).
B Potential Effects
Today's proposed rule covers several
wastes- wood preserving wastes, 1L,
metals' and leaks/sludges/and emissions
from surface impoundments The rule
involves not one site, but will possibly
affect many facilities nationwide.
Because of the locations of some ot
these facilities and surface
impoundments, the potential exists for
impacts to minority or low income
Toaay s rui« is intended to reduce
risks of hazardous and characteristic
wastes as proposed and to benefit all
populations. As such, this rule is not
expected to cause any disproportionate
impacts to minority or low income
communities versus affluent or non-
minority communities.
T*e Agency is soliciting comment and
input from all stakeholders, including
members of the environmental justice
community and members of the
regulated community. The Agency
encourages all interested parties to
provide comments or further
Fnformation that might be necessary on
the data, analysis, and findings
contained in this section The Agency is
interested in receiving additional
information and/or comment on the
f°l.l°Smation on facilities with
surface impoundments that have
evaluated potential ecological human
health (taking into account subsistence
patterns and sensitive populations) and
socioeconomic impacts to minority or
low-income communities.
. Information on facilities with
surface impoundments that have
conducted human health analyses
identifying multiple and cumulative
exposures (populations at risk) from
leaks, emissions, sludees.
. Information on releases (leaks
emissions) that have occurred in the
community and their health and
environmental effects; and possible
effects of exposure to the chemicals in
. miormaiioii on hazardous materials
stored, used, and transported in the
community.
VIII. Capacity Determinations
A. Introduction
This section summarizes the results ot
the capacity analysis for the wastes
covered by this proposal, tor
background information on data
sources, methodology, and a summary
, capacity analyses for each group
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60. No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 43685
of wastes covered in this rule, see
"Background Document for Capacity
Analysis for Land Disposal Restrictions,
Phase IV—Issues Associated with Clean
Water Act Treatment Equivalency, and
Treatment Standards for Wood
Preserving Wastes and Toxicity
Characteristic Metal Wastes.
In general, EPA's capacity analysis
focuses 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 Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (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 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.4
B. Capacity Analysis Results Summary
I. Available Capacity
EPA estimates that there are 115,900
tons per year of commercial sludge/
solid combustion capacity and
1,145,000 tons per year of commercial
liquid combustion capacity available to
meet the treatment requirements of
Phase IV wastes. EPA estimates that
there are over one million tons of
available stabilization capacity. In
addition, EPA estimates that there are
approximately 47 million tons per year
of available wastewater treatment
capacity.
4 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.
EPA believes that some facilities may
face logistical problems in complying
with the sludges, leaks, and air
emissions standards. For example, if the
standards require alternative
management of characteristic wastes,
modifications (e.g., waste segregation,
plant replumbing, the installation of a
new waste treatment system or
pollution prevention mechanisms)
might require significant time. If EPA
determines that on-site treatment
capacity will not be available when the
final rule is promulgated, and that there
would be no feasible way for generators
to transport their wastes to commercial
treatment facilities, EPA may grant a
capacity variance for up to two years.
EPA requests comments on the types of
modifications that might be necessary at
facilities that need to manage their
Phase IV wastes on-site, and the time
required to make such modifications.
2. Surface Impoundment Sludges,
Leaks, and Air Emissions
EPA is considering several regulatory
options for surface impoundment
sludges, leaks, and air emissions. Details
of the methodology and estimates of
affected facilities and waste quantities
are provided in the capacity analysis
technical background document.
EPA estimates that for the regulatory
option that relies on Phase III
rulemaking and other EPA regulatory
activities (e.g., CAA) to achieve RCRA-
equivalent levels of control (Option 1),
no facilities or quantities will be
affected by the Phase IV rule.
The other regulatory options apply
some additional controls beyond
treatment standards for surface
impoundment wastewaters regulated
under the Phase III rule. EPA analyzed
these other regulatory options by
focusing on the 15 industry sectors
identified in the Phase III LDR capacity
analysis as the industries most likely to
be affected by the Phase IV LDR rule.
EPA estimates that for Option 2, the
wastewater affected by the air emissions
standard for surface impoundments in
CWA or CWA-equivalent treatment
systems will be about 0.4 billion to 5.8
billion tons of decharacterized
wastewater per year. About 0.3 billion
to 3.7 billion tons of decharacterized
wastewater could be affected by the leak
standard. The facilities generating
affected wastewater may need to
conduct ground water monitoring,
install liners, or conduct ground water
remediation. EPA estimates that 0.1
million to 3.5 million tons per year of
sludges might be affected by the sludges
component of the Phase IV LDR rule.
For Option 3, EPA estimates that 2.4
billion to 16 billion tons of
decharacterized wastewater will be
affected each year by the air emissions,
leaks, and sludges standards.
For Options 2 and 3, EPA believes
that some affected facilities need time to
reconfigure their waste management
systems or to build treatment capacity
for these wastes, since the volumes of
waste affected are large enough to make
off-site treatment impractical for many
facilities. EPA is proposing to grant a
two-year national capacity variance for
surface impoundment sludges, leaks,
and air emissions under the regulatory
options that require additional
management of these wastes beyond the
Phase III standards (i.e., Options 2 and
3). EPA requests comments on this
proposal and data on the number of
affected facilities and the quantities of
affected wastes.
3. Newly Identified Characteristic Metal
Wastes
EPA estimates 41,250 tons per year of
newly identified D008 (lead)
nonwastewaters will require
stabilization as a result of the TCLP test.
EPA believes that any additional
quantities of other newly identified TC
metal wastes are very small. Since there
are over 1 million tons of stabilization
capacity available to treat these wastes,
EPA is proposing to not grant a variance
to TC metal wastes.
4. Wood Preserving Wastes
EPA estimates that very small
quantities of wood preserving
wastewaters (approximately 340 tons of
organic wastewater and 40 tons of
inorganic wastewater per year) will
require alternative treatment capacity in
order to comply with the proposed
LDRs. EPA estimates that approximately
28,000 per year tons of nonwastewaters
(24,860 tons of organic nonwastewaters
and 2,880 tons of inorganic
nonwastewaters) will require alternative
treatment as a result of the proposed
LDRs.
EPA believes that incineration should
be able to meet the proposed treatment
standards for organic wastewaters and
nonwastewaters, stabilization should be
able to meet the proposed treatment
standards for inorganic nonwastewaters,
and chemical precipitation should be
able to meet the treatment standards for
the inorganic wastewaters. There is
sufficient liquid and sludge/solid
combustion capacity for both the
organic wood preserving wastewaters
and nonwastewaters. In addition, EPA
believes that there is sufficient chemical
precipitation capacity for the inorganic
wastewaters. Finally, there are over 1
million tons of stabilization capacity for
the inorganic nonwastewaters.
-------
Therefore EPA is proposing not to grant
a variance for the newly listed wood
preserving wastes. Although many
commenters to the ANPRM (56 FR
55160) expressed concern that treatment
facilities would not accept F032 waste
if the treatment standards include a
dioxin concentration, EPA believes that
its Combustion Strategy will alleviate
this problem.
Given the potentially large quantity of
soil and debris contaminated with
newly listed wood preserving wastes
and the lack of adequate treatment
capacity to meet this demand, EPA is
proposing to grant a two-year capacity
variance to soil and debris contaminated
with newly listed wood preserving
wastes. The Agency requests comments
on this proposal, including data on the
quantities of soil and debris
contaminated with wood preserving
wastes that are generated.
5. Mixed Radioactive Wastes
Despite the uncertainty about
quantities of mixed radioactive wastes
containing wastes that will require
treatment as a result of today's proposed
rule, any new commercial capacity that
becomes available will be needed for
mixed radioactive wastes that were
regulated in previous LDR rulemakings
and whose variances have already
expired. Thus, EPA has determined that
sufficient alternative treatment capacity
is not available, and is proposing to
grant a two-year national capacity
variance for mixed RCRA/radioactive
wastewaters and nonwastewaters
contaminated with wastes whose
standards are being proposed today.
6. Phase IV Wastes Injected Into Class I
Wells
EPA estimates that approximately 11
million tons of newly identified and
listed wastes are being injected in Class
I injection wells. These injected
volumes vary in amount by facility and
are all disposed on site. None of these
facilities transport their waste off site or
currently have the necessary capacity to
treat their waste on site by acceptable
means. Additionally, for those facilities
affected by the proposed prohibitions
which are unable to make a successful
no migration demonstration and/or are
unable to meet the requirements of other
proposed options, constructing a
treatment facility on site would require
a significant amount of time. Therefore
the Agency is proposing to grant a two-
year national capacity variance for these
wastes.
EPA requests comments on the above
capacity determinations. In particular,
EPA requests data on the generation,
characteristics, and management of the
wastes discussed above. In addition,
EPA requests data on the availability of
treatment capacity for any of these
wastes.
Table 1 lists each category of RCRA
wastes for which EPA is today
proposing LDR standards. For each
category, this table indicates whether
EPA is proposing to grant a national
capacity variance for land-disposed
wastes.5
TABLE 1 .—VARIANCES FOR NEWLY
LISTED AND IDENTIFIED WASTES
["Yes" indicates EPA is proposing to grant a
variance]1
Waste description
Phase IV Sludges2 .
Phase IV Leaks2 ....
Phase IV Air Emis-
sions2.
Newly Identified TC
Metals (D004-
D011).
Newly Listed Wood
Preserving
Wastes (F032,
F034, F035).
Soil and Debris Con-
taminated with
Newly Listed
Wood Preserving
Wastes.
Phase IV Mixed Ra-
dioactive Wastes.
Surface-
disposed
wastes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Deep
well-in-
jected
wastes
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
treatment capacity variances are for two
years.
2 The variance determinations listed here
apply only to wastes derived from surface im-
poundments in CWA or CWA-equivalent sys-
tems that manage decharacterized ICRT
wastes.
IX. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008 3013
and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are
found in 40 CFR Part 271.
Prior to 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
sThe term "land-disposed wastes" denotes
wastes that are managed in land-based units at any
time during the waste's storage, treatment, or
disposal.
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 unauthorized 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.
Today's rule is being proposed
pursuant to sections 3004(d) through
(k), and 3004(m), of RCRA (42 U.S.C.
6924(d) through (k), and 6924(m)). The
rule would be added to Table 1 in 40
CFR 271.l(j), which identifies the
Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA. 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.l(j) is also modified to indicate that
this rule is a self-implementing
provision of HSWA.
B. Abbreviated Authorization
Procedures for Specified Portions of the
Land Disposal Restrictions Phase II III
and IV Rules ' '
Under the current authorization
structure, all revisions to authorized
state hazardous waste programs, no
matter how minor the change, are
reviewed under the same procedures
and standard of review. While these
procedures may be appropriate for
significant changes to the RCRA
program, EPA believes they are too
detailed for minor changes. EPA is
aware that this situation may result in
unnecessary costs and delays in
authorizing States and add costs for the
Agency to process these revisions.
Because of these problems, EPA believes
that the procedures for authorization
should reflect the different scope of new
rules. For example, a State should be
able to gain authorization for minor
revisions to a basic aspect of the
program (i.e., the Land Disposal
Restrictions) in an expedited fashion if
that State is authorized for that major
part of the program. Therefore, EPA is
today proposing to create an expedited
authorization procedure that would be
applied to certain minor revisions to the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
43687
LDR program in the Phase II, III, and IV
rules.
Under this proposed approach, EPA's
review and approval of a State's
authorization application would be
expedited. A State would be required to
certify that provisions it has adopted
provide authority that is equivalent and
no less stringent than the Federal
provisions. Within 60 days of receiving
a complete application, EPA would
provide notice to the public approving
a complete State application. Then, the
public would have an opportunity for
comment, as provided by the existing
regulations governing authorization
revisions. A detailed explanation of
today's proposed procedures is
provided below.
Today's Phase IV proposal contains
two very distinct types of changes to the
Land Disposal Restrictions program.
The abbreviated authorization process
that EPA is proposing today would
apply to minor changes to the existing
program. Specifically, the new process
would apply to the regulation of newly
identified wastes under BOAT, and to
several clarifications and improvements
to the existing LDR program. These
provisions involve minor and routine
changes to the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) regulations. The
other part of today's Phase IV proposal
would potentially expand the scope of
EPA's program under RCRA in
significant ways. Specifically, EPA is
proposing options that would address
the management of decharacterized
wastes in surface impoundments that
are not subject to RCRA Subtitle C.
Depending on the option that the
Agency chooses, the universe of
facilities covered by Subtitle C could
significantly increase. The regulatory
approach that EPA may use for these
surface impoundments may also differ
from previous regulatory schemes. EPA
would use the existing authorization
procedures for this part of the Phase IV
proposal, except for option one in the
management of decharacterized wastes.
This option would use existing non-
RCRA regulatory authorities to address
these units, and therefore RCRA
regulatory amendments would not be
required. Thus, a State's authorization
would not need to be revised.
EPA is also proposing to apply the
same abbreviated authorization
procedures to the more minor changes
in the March 2,1995, proposed Phase III
LDR rule (see 60 FR 11702) that are
similar to those in today's Phase IV
proposal, as they also are routine
changes to the LDR program. EPA also
believes that the revised numerical
values represented by the Universal
Treatment Standards (UTS) in §§ 268.40
and 268.48 that were promulgated in the
Phase II LDR rule (see 59 FR 47982,
September 1,1994) are changes
appropriate for the abbreviated process.
Basis/Rationale for Streamlined
Authorization
EPA believes that an abbreviated
procedure can and should be used to
authorize States for sections of the
Phase II, III, and Phase IV LDR rules
(discussed below) for several reasons.
First, the applicable portions of these
rules are relatively minor in nature.
Over time, changes such as these have
become a routine part of the LDR
program. Second, the States that would
use this procedure would already be
authorized for the Third Third LDR rule.
During the authorization process for the
LDR rules up to and including the Third
Third rule, EPA would have already
determined whether the State has an
LDR program that is consistent with the
Federal program, and also whether there
is adequate enforcement. Third, since
the State has been implementing the
LDR program, EPA will be familiar with
the State's implementation performance.
Last, EPA believes that implementation
of the LDR program will be enhanced by
expedited authorization of these
provisions, since authorization will
remove any confusion about who is the
implementing Agency for specific
requirements.
Section 3006(b) of RCRA establishes
the legal standard for State program
approval. EPA believes that for the
routine changes in the Phase II, III, and
IV LDR rules, the certification submitted
to EPA by the State provides an
adequate basis for EPA to propose
approval of the program revision, as this
certification simply updates EPA's
previous findings regarding the LDR
program. EPA also believes that by
virtue of a State having obtained
authorization for the LDR program, the
State has demonstrated its capability
both in the administration and
implementation of the program, and in
its understanding of the requisite legal
requirements. States that are authorized
for significant portions of the LDR
program are familiar with the type of
rule changes needed, have adopted all
or most of the underlying LDR program,
and have experience in implementing
and enforcing the rules. Thus, EPA will
give great weight to the statements and
legal certification submitted by the
State. Accordingly, the Agency believes
that a second detailed evaluation by
EPA is not warranted under such
circumstances.
Proposed Streamlined Authorization
Procedures
Today's notice proposes to amend 40
CFR Part 271 to create a streamlined
authorization procedure in new section
271.28. EPA is proposing today to apply
this procedure only to the specific parts
of the Phase II, III, and IV rules that are
identified in paragraph (a) of section
271.28. EPA is also soliciting comment,
however, on whether this approach
should be applied to other aspects of the
land disposal program.
The parts of the Phase III proposal to
which today's streamlined authorization
proposal would be applicable are: (1)
Treatment standards for newly listed
wastes, (2) improvements to the existing
land disposal restrictions program, (3)
revisions and corrections to the
treatment standards in §§ 268.40 and
268.48, and (4) the prohibition of
hazardous waste as fill material. The
preamble discussion for these parts of
the Phase III proposal is in Sections VI,
VII, and VIII of the March 2, 1995,
notice (see 60 FR 11702). The applicable
parts of today's proposed Phase IV rule
are: (1) Treatment standards for newly
listed and identified wastes and (2)
improvements to the land disposal
restrictions program. In the final Phase
II rule, the applicable parts are the
treatment standards in §§ 268.40 and
268.48.
Note that EPA is not proposing the
use of this streamlined procedure for the
authorization of those sections of the
Phase III rule that address end-of-pipe
treatment standards for (1) Clean Water
Act and equivalent wastewater
treatment systems, and (2) Class I non-
hazardous injection wells. The
streamlined procedures would also not
be used for the authorization of the
option the Agency chooses in the Phase
IV final rule to address the management
of leaks, sludges, and air emissions of
toxic constituents from decharacterized
wastes. As explained earlier, EPA has
tentatively concluded that these
requirements would involve significant
expansions of the program deserving
more detailed review.
Paragraph (a) of proposed § 271.28
also specifies that the State must already
be authorized for the Third Third LDR
rule (see 55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990) to
be able to use the proposed streamlined
procedure to gain authorization for the
Phase II, III, and IV rules. EPA is
proposing this approach because the
structure of the LDR program is
essentially complete with the Third
Third rule, and few changes have been
made since this rule, EPA believes that
it is appropriate to require LDR program
authorization up to and including this
-------
43688 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday. August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
rule as a condition for using the
proposed streamlined procedures. As of
May 31, 1995, 19 States have been
authorized to implement the Third
Third LDR rule. At the same time, EPA
recognizes that this proposed approach
may unnecessarily limit the benefits of
streamlined authorization procedures.
Therefore, EPA solicits comment on (1)
whether the use of the streamlined
procedure should be expanded to other
Land Disposal Restrictions rules, and (2)
whether a State should only be required
to be authorized for the Solvents and
Dioxins rule (51 FR 40572, November 7,
1986) to use this procedure, since this
rule put in place the basic structure of
the LDR program.
Under proposed section 271.28(b), a
State would submit an abbreviated
application (primarily consisting of a
certification from the State) that the
laws of the State provide authorities that
are equivalent to, and no less stringent
than the Federal authorities. The
certification would also include
appropriate citations to the specific
statutes, administrative regulations and
where appropriate, judicial decisions.
The cited State statutes and regulations
would also have to be fully effective at
the time the certification is signed. As
discussed above, in the case of routine
or minor program changes, EPA believes
that this certification will provide an
adequate basis for EPA's authorization
of a program revision under RCRA
section 3006 (absent contrary
information in the possession of EPA, or
supplied in comments during the public
comment period).
Under proposed section 271.28(c),
within 30 days of receipt of the
application EPA would be required to
notify the State if EPA determines that
the application, including the
certification, is not complete.
Accordingly, when the application is
received, EPA would conduct a
completeness check to determine
whether the application contains all the
required components. EPA will address
the extent of this completeness check in
future authorization guidance. However,
EPA does not intend that this
completeness check involve a detailed
and substantive review. EPA
specifically requests comment on what
activities this check should be limited
to. The reasons why EPA could
determine that an application is not
complete are specified in section
271.28(d). To minimize any errors such
as these, EPA continues to encourage
States to submit draft rules to EPA for
review. If EPA does find that an
application is incomplete or contains
errors, EPA will summarize the
deficiencies in the completeness notice
sent to the State under § 271.28(c). After
the deficiencies are corrected, the State
would resubmit the application to EPA.
When EPA determines that a State's
application is complete, EPA would
issue an immediate final rule under
section 271.28(e) within 60 days of
receiving the application under
paragraph (c). Thus, if a State's initial
application is complete, this notice
would be published no later than 30
days after EPA finishes its completeness
check. This immediate final rule is
similar to the notice used in § 271.21 for
other revision authorization decisions.
Thus, the public would have the same
ability to comment as for other
authorization decisions. The notice
would provide for a 30-day public
comment period, and would go into
effect 60 days after publication unless a
significant adverse comment is received
by EPA. An example of a significant
adverse comment would be that the
State did not have the necessary
authority to implement the new
requirements.
EPA solicits comments on this
proposed approach, as well as
suggestions of possible modifications or
alternative approaches. For example, is
the step of a 30-day completeness
review necessary? Are the criteria in
§ 271.28(d) for completeness
appropriate? Are there further
efficiencies that could be made, for
example, in the approval process for
program changes that are purely
technical? Does the proposed process
provide adequate assurance that the
State program will be consistent with
and no less stringent than the Federal
program?
Although EPA has proposed to use
this streamlined authorization
procedure only for portions of the Phase
II, III, and IV LDR rules, EPA is
considering this procedure for other
aspects of the Land Disposal
Restrictions and other rules in the
future. Future proposals will further
discuss EPA's plans for improving and
streamlining the state authorization
program. EPA is planning to propose to
use a similar authorization approach for
the upcoming Hazardous Waste
Identification Rule (HWIR) for
contaminated media. This different
procedure would provide for additional
EPA review of the State's authorization
application. EPA expects that the
procedure proposed today would
constitute the most expedited
authorization procedure available to
States.
C. Effect on State Authorization
Because today's proposed Phase IV
LDR rule is being proposed under
HSWA authority, when finalized, those
sections of today's proposal that expand
the coverage of the LDR program (e.g.,
to newly identified wastes) would be
implemented by EPA in authorized
States until their programs are modified
to adopt these rules and the
modification is approved by EPA.
However, some of the regulatory
amendments proposed today are less
stringent than, or reduce the scope of,
the existing Federal requirements.
Others are neither more or less
stringent.
States that are authorized for
provisions that would be amended in a
less stringent manner by today's
proposal would not be required to
modify their program to adopt the
revised provisions. Those provisions are
described in Section VI of today's
preamble, entitled Improvements to
Land Disposal Restrictions Program.
The regulatory provisions that are
considered to be less stringent are in
sections: 268.4, 268.5, 268.7, 268.30-37,
waste code F039 in the table titled
"Treatment Standards for Hazardous
Wastes" in § 268.40, and the use of
polymerization as a treatment method
for certain D001 wastes in Table 1 of
§268.42.
Other provisions are neither more or
less stringent. EPA clarified in a
December 19, 1994, memorandum
(which is in the docket for today's
proposal) that EPA would not
implement the Universal Treatment
Standards (promulgated under HSWA
authority in the Phase II LDR rule)
separately for those States for which the
State has received LDR authorization.
EPA views any changes from the
existing limits to be neither more or less
stringent since the technology basis of
the standards has not changed.
Accordingly, EPA will not implement
the amendments to the UTS that are
proposed in the LDR Phase III and IV
proposals.
States should note that EPA is also
proposing to include newly identified
wastes under the LDR program. Because
these more stringent HSWA provisions
expand the scope of LDR coverage, EPA
would generally implement them in
authorized States on the effective date of
today's rule. EPA's authorization
guidance for the final rule will identify
in more detail which provisions in these
sections will be implemented. However,
EPA strongly encourages States that are
authorized for the Land Disposal
Restrictions program to make these
proposed improvements to their
regulations because of the clarity they
will give to the regulated community
and to the Agency.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday. August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 43689
Because today's 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. It should be noted that all
HSWA interim authorizations will
expire January 1, 2003. (See § 271.24(c)
and 57 FR 60132, December 18, 1992.)
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
proposed rule. These State regulations
have not been assessed against the
Federal regulations being proposed
today to determine whether they meet
the tests for authorization. Thus, a State
is not authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modifications are
approved. Of course, states with existing
standards could continue to administer
and enforce their standards as a matter
of State law. In implementing the
Federal program, EPA will work with
States under agreements to minimize
duplication of efforts. In most cases,
EPA expects that it 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.
X. 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: (l) 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
the Executive Order. The analysis
considered compliance cost and
economic impacts for ensuring adequate
control of underlying hazardous
constituents in air emissions, leaks, and
sludges produced in surface
impoundments used to treat
decharacterized ICRT wastewaters. Also
covered under this rule are three wood
preserving wastes (F032, F034, and
F035) and TC metals (D004-D011). The
analysis considered compliance cost
and economic impacts for both
characteristic wastes and newly listed
wastes affected by this rule. The Agency
would like to have better information
regarding how many facilities and waste
management units are potentially
affected, waste volumes, constituents,
concentrations, how often and under
what circumstances additional
treatment is required, and treatment
costs.
Detailed discussions 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 may be found in the background
document, "Regulatory Impact Analysis
of the Proposed Phase IV Land Disposal
Restrictions Rule," which is in the
docket for today's proposed rule.
1. Methodology Section
Three regulatory options were
considered to establish "RCRA
equivalency" for decharacterized ICRT
wastes. In other words, wastes
decharacterized by dilution may be
placed in a nonhazardous surface
impoundment only if the toxic
constituents are treated to the same
extent that they would be under the
treatment standards mandated by RCRA
section 3004(m)(l). The analysis of
these regulatory options involved
characterizing the affected universe of
facilities in terms of current
management practices, waste volumes,
and constituent concentrations in
wastewater (i.e., characterizing baseline
conditions).
Agency estimated the volumes of
waste affected by today's rule to
determine the national level
incremental costs (for both the baseline
and post-regulatory scenarios),
economic impacts (defined as the
difference between the industrial
activity under post-regulatory
conditions and the industrial activity in
the absence of regulation), and benefits
(including estimation of pollutant
loadings reductions, estimation of
reductions in exceedances of health-
based levels, and qualitative description
of the potential benefits.) The procedure
for estimating the volumes of
decharacterized ICRT wastes and newly
listed wood preserving wastes affected
by today's proposed rule is detailed in
the background document "Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the Proposed Phase
IV Land Disposal Restrictions Rule,"
which was placed in the docket for
today's proposed rule.
2. Results
a. Volume results. The Agency has
estimated the volumes of
decharacterized ICRT wastes potentially
affected by today's proposed rule in the
background document "Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the Proposed Phase
IV Land Disposal Restrictions Rule,"
which was placed in the docket for
today's proposed rule.
The Agency requests comment on
waste volumes affected by the proposed
Phase IV LDR rule.
b. Cost results. The Agency has
prepared a cost and impacts analysis
for the options previously described
in this preamble. Under Option 1,
the Agency proposes to defer to
existing regulations, and as a result,
expects minimal impacts to occur. The
Agency has estimated that roughly 300
facilities (with approximately 800
surface impoundments) under Option 2
and roughly 850 facilities (with
approximately 2,000 surface
impoundments) under Option 3 may
manage decharacterized wastewaters
containing constituents exceeding UTS.
-------
43690 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
The Agency estimates that total annual
compliance costs for facilities under
Option 2 range from $10 to $65 million.
Total annual compliance costs for
facilities under Option 3 are estimated
to be in the range of $200 to $300
million. The Agency requests comment
and data regarding how often additional
treatment may be required.
The Agency has estimated that
minimal impacts will occur as the result
of setting treatment standards for TC
metals.
c. Economic impact results. The
Agency has estimated the economic
impacts of today's proposed rule to be
small. Results of the analysis were
included in the docket for today's
proposed rule. The Agency requests
comment on anticipated economic
impacts resulting from the proposed
Phase IV LDR rule.
d. Benefit estimate results. The
Agency has estimated the benefits
associated with today's proposed rule to
be small. Screening risk results for air
emissions suggest that 20 to 25 percent
of samples (306 to 349 of 1,562 facilities
for which data are available) exceed the
100 parts per million by weight (ppmw)
control limit set by the Subpart CC rule.
Central tendency screening risk
results for leaks to groundwater indicate
that samples from the pharmaceutical
and OCPSF industries have potential
individual lifetime cancer risk
exceedances of 10 ~5 at the raw
wastewater and biological pond influent
sampling points. In the pharmaceutical
industry, methylene chloride and
acrylonitrile are the constituents of
concern; in the OCPSF industries,
acrylonitrile is the constituent of
concern. Point of generation data
indicate the potential for risks from
leaks, however, surface impoundment
data are not available for all industries.
Central tendency screening risk
results for sludges from the OCPSF
industry indicate that two samples
present individual lifetime cancer risk
in excess of 10 ~5, where acrylonitrile is
the constituent of concern. The Agency
requests comment on anticipated
benefits resulting from the proposed
Phase IV LDR rule.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., when
an agency publishes notice of
rulemaking, for a rule that will have a
significant effect on a substantial
number of small entities, the agency
must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that considers the effect of the
rule on small entities (i.e.: small
businesses, small organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.)
Under the Agency's Revised Guidelines
for Implementing the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, dated May 4, 1992, the
Agency committed to considering
regulatory alternatives in rulemakings
when there were any economic impacts
estimated on any small entities. 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, EPA is not aware of any
data on potentially affected small
entities. Second, due to the statutory
requirements of the RCRA LDR program,
no legal avenues exist for the Agency to
provide relief from the LDRs for small
entities. The only relief available for
small entities is the existing small
quantity generator provisions and
conditionally exempt small quantity
generator exemptions found in 40 CFR
262.11-12, and 261.5, respectively.
These exemptions basically prescribe
100 kilograms (kg) per calendar month
generation of hazardous waste as the
limit below which one is exempted from
complying with the RCRA standards.
Given these two factors, the Agency
was unable to frame a series of small
entity options from which to select the
lowest cost approach; rather, the Agency
was legally bound to address the land
disposal of the hazardous wastes
covered in today's proposed rule
without regard to the size of the entity
being regulated.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in today's 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. An Information Request
(ICR) document was prepared by EPA
and a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer (EPA ICR #1442.10),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Regulatory Information Division, 401 M.
Street, S.W. (mail code 2136),
Washington, D.C. 20460, or by calling
(202) 260-2740. Only incremental
burdens are discussed in the ICR. This
burden will eventually be merged with
the LDR program ICR.
The overall reporting and
recordkeeping burden is estimated to be
approximately 66,000 hours. The
average recordkeeping burden per
respondent is approximately 3 hours.
The public reporting burden for this
collection is estimated to average 16
hours per respondent. This includes
time for reviewing instructions,
gathering and compiling data,
maintaining the data, and preparing and
submitting data.
The public should send comments
regarding the burden estimate, or any
other aspect of this collection of
information (please refer to EPA ICR#
1442.10 and OMB# 2050-0085)
including suggestions for reducing
burden to: Sandy Farmer (EPA ICR
1442.10), Environmental Protection
Agency, Regulatory Information
Division, 401 M. Street, S.W. (mail code
2136), Washington, D.C. 20460; and to
Jonathan Gledhill (OMB 2050-0085),
Office of Management and Budget,
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20460.
XL Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed
into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must
prepare a statement to accompany any
rule where the estimated costs to State,
local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector, will
be $100 million or more in any one year.
Under Section 205, EPA must select the
most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objective of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements.
Section 203 requires EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any
small governments that may be
significantly impacted by the rule.
EPA has completed an analysis of the
costs and benefits from the proposed
Phase IV LDR rule and has determined
that this rule does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to either
State, local or tribal governments in the
aggregate. As stated above, the private
sector may incur costs exceeding $100
million per year depending upon the
option chosen in the final rulemaking.
EPA has fulfilled the requirement for
analysis under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, and results of this analysis
have been included in the background
document "Regulatory Impact Analysis
of the Proposed Phase IV Land Disposal
Restrictions Rule," which was placed in
the docket for today's proposed rule.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 148
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous waste, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
43691
40 CFR Part 268
Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: August 11, 1995. '
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator,
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations as proposed to be
amended at 60 FR 11702 (March 2,
1995) is further 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: Section 3004, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901,etseq.
2. Section 148.18 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), and
(c), as paragraphs (b), (c), and (dj, and
by adding paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
§ 148.18 Waste specific prohibitions—
Newly Listed and Identified Wastes.
(a) Effective August 22, 1997, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261 as EPA
Hazardous waste numbers F032, F034,
and F035, D004—D011 (as measured by
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure), and mixed D004-D011 TC/
radioactive wastes, are prohibited from
underground injection.
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
3. 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
4. Section 268.1 is amended by
revising paragraph (e)(4)(ii) to read as
follows:
§ 268.1 Purpose, scope and applicability.
*****
{e) * * *
(4) * * *
(ii) Characteristic wastes which are
injected into Class I nonhazardous
waste wells or placed in a Clean Water
Act (CWA) or CWA-equivalent
wastewater treatment surface
impoundment, whose combined volume
is less than one per cent of the total flow
at the wellhead, or at the surface
impoundment influent, on an
annualized basis; and for 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.
*****
5. Section 268.4 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), and (a)(4)
introductory text to read as follows:
§ 268.4 Treatment surface impoundment
exemption.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(iv) Recordkeeping: Sampling and
testing and recordkeeping provisions of
§§ 264.13 and 265.13 of this chapter
apply.
*****
(4) The owner or operator submits to
the Regional Administrator a written
certification that the requirements of
§ 268.4(a)(3) have been met. The
following certification is required:
*****
6. Section 268.5 is amended by
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 268.5 Procedures for case-by-case
extensions to an effective date.
*****
(e) On the basis of the information
referred to in paragraph (a) of this
section, after notice and opportunity for
comment, and after consultation with
appropriate State agencies in all affected
States, the Administrator may grant an
extension of up to one year from the
effective date. The Administrator may
grant additional time, up to one
additional year, if requested in the
application for the original extension of
the effective date, or if requested at a
later date, so long as the demonstration
can be made that additional time
beyond one year is necessary. In no
event will an extension extend beyond
24 months from the applicable effective
date specified in Subpart C of Part 268.
The length of any extension authorized
will be determined by the Administrator
based on the time required to construct
or obtain the type of capacity needed by
the applicant as described in the
completion schedule discussed in
paragraph (a)(5) of this section. The
Administrator will give public notice of
the intent to approve or deny a petition
and provide an opportunity for public
comment. The final decision will be
published in the Federal Register.
7. Section 268.7 is amended by
removing paragraph (b)(2) and
redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as (b)(2),
(b)(4) as (b)(3), (b)(5) as (b)(4), (b)(6) as
(b)(5) and (b)(7) as (b)(6; by revising the
heading, paragraph (a), the introductory
text of paragraph (b), (b)(l), (b)(2), (b)(3),
(b)(4) introductory text, (b)(4)(i)
introductory text, (b)(4)(ii) introductory
text, (b)(4)(iii) introductory text, (c)(l),
and (c)(2) to read as follows:
§ 268.7 Testing, tracking, and
recordkeeping requirements for generators,
treaters, and disposal facilities.
(a) Requirements for generators:
(1) Determine if the waste has to be
treated before being land disposed, as
follows: A generator of a hazardous
waste must determine if the waste has
to be treated before it can be land
disposed. This is done by determining
if the hazardous waste meets the
treatment standards in § 268.40 or
§ 268.45. This determination can be
made in either of two ways: testing the
waste or using knowledge of the waste.
If the generator tests the waste, testing
would normally determine the total
concentration of hazardous constituents,
or the concentration of hazardous
constituents in an extract of the waste
obtained using test method 1311 in
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,"
EPA Publication SW-846, as referenced
in § 260.11 of this chapter, depending
on whether the treatment standard for
the waste is expressed as a total
concentration or concentration of
hazardous constituent in the waste's
extract. In addition, some hazardous
wastes must be treated by particular
treatment methods before they can be
land disposed. These treatment
standards are also found in § 268.40,
and are described in detail in § 268.42,
Table 1. These wastes do not need to be
tested. If a generator determines they are
managing a waste that displays a
hazardous characteristic of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, they
must comply with the special
requirements of § 268.9 of this part in
addition to any applicable requirements
in this section.
(2) If the waste does not meet the
treatment standard: With each shipment
of waste, the generator must notify the
treatment or storage facility in writing.
The notice must include the information
in column "268.7(a)(2)" of the
Notification Requirements Table in
§268.7(a)(4).
(3) If the waste meets the treatment
standard: The generator must send a
one-time notice and certification to each
treatment or storage facility receiving
the waste. The notice must state that the
-------
43692 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
waste meets the applicable treatment
standards set forth in § 268.40 or
§ 268.45. The notice must also include
the information indicated in column
"268.7(a)(3)" of the Notification
Requirements Table in § 268.7(a)(4).
However, generators of hazardous debris
excluded from the definition of
hazardous waste under §261.3(e)(2) of
this chapter are not subject to these
requirements. If the waste changes, the
generator must send a new notice and
certification to the receiving facility,
and place a copy in their files.
(4) For reporting, tracking and
recordkeeping when exceptions allow
certain wastes that do not meet the
treatment standards to be land disposed:
There are certain exemptions from the
requirement that hazardous wastes meet
treatment standards before they can be
land disposed. These include, but are
not limited to case-by-case extensions
under § 268.5, disposal in a no-
migration unit under § 268.6, or a
PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS TABLE
national capacity variance under
subpart C of this part. If a generator's
waste is so exempt, then the generator
must submit a one-time notice and
certification to each land disposal
facility receiving the waste. The notice
must include the information marked
off in column "268.7(a)(4)" of the
Notification Requirements Table below.
If the waste changes, the generator must
send a new notice and certification to
the receiving facility, and place a copy
in their files.
Required Information
1. EPA Hazardous Waste and Manifest Numbers
2. The constituents for F001-F005, F039, and underlying hazardous constituents,
unless the waste will be treated and monitored for all constituents (in which
case none are required to be listed). The notice must include the applicable
wastewater/ nonwastewater category (see §§268.2(d) and (f)) and subdivisions
made within a waste code based on waste-specific criteria (such as D003 reac-
tive cyanide)
3. Waste analysis data (when available)
4. Date the waste is subject to the prohibition
5. Certification statement: I certify under penalty of law that I personally have ex-
amined and am familiar with the waste through analysis and testing or through
knowledge of the waste to support this certification that the waste complies with
the treatment standards, or is subject to an exmeption from the treatment
standards, specified in 40 CFR part 268 subpart D. I believe that the informa-
tion I submitted is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are sig-
nificant penalties for submitting a false certification, including the possibility of a
fine and imprisonment
6. For hazardous debris, when treating with the alternative treatment technologies
provided by §268.45: the contaminants subject to treatment, as described in
§268.45(b); and an indication that these contaminants are being treated to
comply with §268.45
§268.7(a)(2)
v
v
v
v
§268.7(a)(3)
v
J
§268.7(a)(4)
J
j
j
(5) If a generator is managing
prohibited waste in tanks, containers, or
containment buildings regulated under
40 CFR 262.34, and is treating such
waste in such tanks, containers, or
containment buildings to meet
applicable treatment standards under
subpart D of this part, the generator
must develop and follow a written
waste analysis plan which describes the
procedures the generator will carry out
to comply with the treatment standards.
(Generators treating hazardous debris
under the alternative treatment
standards of Table 1, §268.45, however,
are not subject to these waste analysis
requirements.) The plan must be kept on
site in the generator's records, and the
following requirements must be met:
(i) The waste analysis plan must be
based on a detailed chemical and
physical analysis of a representative
sample of the prohibited waste(s) being
treated, and contain all information
necessary to treat the waste(s) in
accordance with the requirements of
this Part, including the selected testing
frequency.
(ii) Such plan must be kept in the
facility's on-site files and made
available to inspectors.
(iii) Wastes shipped off-site pursuant
to this paragraph must comply with the
notification requirements of
§268.7(a)(4).
(6) If a generator determines that the
waste is restricted based solely on his
knowledge of the waste, all supporting
data used to make this determination
must be retained on-site in the
generator's files. If a generator
determines that the waste is restricted
based on testing this waste or an extract
developed using the test method 1311 in
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,"
EPA Publication SW-846, as referenced
in § 260.11 of this chapter, and all waste
analysis data must be retained on-site in
the generator's files.
(7) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste that is
excluded from the definition of
hazardous or solid waste or exempt
from Subtitle C regulation, under 40
CFR 261.2 through 261.6 subsequent to
the point of generation, he must place
a one-time notice stating such
generation, subsequent exclusion from
the definition of hazardous or solid
waste or exemption from RCRA Subtitle
C regulation, and the disposition of the
waste, in the facility's file.
(8) Generators must retain on-site a
copy of all notices, certifications, waste
analysis data, and other documentation
produced pursuant to this section for at
least three years from the date that the
waste that is the subject of such
documentation was last sent to on-site
or off-site treatment, storage, or
disposal. The three year record retention
period is automatically extended during
the course of any unresolved
enforcement action regarding the
regulated activity or as requested by the
Administrator. The requirements of this
paragraph apply to solid wastes even
when the hazardous characteristic is
removed prior to disposal, or when the
waste is excluded from the definition of
hazardous or solid waste under 40 CFR
261.2-261.6, or exempted from Subtitle
C regulation, subsequent to the point of
generation.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday. August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 43693
(9) If a generator is managing a lab
pack waste and wishes to use the
alternative treatment standard for lab
packs found at § 268.42(c), with each
shipment of waste the generator must
submit a notice to the treatment facility
in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of
this section. If the lab pack contains
characteristic hazardous wastes (D001-
D043), underlying hazardous
constituents (as defined in § 268.2(i))
need not be determined. The generator
must also comply with the requirements
in paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(7) of this
section and must submit the following
certification, which must be signed by
an authorized representative:
I certify under penalty of law that I
personally have examined and am familiar
with the waste and that the lab pack contains
only wastes that have not been excluded
under appendix IV to 40 CFR part 268.1 am
aware that there are significant penalties for
submitting a false certification, including the
possibility of fine or imprisonment.
(10) Small quantity generators with
tolling agreements pursuant to 40 CFR
262.20(e) must comply with the
applicable notification and certification
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section for the initial shipment of the
waste subject to the agreement. Such
generators must retain on-site a copy of
the notification and certification,
together with the tolling agreement, for
at least three years after termination or
expiration of the agreement. The three-
year record retention period is
automatically extended during the
course of any unresolved enforcement
action regarding the regulated activity or
as requested by the Administrator.
(b) Treatment facilities must test their
wastes according to the frequency
specified in their waste analysis plans
as required by 40 CFR 264.13 (for
permitted TSDs) or 40 CFR 265.13 (for
interim status facilities). Such testing
must be performed as provided in
paragraphs (b)(l), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this
section.
(1) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste extract (TCLP) the owner or
operator of the treatment facility must
test the treatment residues, or an extract
of such residues developed using test
method 1311 (the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure,
described in "Test Methods for
PAPERWORK REQUIREMENTS TABLE
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods," EPA Publication
SW-846 as incorporated by reference in
§ 260.11 of this chapter), to assure that
the treatment residues or extract meet
the applicable treatment standards.
(2) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste, the owner or operator of
the treatment facility must test the
treatment residues (not an extract of
such residues) to assure that the
treatment residues meet the applicable
treatment standards.
(3) A notice must be sent with each
waste shipment to the land disposal
facility except that debris excluded from
the definition of hazardous waste under
§ 261.3(e) of this chapter (i.e., debris
treated by an extraction or destruction
technology provided by Table 1,
§ 268.45, and debris that the Director
has determined does not contain
hazardous waste) is subject to the
notification and certification
requirements of paragraph (d) of this
section rather than these notification
requirements. The notice must include
the information in the Notification
Requirements Table in this section.
Required information
§268.7(b)
1. EPA Hazardous Waste and Manifest numbers
2. The constituents for F001-F005, F039, and underlying hazardous constituents, unless the: wasteTwill be^treated and mon-
itored for all constituents (in which case none are required to be listed). The notice must include the applicable wastewater/
nonwastewater category (see §§268.2 (d) and (0) and subdivisions made within a waste code based on waste-specific cri-
teria (such as D003 reactive cyanide)
3. Waste analysis data (when available) .'"!"!.".'.'"!""!""
(4) The treatment facility must submit
a certification with each shipment of
waste or treatment residue of a
restricted waste to the land disposal
facility stating that the waste or
treatment residue has been treated in
compliance with the applicable
performance standards specified in
subpart D of this part. Debris excluded
from the definition of hazardous waste
under § 261.3(e) of this chapter (i.e.,
debris treated by an extraction or
destruction technology provided by
Table 1, § 268.45, and debris that the
Director has determined does not
contain hazardous waste), however, is
subject to the notification and
certification requirements of paragraph
(d) of this section rather than the
certification requirements of this
paragraph.
(i) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste extract or in the waste
under § 268.40 of this part, the
certification must be signed by an
authorized representative and must state
the following:
*****
(ii) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as technologies in
§268.40 (described in §268.42) of this
part, the certification must be signed by
an authorized representative and must
state the following:
*****
(iii) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste pursuant to § 268.40, if
compliance with the treatment
standards in subpart D of this part is
based in part or in whole on the
analytical detection limit alternative
specified in §268.43(c), the certification
also must state the following:
*****
(c) * * *
(1) Have copies of the notice and
certifications specified in paragraph (a)
of this section.
(2) Test the waste, or an extract of the
waste or treatment residue developed
using test method 1311 (the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure),
described in "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods," EPA Publication
SW-846 as incorporated by reference in
§ 260.11 of this chapter), to assure that
the wastes or treatment residues are in
compliance with the applicable
treatment standards set forth in subpart
D of this part. Such testing must be
performed according to the frequency
specified in the facility's waste analysis
plan as required by § 264.13 or § 265.13
of this chapter.
*****
8. Section 268.9 is amended by
revising paragraph (a), and paragraph
(d)(l)(ii) 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
-------
43694 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
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
listed waste under 40 CFR part 261,
subpart D. In addition, where the waste
exhibits a characteristic, the waste will
carry one or more of the characteristic
waste codes under 40 CFR part 261,
subpart C, except when the treatment
standard for the listed waste operates in
lieu of the treatment standard for the
characteristic waste, as specified in
paragraph (b) of this section. If the
generator determines that their waste
displays a hazardous characteristic (and
is not D001 nonwastewaters treated by
CMBST, RORGS, or POLYM of § 268.42,
Table 1), the generator must determine
the underlying hazardous constituents
(as defined in § 268.2), in the
characteristic wastes.
*****
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) A description of the waste as
initially generated, including the
applicable EPA hazardous waste
code(s), treatability group (s), and
underlying hazardous constituents (as
defined in § 268.2(i)), unless the waste
will be monitored for all underlying
hazardous constituents, in which case
no constituents need be specified on the
notification.
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land
Disposal
§§268.31,268.32,268.33, 268.34, 268.35 and
268.36 [Removed and Revised]
9. In Subpart C, §§268.31, 268.32,
268.33, 268.34, 268.35, and 268.36 are
removed and reserved, and § 268.30 is
revised to read as follows:
§ 268.30 Waste specific prohibitions-
wood preserving wastes, and characteristic
wastes that fail the toxicity characteristic.
(a) Effective November 20, 1995, the
wastes specified in 40 CFR 261 as EPA
Hazardous Waste numbers D004-D011
(as measured by the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure),
F032, F034, and F035, are prohibited
from land disposal.
(b) Effective August 22, 1997, soil and
debris contaminated with F032, F034,
F035; and radioactive wastes mixed
with EPA Hazardous waste numbers
D004-D011 (as measured by the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure) are prohibited from land
disposal.
(c) Between November 20, 1995 and
August 22, 1997, hazardous wastes
F032, F034, F035; radioactive wastes
mixed with EPA Hazardous waste
numbers F032, F034, F035, and soil and
debris contaminated with these wastes,
may be disposed in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if such unit is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in § 268.5(h)(2) of this Part.
(d) The requirements of paragraphs
(a), and (b) of this section do not apply
if: V 3
(1) The wastes meet the applicable
treatment standards specified in Subpart
D of this part;
(2) Persons have been granted an
exemption from a prohibition pursuant
to a petition under § 268.6, with respect
to those wastes and units covered by the
petition;
(3) The wastes meet the applicable
alternate treatment standards
established pursuant to a petition
granted under § 268.44; or
(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 (including
underlying hazardous constituents in
characteristic wastes that have been
diluted to remove the characteristic) in
excess of the applicable Universal
Treatment Standard levels of § 268.48 of
this Part, the waste is prohibited from
land disposal, and all requirements of
part 268 are applicable, except as
otherwise specified.
Subpart D—Treatment Standards
10. Section 268.40 is amended by
revising paragraph (e), and in the Table
of Treatment Standards adding in alpha-
numerical order entries for F032, F033,
and F034, and revising the entries for
D001 High TOG Subcategory, D003
Explosives, D004 through D011, and
F039 to read as follows:
§ 268.40 Applicability of Treatment
Standards.
*****
(e) For characteristic wastes subject to
treatment standards in the following
table "Treatment Standards for
Hazardous Wastes," all underlying
hazardous constituents (as defined in
§ 268.2(i)) must meet Universal
Treatment Standards, found in § 268.48,
Table UTS, prior to land disposal.
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES
Regulated Hazardous Constituent
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Waste Code
Waste description and treatment/
regulatory subcategory 1 _
' Common Name
Concentration in
CAS 2 No. mg/l 3; or tech-
nology code 4
Concentration in
mg/kg 5 unless
noted as "mg/l
TCLP" or tech-
nology code
D001
High TOC Ignitable Subcategory NA
based on 40 CFR 261.2(a)(1)—
Greater than or equal to 10%
total organic carbon (Note: this
subcategory consists of
nonwastewaters only)
NA NA
RORGS; or
CMBST; or
POLYM.
D003
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22. 1995 / Proposed Rules 43695
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
Waste Code
Regulated Hazardous Constituent
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Waste description and treatment/
regulatory subcategory1
Common Name
CAS2 No.
Concentration in
Concentration in mg/kg 5 unless
mg/l3; or tech- noted as "mg/l
nology code 4 TCLP" or tech-
nology code
Explosives Subcategory based on NA
§261.23(a)(6), (7), and (8)
NA DEACT and DEACT and
meet § 268.48 meet § 268.48
standards standards.
D004
D005
D006
Wastes that exhibit, or are ex- Arsenic ...
pected to exhibit, the char-
acteristic of toxicity for arsenic
Wastes that exhibit, or are ex- Barium ....
pected to exhibit, the char-
acteristic of toxicity for barium
Wastes that exhibit, or are ex- Cadmium
pected to exhibit, the char-
acteristic of toxicity for cad-
mium
7440-38-2 1.4 .
7440-39-3 1.2 .
7440-43-9 0.69
5.0 mg/l TCLP.
7.6 mg/l TCLP.
0.19 mg/l TCLP.
D007
D008
Wastes that exhibit, or are ex-
pected to exhibit, the char-
acteristic of toxicity for chro-
mium
Wastes that exhibit, or are ex-
pected to exhibit, the char-
acteristic of toxicity for lead
Chromium (Total)
7440-47-3 2.77
Lead 7439-92-1 0.69
0.86 mg/l TCLP.
0.37 mg/l TCLP.
D009
D010
D011
Nonwastewaters that exhibit, or Mercury
are expected to exhibit, the
characteristic of toxicity for mer-
cury; and contain less than 260
mg/kg total mercury. (Low Mer-
cury Subcategory)
All D009 wastewaters Mercury
7439-97-6 NA 0.20 mg/l TCLP.
7439-97-6 0.15
Wastes that exhibit, or are ex- Selenium
pected to exhibit, the char-
acteristic of toxicity for selenium
Wastes that exhibit, or are ex- Silver
pected to exhibit, the char-
acteristic of toxicity for silver
7782-49-2 0.82 0.16 mg/l TCLP.
7440-22-^ 0.43 0.30 mg/l TCLP.
-------
F032
F034
F035
r\i v?x>i «v *•••
Chromium (Total)
wlstewaters process residuals, Pentachlorodibenzofurans ..
WapreserS^^ and Tetrachtorodibenzofurans ...
spent formulations from wood Arsenic
preserving processes gen- r.hmm,,,
erated at plants that currently
use or have previously used
chlorophenolic formulations (ex-
cept potentially cross-contami-
nated wastes that have had the
FO32 waste code deleted in
accordance with section 40
CFR 261.35 and where the
generator does not resume or
initiate use of chlorophenolic
formulations). This listing does
not include K001 bottom sedi-
ment sludge from the treatment
of wastewater from wood pre-
serving processes that use cre-
osote and/or pentachlorophenol
Wastewaters. process residuals, Acenaphthene
5TSSJ2pa J£ £££=;•
preserving processes gen-
erated at plants that use creo-
sote formulations. This listing
does not include KOOI bottom
sediment sludge from the treat-
ment of wastewater from wood
preserving processes that use
NA 0.000063 0.001
NA 0.000063 0.001
-2 1 4 5-° "^TCLP-
% 277' 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
creosote
pentachlorophenol
and/or
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Fluorene
Hexachlorodibenzofurans
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins'
Naphthalene
Pentachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins.
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins.
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Arsenic
Chromium (Total)
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
83-32-9 0.059 3.4
2-7 0.059 3.4
0.059 3.4
_ 0.061 3.4
_ .1-9 0.059 3.4
105-67-9 0.036 14
86-73-7 0.059 3.4
NA 0.000063 0.001
NA 0.000063 0.001
91-20-3 0.059 5.6
NA 0.000063 0.001
87-86-5 0.089 7.4
85-01-8 0.059 5.6
108-95-2 0.039 6.2
129-00-0 0.067 8.2
NA 0.000063 0.001
Wastewaters, process residuals,
oreservative drippage, and
sp^formulationrfrom wood Benz(a)anthracene
Preserving processes gen- Benzo(a)pyrene
erated at plants that use inor- Chrysene •
ganic preservatives containing 2,4-Dimethylphenol
arsenic or chromium. This list- ^ene
ing does not include KOOI bot- Naphthalene
torn sediment sludge from the
treatment of wastewater from
wood preserving processes that
use creosote and/or
pentachlorophenol
58-90-2
88-06-2
7440-38-2
744CM7-3
83-32-9
120-12-7
0.030 7.4
0.035 7.4
-, 4 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
2'j7 "... 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
0.059 3.4
1-9
f-9
86-73-7
0.059
0.059
0.061
0.059
0.036
0.059
0.059
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
14
3.4
5.6
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
85-01-8
108-95-2
129-00-0
58-90-2
88-06-2
0.089 7.4
0.059
0.039
0.067
0.030
0.035
5.6
6.2
8.2
7.4
7.4
Arsenic
Chromium (Total)
7440-47-3
! 4 5.0 mg/l TCLP.
2j7 0.86 mg/l TCLP.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
43697
TREATMENT STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES—Continued
Waste Code
Waste description and treatment/
regulatory subcategory1
Regulated Hazardous Constituent
Common Name
CAS 2 No.
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Concentration in
Concentration in mg/kg5 unless
mg/l3; or tech- noted as "mg/l
nology code 4 TCLP" or tech-
nology code
F039
Leachate (liquids that have per-
colated through land disposed
wastes) resulting from the dis-
posal of more than one re-
stricted waste classified as haz-
ardous under subpart D of this
part. (Leachate resulting from
the disposal of one or more of
the following EPA Hazardous
Wastes and no other Hazard-
ous Wastes retains its EPA
Hazardous Waste Number(s):
F020, F021, F022, F026, F027,
and/or F028)
Universal Treatment Stand-
ards in § 268.48 apply,
with the exceptions of
flouride, vanadium, and
zinc
NA Universal Treat-
ment Stand-
ards in
§268.48
apply, with the
exceptions of
vanadium and
zinc
Universal Treat-
ment Stand-
ards in
§268.48
apply, with the
exceptions of
vanadium and
zinc.
11. Section 268.42(a)(3) is amended
by adding "POLYM" in alphabetical
order to Table 1 to read as follows:
§ 268.42 Treatment standards expressed
as specified technologies.
(a)
(3) * * *
TABLE 1 .—TECHNOLOGY CODES AND DESCRIPTION OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED STANDARDS
Technology code
Description of technology-based standards
POLYM Formation of complex high-molecular weight solids through polymerization of monomers in high-TOC D001
nonwastewaters.
12. Section 268.44 is amended by
revising the introductory text of
paragraph (o), the title of the table, and
the "see also" column of the table to
read as follows:
§ 268.44 Variance from a treatment
standard.
(o) The following facilities are
excluded from the treatment standards
under § 268.40 and are subject to the
following constituent concentrations:
TABLE 2.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM THE TREATMENT STANDARDS UNDER §268.40
Facility name
and address
* * *
Waste code
.
See also
§268.40
§268.40
Regulated haz-
ardous constitu-
ent
*
Wastewaters
Concentrations
(mg/l)
•
Notes
•
Nonwastewaters
Concentrations
(mg/kg)
• -
Notes
*
-------
43698 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules
Appendix I, Appendix II, Appendix III,
Appendix VII, Appendix VIII,
Appendix IX and Appendix X to Part
268 [Removed and Reserved]
13. Appendix I, Appendix II,
Appendix III, Appendix VII, Appendix
VIII, Appendix IX, and Appendix X to
Part 268 are removed and reserved, and
Appendix VI to Part 268 is amended by
revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Appendix VI to Part 268—
Recommended Technologies to Achieve
Deactivation of Characteristics in
Section 268.40
The treatment standard for many
subcategories of D001, D002, and D003
wastes as well as for K044, K045, and K047
wastes is listed in § 268.40 as "Deactivation
and meet UTS." EPA has determined that
many technologies, when used alone or in
combination, can achieve the deactivation
portion of the treatment standard.
Characteristic wastes that also contain
underlying hazardous constituents (see
§ 268.2) must be treated not only by a
"deactivating" technology to remove the
characteristic, but also to achieve the
universal treatment standards (UTS) for
underlying hazardous constituents. The
following appendix presents a partial list of
technologies, utilizing the five letter
technology codes established in 40 CFR
268.42 Table I, that may be useful in meeting
the treatment standard. Use of these specific
technologies is not mandatory and does not
preclude direct reuse, recovery, and/or the
use of other pretreatment technologies,
provided deactivation is achieved and, if
applicable, underlying hazardous
constituents are treated to achieve the UTS.
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
14. The authority citation for part 271
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a) and
6926.
Subpart A—Requirements for Final
Authorization
15. Section 271.1(j) is amended by
adding the following entries to Table 1
in chronological order by date of
publication in the Federal Register, and
by adding the following entries to Table
2 in chronological order by effective
date in the Federal Register, to read as
follows:
§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.
TABLE 1 .—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Title of Regulation
Federal Register ref-
erence
Effective date
[Insert date of publication of final rule in the
Federal Register (FR)].
Land Disposal Restric-
tions Phase IV.
[Insert FR page num-
bers].
[Insert date of 90 days from date of publica-
tion of final rule].
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Effective date
Self-implementing provision
RCRA citation
Federal Register ref-
erence
[Insert date 90 days from date of publication Prohibition on land disposal of newly listed 3004(g)(4) (C) and
of final rule]. and identified wastes. 3004 (m).
[Insert date 2 years from date of publication of Prohibition on land disposal of radioactive 3004(m)
final rule]. waste mixed with the newly listed or identi-
fied wastes, including soil and debris.
3004(g)(4)(C) and
3004(m).
[Insert date of publica-
tion of final rule] 59
FR [Insert page
numbers].
Do.
Do.
16. Section 271.28 is added to read as
follows:
§ 271.28 Streamlined authorization
procedures.
(a) The procedures contained in this
section may be used by a State when
revising its program by applying for
authorization for the following rules, or
parts of rules:
(1) The following changes
promulgated by the Land Disposal
Restrictions Phase Two rule (59 FR
47980, September 19,1994) if a State is
authorized for Land Disposal
Restrictions rules up to the Third Third
(55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990):
(i) New Table in § 268.40; and
(ii) New § 268.48.
(2) The following changes proposed
by the Land Disposal Restrictions Phase
Three rule (proposed at 60 FR 11702,
May 2,1995) if a State is authorized for
Land Disposal Restrictions rules up to
the Third Third (55 FR 22520, June 1,
1990):
(i) Amendments to §§ 266.20(b),
268.2, 268.7, 268.39, the Table to
268.40, 268.48; and
(ii) Removal of §§ 268.8, 268.10-12.
(3) All provided regulatory provisions
of the proposed Land Disposal
Restrictions Phase Four rule ([insert
date of publication of final rule] FR
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 22, 1995 / Proposed Rules 43699
[Insert FR page number]), except
amended § 268.1, if a State is authorized
for Land Disposal Restrictions rules up
to the Third Third (55 FR 22520, June
1,1990).
(h) An application for a revision of a
State's program for the provisions stated
in paragraph (a) of this section shall
consist of:
(1) A certification from the State that
its laws provide authority that is
equivalent to and no less stringent than
the provisions specified in paragraph
(a), and which includes references to the
specific statutes, administrative
regulations and where appropriate,
judicial decisions. State statutes and
regulations cited in the State
certification shall be fully effective at
the time the certification is signed; and
(2) Copies of all applicable State
statutes and regulations.
(c) Within 30 days of receipt by EPA
of a State's application for final
authorization to implement a rule
specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, if the Administrator determines
that the application is not complete, the
Administrator shall notify the State that
the application is incomplete. This
notice shall include a concise statement
of the deficiencies which form the basis
for this determination.
(d) For purposes of this section an
incomplete application is one where:
(1) Copies of applicable statutes or
regulations were not included;
(2) The statutes or regulations relied
on by the State to implement the
program revisions are not yet in effect;
(3) The State is not authorized to
implement the prerequisite RCRA rules
as specified in paragraph (a) of this
section; or
(4) In the certification, the citations to
the specific statutes, administrative
regulations and where appropriate,
judicial decisions are not included or
incomplete.
(e) Within 60 days after receipt of a
complete final application from a State
for final authorization to implement a
rule or rules specified in paragraph (a)
of this section, absent information in the
possession of EPA, the Administrator
shall publish an immediate final notice
of the decision to grant final
authorization as follows:
(1) In the Federal Register;
(2) In enough of the largest
newspapers in the State to attract
Statewide attention; and
(3) By mailing to persons on the State
agency mailing list and to any other
persons whom the Agency has reason to
believe are interested.
(f) The public notice under paragraph
(e) of this section shall summarize the
State program revision and provide for
an opportunity to comment for a period
of 30 days.
(g) Approval of State program
revisions under this section shall
become effective 60 days after the date
of publication in the Federal Register in
accordance with paragraph (e) of this
section, unless a significant adverse
comment pertaining to the State
program revision discussed in the notice
is received by the end of the comment
period. If a significant adverse comment
is received, the Administrator shall so
notify the State and shall, within 60
days after the date of publication,
publish in the Federal Register either:
(1) A withdrawal of the immediate
final decision; or
(2) A notice containing a response to
comments and either affirming that the
immediate final decision takes effect or
reversing the decision.
[FR Doc. 95-20623 Filed 8-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-«M>
------- |