Tuesday
Movember 17, 1981
Part V
Hazardous Wast® Management System:
Identification and Labelling of Hazardous
Waste - .
-------
. &K* .
56582 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 221 /
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SWH-FRL1950-8]
Hazardous Waste Management
System: Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Interim final rule and request
for comments.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today revising the
regulations for hazardous waste
management under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act to
exempt certain categories of mixtures of
solid wastes and hazardous wastes from
the presumption of hazardousnesa
presently contained in the regulations.
EPA is taking this action because the
Agency believes that the risk posed to
human health and the environment from
the management of these waste
mixtures is not substantial, so that
automatically defining these waste
mixtures as hazardous is inappropriate.
This amendment will substantially
reduce the regulatory burden to those
persons who would otherwise have
applied the regulations for hazardous
waste management to these mixtures.
DATES: Effective date: November 17,
1981. Comment date: EPA will accept
public comment on this amendment until
January 18,1982.
ADDRESS: Comments should be sent to
Deneen M. Shrader, Docket Clerk
(Docket 3001), Office of Solid Waste
(WH-SC2), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460.
Public Docket: The public docket for
this regulation is located in Room 2711,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460, and is available for viewing from
9:00 am to 4:00 pm, Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
' RCRA Hotline, toll free at (800) 424-9346
or at (202) 554-1404. For technical
information contact Judith S. Bellin,
PhJD, Office of Solid Waste (WH-565),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20480 (202) 755-9187.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 19,1980, EPA promulgated
the first phase of regulations
implementing the hazardous waste
management system under Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended .
(RCRA). 45 FR 33066 (1980). These
regulations included the identification
and listing of hazardous wastes in 40
CFR Part 261. Section 261.3 of these
regulations (45 FR 33119) defines a
hazardous waste as a solid waste which
(1) exhibits any of the characteristics
defined in Subpart C of Part 261; (2) is
listed in Subpart D of Part 261, and has
not been excluded by application of
§§ 260.20 and 260.22; or (3) is a mixture
of a solid waste and one or more
hazardous wastes listed in Subpart D of
Part 261 and has not been excluded by
application of §§ 260.20 and 260.22. This
latter provision was adopted to prevent
generators from evading Subtitle C
requirements simply by commingling
listed hazardous wastes with non-
hazardous solid wastes (45 FR 33095),
and because many wastes do indeed
remain hazardous after admixture or
dilution.
EPA recognized-that a rule
designating all waste mixtures
containing listed hazardous wastes as
hazardous could create some
unintended results (45 FR 33095). It,
could, for example, result in some waste
mixtures being considered hazardous
wastes which do not pose a substantial
hazard to human health or the
environment because they contain only
very small amounts of listed hazardous
wastes. It was felt that many of these
problems could be addressed by using
the petition procedures of §§ 260.20 and
260.22. Moreover, it seemed likely that,
in many cases, the burden of having to
manage,a waste mixture as a hazardous
waste could be easily avoided by
carefully segregating hazardous from
non-hazardous waste. It was further
recognized, however, that these
solutions may not readily address the
unintended problems brought about by
this provision, and EPA, therefore,
expressly invited public comment on
other approaches for solving these
problems (45 FR 33095).
The regulated community has
contended in comments to the May 19
regulation that the petition process,
alone, is not workable because it would
require excessive numbers of petitions
to address the myriad of such problems,
and, therefore, would be too resource-
intensive for both the regulated
community and for EPA. In addition,
they argue that, in many cases, the
segregation of hazardous and non-
hazardous wastes needed in order to
comply with the rule cannot be easily or
inexpensively accomplished. Finally,
they claim that mixtures which contain
only small amounts of listed hazardous
wastes often do not pose a substantial
threat ,to human health or the
environment, and therefore do not merit
the rigorous regulation required by the
Subtitle C regulations. These
commenters have raised these
arguments particularly with respect to
wastewater mixtures that contain only
small amounts of process wastes, listed
as hazardous under § § 261.31 and
261.32, or small amounts of discarded
commercial chemical products or
manufacturing chemical intermediates
listed under § § 261.33 (e) and (f).
A second area where the current rule
does not appear necessary involves
mixtures of solid wastes and wastes
which are listed as hazardous solely
because they exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes.
Under the current rule these mixtures
are presumed to be hazardous unless
they are delisted, even when they do not
exhibit any of the applicable
characteristics. ^
The Agency is therefore taking action
to exclude from the presumption of
hazardousness certain types of mixtures
of listed hazardous wastes and
wastewaters, and mixtures of solid
wastes and hazardous wastes which are
listed solely because they exhibit one or
more of the hazardous waste
characteristics.
The following sections of this
preamble describe the particular types
of mixtures which will be excluded. Any
excluded mixture may still be a
hazardous waste -if it is listed
independently, or if it exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic.
II. Problems Encountered With
Application of the Current Mixture Rule
to Wastewater Treatment Facilities
The Agency believes that the mixture
rule, as presently drafted, sweeps too
broadly when applied to all mixtures of
wastewater and listed hazardous
wastes.1 Strict application of the mixture
rule would cause to be hazardous waste
a mixture of large volumes of non-
hazardous wastewater and the
relatively small amounts of listed
hazardous wastes which are introduced
'This is not to say that the mixture presumption
does not have validity in many settings involving
mixtures of listed wastes'and wastewater. There
are situations where toxic wastes are mixed with
wastewaters in concentrations sufficient to render
hazardous the resulting mixture and wastewater
treatment sludges, Furthermore, many wastewater
treatment facilities contain unlined surface
impoundments, which are of special environmental
concern when they are used to treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous waste. Many pollutants are
water soluble, and impounded wastes are
constantly exposed to water under conditions
where a hydraulic head can develop. Hazardous
constituents are especially available for leaching to
the environment under these conditions.
-------
56583
into the wastewater as a result of
normal manufacturing operations or on-
site laboratory operations. Resulting
wastewater treatment sludges would
likewise be hazardous wastes under
§ 261.3(e}(2}. In many cases, however,
these relatively small amounts of listed
hazardous wastes are likely to be
greatly diluted in the wastewater, so
that the resulting mixture is not
hazardous. In addition, hazardous
constituents of the listed hazardous
wastes may adsorb to soil, degrade of
otherwise attenuate during the course of
wastewater treatment, further reducing
the potential hazardousness of the
mixture. A presumption of
hazardousness is not warranted in these
situations.
Data submitted by the Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA) and
the American Petroleum Institute (API)
indicate that small amounts of spent
solvents listed in § 261.31, discarded
commercial chemical products and
manfacturing chemical intermediates
listed in § 261.33, and discarded
laboratory wastes often are mixed with
large Volumes of process wastewater in
a relatively innocuous manner. They
claim that these practices, in some
cases, are unavoidable (e.g.,
unanticipated "spills into a
manufacturing plant's sewer system)
and, in other cases, are reasonable and
efficient practices for managing these
small volumes of wastes. In addition,
data from API indicates that relatively
small amounts of the sludge resulting
from cleaning of heat exchangers (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K050) often is
mixed with large volumes-of wastewater
as a result of reasonable and efficient
waste management practices, without
significantly increasing the resulting
concentration of hexavalent chromium
in the wastewater.
Although these data, in some cases,
show sizable amounts of listed
hazardous wastes discharged into non-
hazardous wastewaters, the relative
" quantity of these listed wastes mixed
into the wastewaters is small,
oftentimes exceedingly small.
Consequently, the resulting
concentration in the wastewafer of the
hazardous constituents of .the listed
hazardous wastes are very small. For
example, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, a solvent
used in large quantities in petroleum
refineries for decreasing purposes, has
been measured in the untreated refinery
wastewater at 4—283 ppb, averaging 21
ppb.23 Additionally, sampling ;
JData submission of the American Petroleum
Institute (API), April 3, igBLjUthough the data were
gathered from only four refineries, API has
indicated that they are representative of the
petroleum refining industry. ;
performed by the Agency in the
petroleum refining and pharmaceutical
industries itwo industries wiih high
solvent usage) show that their raw
wastewaters contain an aggregate of
0.01 and 0.08 ppm, respectively, of the
carcinogenic 4 solvents carbon
tetrachloride, tetrachloroethylene and
trichloroethylene. s 6 Agency data also
show that the combined concentration
in the raw wastewater of the listed
solvents methylene chloride, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, chlofobenzene, o-
dichlorobenzene, and toluene is 0.2 ppm
in petroleum refineries, and 2.3 ppm in
the pharmaceutical industry. 3 * 9
Leaks and other de minimis '
discharges of § 261.33 chemical products
or manufacturing intermediates from ,
normal manufacturing operations? are
another source of listed hazardous
wastes that are frequently discharged
into and mixed with non-hazardous
wastewater, but which appear,to
contribute little to total pollutant
loadings. Data provided by CMA for
several chemical manufacturing
operations (two facilities processing
petrochemicals, one producing hydrogen
fluoride, and one synthesizing
formaldehyde resins) show that the
incremental amounts of § 261.33
materials reaching the wastewater
treatment system as a result of spills,
leaks, maintenance and laboratory
activities usually constitute a small ,
percentage (in all cases except one less
than one percent) of the total amount of
such materials contained in the
wastewater influent.10 For example, a
plastics manufacturing plant using
acrylonitrile (a commercial chemical
product listed in §261.33(f)) discharges
into its wastewater treatment system
only 8 Ib per day of discarded
acrylonitrile resulting from equipment
leakage and cleanup, relief-device
discharges, and line rinsings, whereas
the quantity of acrylonitrile introduced
into its wastewaters from the .
manufacturing process per se amount to
800 Ib per day." -
On-site laboratory operations also
often discharge small amounts of listed
hazardous wastes into a plant's
wastewater. Many of the commercial
. chemical products listed in § 261.33 are
3 Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum
Refining Point Source Category, EPA 440/l-79-014b,
December 1979. '
4 EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group (CAG) has
determined that there is substantial evidence to
indicate that these substances are potentially
carcinogenic in human beings. .
'" See footnote 2
sSee footnotes ' ,
'See footnote 3 .'-.."
8 Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Pharmaceutical
Industry Point Source Category, EPA 440/l-8Q-084a,
June 1980. . ' , • . ••-".-
either used or analyzed in laboratories.
Also, laboratory operations typically
use a variety; of solvents and often
discharge small quantities of the spent
solvents listed in § 261131 into a plant's
wastewater treatment system. An
industrial laboratory is estimated to
produce between 20 and 1600 kg of
hazardous wastes per year.12 A high
proportion of-these wastes is probably
discarded to wastewater.
-: Another source of listed hazardous
wastes which 113 mixed into'wastewater
is of particular 'Concern to the petroleum
refining industry.13 Refinery operations
and maintenance activities require
removal of accximulated residues from
the cooling water side of heat
exchangers. These residues are listed as
a hazardous wsiste (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K050). In the course of daily
cleaning operations, these residues are
managed most efficiently by. being3
discharged into the refinery's ••__••.
wastewater treatment system. On the
average, in a typical refinery, about 75-'
150 kg per year of heat exchanger
bundle sludges are flushed to the sewer
system."Dilution of these residues in
the large volumes of refinery
wastewater results in very low _•
concentrations of total chromium. It is
estimated that these concentrations are
almost always less than 1 ppm (usually '
much less' than 0.1 ppm).15 Sampling
performed by tLe Agency at seven
refineries showed less than 0.05 ppm of
total chromium.16 Concentrations of
hexavalent chromium, the species of
chromium of specific concern because of
its toxicity, are (estimated to be even
smaller. j -;.-
Based on the foregoing evidence, EPA.
believes there isl a justified heed for
amending the mixture rule in
§ 261.3(a)(2)(ii) to restrict this rule as it
applies to wastewater mixtures, so as to
avoid Subtitle C regulation of
wastewater mixtures that do not pose a
substantial threat to human health or
9 The presence of these compounds in the
wastewater does not necessarily derive from their
use as sol vents. They may also derive from
manufacturing processes •where the material is used
as a reactant/raw material, rather than as a solvent,
pr from laboratory operations. Increased
concentrations of thtise materials in wastewater
attributable to their use as solvents will thus be less
than the values reported above, reinforcing the
Agency's view thai its contemplated relaxation of
the mixture rule for these materials will not
jeopardize human' health or the environment
'"Submission of the Chemical Manufacturers
Association [CMA), March 25,1981. '
"See footnote 10., '. "
12See footnote, 2.' ; ..'.'.:-."
13 See footnote 2. ';"• '
"See footnote 2. J"
13 Calculated from submission of API (see footnote
2). ;.-•.-' ••-._.
10 See footnote 3. "; .-,•:•
-------
56584
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 1981 / Rules
the environment. In doing this, however,
the Agency must ensure that
modification of the mixture rule will not
allow or encourage generators to
discharge large quantities of listed
hazardous wastes into wastewater
treatment systems to circumvent proper
management of these listed wastes.
Today's amendment is designed to meet
these purposes by limiting the mixture
nils so that, with respect to wastewater
mixtures, it does not apply to non-
hazardous wastewaters that receive
small quantities of listed hazardous
wastes which are not principal
wastewater streams, and which are
reasonably and efficiently managed by
being discharged into a plant's
wastewater treatment system. EPA
believes that the small quantities of
listed hazardous wastes allowed by
today's amendment in exempted
wnstewater mixtures will be present in
such low concentrations that they do not
pose a substantial hazard to human
health pr the environment, and,
furthermore, often will be treated in the
plant's wastewater treatment system."
Today's amendment (except for
§261.3(a)(2)(iii)) applies only to
wastewater mixtures managed in
wastewater treatment systems whose
discharge is subject to regulation under
either Section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean
Water Act. This requirement will help to
prevent indiscriminate discharge of
wastes into wastewater treatment
systems, because to do so could
jeopardize the generator's ability to
comply with its Clean Water Act
discharge requirements. By the phrase
"wastewater subject to regulation under
either Section 402 or 307[b) of the Clean
Water Act" used in today's amendment,
the Agency means to include all
facilities which generate wastewater
which is discharged into surface water
or into a POTW sewer system. The
Agency also means to include those
facilities (known as "zero dischargers")
that have eliminated the discharge of
wastewater as a result of, or by
exceeding, NPDES or pretreatment
program requirements.
The amendment does not apply to ,.
facilities which discharge into privately
owned treatment works. The Agency
has no information on the types of listed
waste and wastewater mixtures
occurring at these facilities. In addition,
"Most wastewaters are currently treated by
chemical or biological treatment processes designed
to degrade organic materials. Most of the listed
hazardous wastes covered by today's amendment
are hazardous because they contain organic
hazardous constituents. Many of these constituents
uro capable of being treated by these wastewater
treatment systems at the concentration allowed in
today's amendment.
they have no regulatory obligation to
treat their wastes prior to discharge. The
likelihood of indiscriminate mixing of
listed hazardous wastes and
wastewaters at these facilities is thus
greater than in those subject to ••
reguation under the Clean Water Act.
The privately owned treatment works to
which these unregulated facilities
discharge, however, may qualify for the
mixture rule exclusion provided their
own discharge is subject to regulation
under the NPDES or pretreatment
programs, and provided further that the
influent streams to these treatment
works meet the relevant exclusion limits
contained in today's regulations.
The following sections of this
preamble describe the several
provisions of today's amendment in
more detail.
A. Mixtures ,of Wastewater and
Hazardous Waste From Non-Specific
Sources Listed in 40 CFR 261.31
The Agency believes that, of the
hazardous wastes listed in § 261.31, only
the spent solvents need be covered by
today's amendment because these are
the only wastes in § 261.31 that seldom
are principal wastestreams, and often
are discharged in small quantities into
wastewaters as a practical way of
managing them. Most of the other
wastes listed in § 261.31 are principal
.wastestreams generated in
manufacturing operations, and typically
• would be introduced into
wastewatersls in relatively large
"quantities.
Spent solvents are generated hi a
great many manufacturing and allied
operations such as degreasing,
maintenance, extraction, purification
and constituent application procedures.
(The same substances may also be used
in a manufacturing process as chemical
reactants or process intermediates, and,
when so used, are not considered to be
spent solvents.19) It is not always
possible to collect and segregate~spent
solvents (e.g., various spills or incidental
losses from degreasing or maintenance
operations); those materials often drain
or are washed into wastewater sewer
systems. Also, it is. often practical and
regonable to discharge the small
quantities of spent solvent generated in
diverse and separate manufacturing and
allied operations into the nearest sewer
connected to the wastewater treatment
system. These small quantities pf spent
solvent are conveniently managed by
and treated in the chemical or biological
wastewater treatment system.
The Agency has decided to deal with
these situations by amending
§ 261.3(a)(2) to provide that the mixture
rule does not apply to mixtures of
§ 261.31 spent solvents in wastewaters if
the combined concentrations of the
spent solvent in the resulting mixture
are no greater than 1 or 25 ppm,
depending on the type of solvent
(§ 261.3(a)(2)(iv) (A) and (B) of today's -
amendment). The lower limit applies to
those listed spent solvents determined
by the Agency's Carcinogen Assessment
Group (GAG) to possess substantial
evidence of carcinogenicity, namely, •
carbon tetrachloride,
tetrachloroethylene (perchloroethylene)
and trichloroethylene. The upper limit
applies to the remaining listed spent
solvents which are listed in § 261.31
because they are toxic (T): methylene
chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
chlorobenzene, o-dichlorobenzene,
cresols, creyslic acid, nitrobenzene,
toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon
disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, and spent
chlorofluorocarbon solvents.20 The
Agency chose these limits after
considering a number of factors. First, it
concluded that different limits should be
set for these two groups of spent
solvents because the scientific literature
shows a decisive difference among the
concentrations of these solvents in ,
water that produce adverse health and
environmental effects.21 Second, the
agency considered the factors listed in
§ 261.11(a)(3) to make a judgment about
the concentration of spent solvents for
each group that if deemed would not
cause the wastewater mixture, if
improperly managed, to pose a
is Several of the other wastes listed in § 261.31
are sludgs from wastewater treatment and thereby ^
are derived from rather than introduced into
wastewaters.
10 See Background Document to hazardous waste
listings F001-F005. response to comments,
November 14,1980.
20The spent fluprocarbon solvents are included in
this aggregate limitation even though their listing
rests on a different basis than that of the other spent
solvents, namely, the threat to the ozone layer after
volatilization. Limitation of the concentration of
these solvents in wastewater should, as a practical
matter, help meet this concern by reducing the
amount of fluorocarbon solvent available for
release. The Agency, therefor has tentatively
determined to include the spent fluorocarbon
solvents in the aggregate limitation. We do
however, solicit comments as to whether a separate •
limit should be adopted for this class of solvents,
and what this limit should be.
21 The Water Quality Criteria established by EPA
under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act set
criteria of 0.8, 2.7 and 0.4 ppb for carbon
tetrachloride, trichloroethylene and
tetrachloroethylene, respectively, and set much
higher criteria (ranging from 0.4 to 19.8 ppm) for
seven of the substances in the second group of spent
solvents. The figures cited for the carcinogenic
solvents are for a 10~ 6 additional cancer risk level
due to a lifetime exposure from daily ingestion of
two liter,? of water, and consumption of 6.5 g of fish
and shellfish. See 45 Fed. Reg. 79318 (November 28,
1980).
-------
21
Novemoer 17, 1981 / Rules and Regulations 56585
substantial hazard to human health or
the environment. An important factor in
the consideration was the reduction of
spent solvent concentrations that
typically would be achieved in the
treatment of the wastewater mixture
before its intended or unintended (e.g.,
subsurface leakage) release into the
environment. The Agency reasoned that
virtually all of the wastewater mixtures
covered by today's amendment will be
given treatment, and thatthis treatment
will typically be biological, physical or
chemical treatment capable of reducing
the spent solvent concentrations in the
wastewater, particularly at the low
concentrations assured by the limits -
selected. The Agency concluded that, if
the spent solvent concentrations in the
wastewater mixture prior to treatment
are limited to 1 and 25 ppm, the
wastewater treatment process will
typically reduce these concentrations in
any releases, of the wastewater to levels
that do not pose a substantial harm to
human healthjor the. environment, ,
Indeed, effluent guidelines data and
data submitted by API22 indicate that
wastewater treatment typically reduces
these concentrations to a range of 10-
100 ppb, levels that approach the Water
Quality Criteria^ which the Agency
considered as a guide in assessing the
relevant factors. :
Spent solvent wastewater mixtures
may be released before treatment is
complete. Even in these situations,
however, other attemiative mechanisms
such as adsorption to organic soil
constituents, biodegradation and
dilution will typically operate to reduce
the spent solvent concentrations in
•these releases before they are
transported to points where human or
environmental exposure may occur.
Thus the Agency'concluded that even
where wastewater releases occur prior
to full treatment, attehuative
mechanisms will reduce spent solvent
concentrations to levels that-will not
pose a substantial hazard to human
health or the environment when the
influent concentrations are limited to 1
and 25 ppm.
The Agency does not intend to
determine compliance with this
provision by requiring that generators
actually monitor the concentration of
spent solvent in untreated wastewater.
Instead, the generator must be able to
demonstrate that the maximum amount
of solvents used during a week divided
by the average weekly flbwofjhe
influent into the headwprks of the final
wastewater treatment step would not
22See footnotes 2 and 3.
23 See footnote 21.
exceed the standards established herein.
This demonstration can be made
through an audit of various records,
already maintained at most faculties,
including invoices showing solvent
purchases, lists indicating to whom and
. how much solvent was .distributed, and
other, similar, operatirig records.24 An
EPA inspector would look to such
documents to verify the computation
made by the generator. The Agency is.
selecting the average weekly influent
flow, rather than a system's, design flow,
to take account of situations when the
wastewater treatment system does not
operate at design capacity; the
treatment system's headworks.is the
appropriate part of the treatment facility
on which to base average raw ,
wastewater influent concentrations, '
because final combination of different
raw wastewater streams typically takes
place at that location!
The following example shows how
compliance could be demonstrated: If a
facility estimates that it uses a
maximum of 700 kg of 1,1,1- .
triohloroethane (methyl chloroform,
MG), and 150 kg of methylene chloride
per week as solvents, and if the weekly
flow into the headworks of the
generator's wastewater treatment
facility is estimated to average 5 MGD,
the mixed wastewater would be exempt
from the mixture rule-because the
average MC concentration in its influent
wastewater is 5.3 ppm,25 the average
methylene chloride concentration is 1.1
ppm, and the combined concentration is
6.4 ppm, less than the exemption
maximum of 25 ppm for the non-
carcinogenic solvents.
In using this means of evaluating
compliance, the Agency is making a
worst-case assumption that all solvent
used at a facility becomes mixed with
process wastewater, unless the facility
can dempnstrate that a certain portion
of the solvent is not disposed to
wastewater. This assumption is one of
the factors the Agency believes justifies
its decision to adopt'a concentration
level for the spent solvents above
health-based concentration values. The
audit should be repeated whenever a
change in the generator's operations
could affect the amount of spent
solvents in the wastewater.
If EPA were to suspect a generator
"However, if a facility can demonstrate by
means of appropriate records that any portion of
solvents used at the facility are not disposed to
wastewater, that portion is to be excluded from the
calculation. That portion of solvents which is .
volatilized may not be excluded from the
calculation of solvent usage.
25 Calculated as follows: 700kg/wk x 1/7 wk/d x
1/5x10" d/gal x 1/3.8 gal/1 x 1 l/kg=5.3 ppm.
was violating the provisions of this
amendment, the Agency would follow
normal investigatory steps (such as
verifying supply records or interviewing
employees) to ascertain the company's
compliance. Deliberate falsification of
• relevant records, of course, could .
subject a generator to civil or criminal
sanctions. i <
B. Mixtures of Wastewater and
Hazardous Wastes From Specific
Sources Listed in 40 CFR 261.32
The Agency believes that hazardous
.wastes listed in §261.32 typically are
generated in large volumes relative to
the non-hazardous wastewaters •
generated at the same plant, and, if
mixed with the wastewater, often
constitute a significant portion of the
wastewater mixture, thereby causing the
mixture to pose a substantial hazard to
human health or the environment. The
Agency, therefore, believes that
§ 261.32-^-listed;wastes which are mixed
with non-hazardous wastewater •
ordinarily shouM not be excluded from
the mixture rule. However, the Agency
will consider amending the mixture rule
on a case-foy-case basis if a particular
industry can provide sufficient evidence
that their §261.tt2—listed wastes* when
mixed with their non-hazardous
wastewater, would not present a
substantial hazard. In fact, the petition
processes established in § 260.20 can be
used for this purpose.28
At this time, in § 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(C) of
today's amendment, the Agency has
decided to grant API's request to T"
exclude from the mixture rule
wastewater mixtures that are hazardous
only because they contain EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K050 (Heat
exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from
the petroleum refining industry) and
which are treated in a facility subject to
regulation under Section 402 or Section
307(b). of the Clean Water Act. This
listed hazardous waste often is mixed
with non-hazardous wastewater as a
- consequence of backflushing of the heat
exchanger bundles during intermittent
cleaning operations in the course of
refinery operations. Back-flushing is a
daily routine maintenance procedure.
.More vigorous cleaning, often by •
hydroblasting, is performed e,very one to
two years. In .either case, the
accumulated sludges are often disposed
26For making such a demon;
individual plant, the
can be used.
istration for an
•petition process under § 260.22
-------
56586
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 1981 / Rules and Regulations
to the refinery's sewer system. In two
large refineries, these sludges
correspond to 0.0004 percent and 0.002
percent of the wastewater flow into the
refineries treatment systems.27
The heat exchanger bundle sludges
are listed as hazardous because they
contain hexavalent chrqmium. However,
data provided by API indicate that the
cleaning operations raise the total
chromium content of the raw
wastewater to much less than 1 ppm (24
to 63 ppb),28 a level unlikely to cause
harm, since it virtually meets the
National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standard. The chromium also
would undoubtedly undergo further
attenuation before reaching
environmental receptors. In addition,
almost all of the chromium is reduced to
the trivalent state by reducing agents
such as sulfides present in the raw
wastewater. Refinery wastewater
(effluent from DAF float or API
separator) contains about 7.1 ppm of
sulfide, 0.7 ppm of trivalent chromium
and 0.02 ppm 6f hexavalent chromium.29
Two large refineries report 10-30 ppm of
sulfide in untreated wastewater.30
Although these wastes are alkaline
(pHB-9)" a condition conducive to the ,
oxidation of chromium, the tenfold
excess of sulfide is sufficient to reduce
the hexavalent chromium. Most of the
already small incremental increase of
chromium concentrations from this
source will therefore be in the relatively
non-toxic trivalent form.32 Although the
total environmental loading of .
chromium in petroleum refinery
wastewaters resulting from heat
exchanger bundle cleaning sludges is
not inconsiderable (about 1300 kkg/
year),33 the fact that it is almost
completely trivalent, and is present in
low concentrations in those
wastewaters, justifies exempting them
from the mixture rule at 40 CFR
2G1.3(a)(2).
>T toiler from S. M. D'Orsie, Exxon Company to
M Steinberg. Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, August
12. wai.
**8«e footnote 3. These data were calculated from
Tables 111-5 and 111-10 of the referenced document.
"See footnote 28,
*&
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46* No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 1981 /Rules and Regulations 56S&7
products (e. g., the discarding of § 261.33
pesticides being used for pest control on
the plarit property or the discarding of
§ 261.33 solvents or other materials used
in plant maintenance). EPA believes that
these discarded § 261.33 materials can
_ and should be segregated and
separately managed as hazardous
wastes. If they are intentionally or
unintentionally mixed jvith non-
hazardous; wastewaters, then suet
waste-waters must managed as
hazardous wastes. .
D. Mixtures of Wasiewater and Wastes •
Which Are Generated by Laboratory
Operations .•""-.
. In section 261.3(a)(2)(iv)(E) of today's
amendment, EPA is exempting from the
mixture" rule mixtures of non-hazardous
wastewaters and laboratory ,
. wastewaters that contain or may
contain listed hazardous wastes,
provided that the annual average,
concentration of laboratory"
wastewaters in the generator's total
wastewater flow is less than one
percent. Most manufacturing plants - -
operate on-site laboratories either for
the purpose of providing quality
control3S or for performing research and
development, or both. These •
laboratories typically .generate a variety
of listed hazardous wastes including
many of the spent solvents listed in
. § 261.31 and many materials listed in
§ 261.33.39 These laboratories may also
discard samples or pprtions'of samples
of listed hazardous wastes brought into
the laboratory for analysis. , ,
Proper disposal of these hazardous
wastes and other laboratory wastes is a
problem for all laboratories. 40~42
Some of these .hazardous wastes are
segregated and disposed of separately
(e.g., by being sent to a landfill in
3TWhere an unused material (such as toluene)
which would be a listed spent solvent if discarded
after use as a solvent, is instead discarded to
wastewater prioi to use, the principle set out in this
section applies, and the discharge does not count
against the 1 or 25 ppm exclusion level for spent
solvents mixed with wastewater. In this case, what
is being discarded is not a spent solvent, but an
unused commercial product or intermediate.
38 This excluision covers laboratory wastes
generated in the course of quality control
measurements conducted near a unit operation, as
well as analyses conducted in a formal laboratory
setting. A pilot plant, however, is not considered to
be a laboratory operation, because it is a scaled-
down version of a manufacturing process, and so
does not generate the diversity of chemical wastes
which are characteristic of laboratory operations.
39 A recent survey determined that more than 25
different chemicals are used daily in 47 percent of
1439 academic and industrial laboratories
questioned, and that 100 different chemicals are •
used daily in 30 percent of these laboratories.
(Survey of Laboratory Practices and Policies for
'Employee Protection from Exposure to Chemicals).
American Chemical Society, 115516th Street N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036. July 1981.
carefully packed "lab packs", or to an
off-site or on-site incinerator). However,'
' a majority of these wastes are believed
to be discharged through the
laboratories'.sewers into the plants'
wastewater collection and treatment
systems. Indeed, some of these
discharges are- almost unavoidable (e.g., •.
laboratory spills washed into a sink
drain, and residues from ^he washing of
glassware which are carried hi the
washwater into the sewer). Other _
discharges are the most reasonable and
efficient way of disposing of many of '
these wastes.
The Agency believes that these
discharges from laboratories into a
plant's wastewater treatment system
typically will be small relative to the
total volume of the plant's wastewater.
Moreover, the Agency believes that the
concentration of listed hazardous "
wastes imparted to the plant's
.wastewaters by these laboratory
discharges will be even smaller. API
estimates 43 that refinery laboratories'
discard to the wastewater sewer and
treatment systems about 20 to 150 kg/
month of various chemical wastes, some
of which may be listed hazardous
•wastes. Even if one assumes that all of
these chemical wastes are listed
hazardous wastes and are discharged
into a typical daily wastewater flow of 5
million gallons, the resulting
concentration of listed hazardous ;
wastes in the wastewater would be 0.26
ppm. The Agency believes that these
concentrations, and even higher
concentrations—up to 1 ppm—do not
pose a substantial hazard to human
health or the environment, even if these
concentrations are represented in
wastewater discharges from the
treatment systems (e.g., subsurface
discharges from unlined surface
impoundments).44
To assure that the exemption in
today's amendment is only available to
highly diluted 4S mixtures of laboratory
wastes and nonhazardous wastewaters,
40 Survey of Laboratory Practices and Policies for
Employee Protection from Exposure to Chemicals.
American Chemical Society, 1155 18th Street NW.
Washington, D.C. 20036. July 1981.
41 Muir, G. D., Hazards in the Cheminal
Laboratory. The Chemical Society, Burlington
House, London WTVoBN. Second Edition, March
1977. •" ' ' . ' : ,
• 42N. A. S. Prudent Practices for Handling
Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories. National
• Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1981.
43 See Footnote 2.
"Moreover, the Agency believes that these
concentrations in wastewaters will often be
reduced by the physical, chemical or biological
wastewater treatment processes typically
employed.
"For reasons of laboratory safety, it is standard
operating procedure to discard laboratory wastes to
the sewer system by admixture with copious
amounts of water. See footnotes 40—12.
EPA has incorporated a limit of one
percent of 'laboratory wastewaters to
• total wastewater on an annual average
volumetric basis. The limit is expressed
in this way to simplify the ,
implementation of this exemption, that
is, to avoid the necessity of sampling
arid calculating or otherwise measuring
or estimatirag the actual concentrations
of listed hazardous wastes introduced
by laboratories into wastewater sewer
and treatment systems. .Under today's
amendment, a generator may
demonstrate compliance with this limit
•by measuring (preferably) or
conservatively calculating values of the
annual average wastewater discharge
from the laboratory and the annual .
: average wastewater flow entering the
wastewater treatment system. EPA
believes, that this limitation will
, typically assure laboratory-derived
listed hazardous waste concentrations
in wastewaters of less than 1 ppm,
which the Agency deems will not pose a
substantial hazard to human health or
the environment. , >
'It is possible that some facilities,
. whose average laboratory wastewater '
flow exceeds the exemption limit of one
percent of ihe total wastewater flow, do
not discharge hazardous chemical
wastes into their wastewaters in
amounts warranting application of the
mixture rule. The Agency has therefore
provided another compliance test, which
some facilities may prefer to employ;
.facilities may be able to show that the
estimated combined average
concentration of toxic (T) §§261.31,
261.32 and 261.33 materials resulting
from laboratory operations; in the
headworks of their wastewater .
treatment system does not exceed 1
ppm.46 If choosing this option, a facility
will be able to show compliance by
means of ail audit of laboratory
purchases, an estimate of the aggregate
amounts of § § 261.31, 261.32 and 261.33
toxic materials utilized, and data'on
wastewater flow into the headworks of
its treatment or pre-treatment facility.
Facilities must make the worst case
46 For the purpose of rendering regulatory
compliance less burdensome the Agency has chosen
to set a single Ilimlt for all hazardous laboratory
wastes. The limit was set at 1 ppm of toxic (T) listed
wastes because laboratories .work with a wide mix
of chemicals (see footnote 39), and an appreciable
fraction of thesie chemicals are carcinogens: 5% of
the laboratories surveyed use more than 250 gm of
OSHA-regulated carcinogens daily, weekly 9r
monthly (see document referred to in footnote 41).
As a point of clarification: listed wastes which are
hazardous solely because they exhibit one or more
of the characteristics of hazardous waste identified
in Subpart C ol: Part 261 are riot included in this
calculation. (See discussion in the text at ill above).
The regulatory language in § 261.2(a)(v)(E) reflects
this point. j '-'-•- ' * . .
-------
56588 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 221 / Tuesday, November 17, 1981 / Rules and Regulations
assumption that all listed hazardous
wastes used in the laboratories will be
discarded to wastewater, unless they
can demonstrate through appropriate
records that these materials were
disposed of elsewhere. The data should
be averaged on a yearly basis (an
annualizcd basis was chosen in order to
even out fluctuations, and in order to
simplify recordkeeping).
III. Wastes Listed Solely Because They
Exhibit a Hazardous Waste
Characteristic
Certain wastes are listed in §§261.31,
261.32 and 261.33 solely because they
exhibit one of the characteristics of
hazardous waste. Examples are
hazardous wastes F003 (certain ignitafale
solvents), K044. K045 and K047 (certain
residues from explosives manufacture),
and certain discarded commercial
chemicals listed in § 261.33 (e) and (f).
Mixtures of any of these wastes and
other solid wastes are presumptively
hazardous by application of the mixture
rule. This result seems inappropriate,
because the mixture itself can be tested
to determine whether it exhibits the
characteristics of hazardous wastes.
Therefore, in § 261.3(a)(2)(iii) of today's
amendment, EPA is exempting from the
mixture rule mixtures of non-hazardous
solid wastes and wastes listed in
subpart D solely because they exhibit
one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics identified in Subpart C.
Tills amendment, unlike the others
adopted today, applies to all waste
mixtures, not Just to mixtures of listed
wastes and wastewaters whose
discharge is subject to regulation under '
section 402 or 307(b) of the Clean Water
Act.
IV. Effective Date
Section 3010(b) of RCRA provides that
EPA's hazardous waste regulations and
revisions to the regulations take effect
six months after promulgation. The
purpose of this requirement is to allow
persons handling hazardous waste
sufficient lead time to prepare and to
comply with major new regulatory
requirements. For the amendment
promulgated today, however, the
Agency believes that an effective date
of six months after promulgation would
cause unnecessary disruption in the
implementation of the regulation and
would not be in the public interest.
Since this amendment reduces, rather
than increases, the existing
requirements for persons generating
hazardous waste, there is no basis for
allowing a lengthy period of time for
persons managing treatment facilities, to
prepare for compliance. Therefore, this
amendment will take effect immediately
as an interim final rule.
V. Interim Final Rule and Request for
Comment
EPA has determined under section 553
of the Administrative Procedure Act, 4
U.S.C. 553, that there is good cause for
promulgating these amendments as
interim final rules without prior notice
and comment. In the first place, the
Agency during the comment period on
the May 19 regulations, already .has
received comments criticizing the
applicability of the mixture of certain
discarded process wastes and process
wastewaters. Today's action is a direct
outgrowth of these comments. The
Agency thus believes that the policy
underlying the notice and comment
requirement has been substantially
satisfied here. EPA further believes that
the effect of delaying promulgation of •
this amendment would be disruptive
and counterproductive and could cause
unnecessary hardship to many facilities.
' We are particularly concerned that
facilities which otherwise would not be
deemed to be managing hazardous
wastes might have to install.
groundwater monitoring wells at
substantial expense because their
wastewater is presumptively hazardous.
Since the groundwater monitoring
requirement becomes effective on
November 19,1981, the present
amendment, as a practical matter, must
be implemented immediately to provide
relief to this class of facilities. In this
situation, we. think the use of advance
notice and comment procedures would
be contrary to the public interest.
At the same time, the Agency believes
that the public should have an
opportunity to comment on this rule,
and, indeed, specifically invites
comment on the issues raised herein.
Thus, readers will have ample
opportunity to comment before these
amendments are issued in "final final"
form. .
VI. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This interim final regulation is
not a major rule because it will not
result in an effect on the economy of
$100 million or more, nor will it result in
an increase in costs or prices to
industry. In fact, this regulation will
reduce the overall costs and economic
impact of EPA's hazardous waste
management regulations. There will be
no adverse impact on the ability of U.S.-
based enterprises to compete with the
foreign-based enterprises in domestic or
export markets. Because this
amendment is not a major regulation, no
Regulatory Impact Analysis is being
conducted.
This amendment was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., whenever an
agency is required to publish general
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or
final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
"regulatory flexibility analysis which
describes the impact of the rule on small.
entities (Le., small business, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdiction). The Administrator may
•certify, however, that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This amendment will generally have
no adverse economic impact on small
entities. Accordingly, I hereby certify
that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This regulation therefore does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Dated: November 12,1981,
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.'
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
. LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Forthe reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR Part 261 is amended
as follows!
1. The authority citation fpr Part 261
reads as follows: '
Authority: Sees. 1006, 2002(a), 3001, and
3002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U^S.C.
6905, 6912, 6921, and 6922]. .
2. In § 261.3, paragraph (a)(2) is
revised to read as follows:
§26t.3 Definition of hazardous waste.
(a) * * *
(2) It meets any of the following
criteria: f
(i) It exhibits any of the
characteristics of hazardous waste
identified in Subpart C. .,
(ii) It is listed in Subpart D and has
not been excluded from the lists in
Subpart D under §§260.20 and 260.22 of
this chapter.
(iii) It is a mixture of a solid waste
and a hazardous waste that is listed in
Subpart D solely because it exhibits one
or more of the characteristics of
hazardous waste identified in Subpart
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 221 //Tuesday.
Re8ulat°nS
C, unless the resultant mixture no longer
exhibits any characteristic of hazardous
waste identified in Subpart'C?
(iy) It is a mixture of solid waste and
one or more hazardous wastes listed in
Subpart D and hasd not been excluded
from this paragraph under §§260.20 and
260.22 of this chapter; however, the
following mixtures of solid wastes and
hazardous wastes listed in Subpart D .
are not hazardous wastes [except by
application of paragraph (a)(2) (i) or (ii)
of this Section) if the generator can
demonstrate that the mixture consists of
wastew'ater the discharge of which is
subject to regulation under either
Section 402 or Section 307(b) of the
Clean Water Act (including wastewater
at facilities which have eliminated the
discharge of wastewater) and:
(A) One or more of the following spent
solvents listed in § 261.31—carbon --..
tetracMoride.'tetrachloroethylene,
• trichbroethylene—provided that the
maximum total weekly usage bf these
solvents [other than the amounts that
can be demonstrated not to be • ,
discharged to wastewater) divided* by
the average weekly flow o'f wastewater
/ into the headworks of the facility's
wastewater treatment or pre-beatment
system does not exceed 1 part per,
million; or , ;
(B) One or more of the following spent
solvents listed in § 261.31—methylene
chloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
chlorobehzene, q-dichlorobenzene,
cresols, cresylic,acid, nitrobenzene,
toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon
disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, spent ,
chlorofluorocarbon solvents—-provided
that the maximum total weekly usage of
these solvents (other than the amounts
that can be demonstratedjiot to be
discharged to wastewater) divided by
the average weekly flow of wastewater
into the headworks of the facility's
wastewater treatment or pre-treatment
system does not exceed 25 parts per
:.million; or
(C) One of the following wastes listed
in § 261".32—heat exchanger bundle
cleaning sludge from the petroleum '
refining industry (EPA Hazardous
Waste No. K050); or ;
(D) A discarded commercial chemical
product, or chemical intermediate listed
in § 261.33, arising from de minimi's '
losses of these materials from
manufacturing operations in which these
materials are used as raw materials or
are produced in the manufacturing
process. For purposes of this sub-
paragraph, "de minimi's" losses include
those from normal material handling
operations (e.g. spills from the unloading
or transfer of materials from bins or
.other containers, leaks from pipes,
valves or other devices used to transfer •
materials); minor leaks of process
equipment, storage tanks or containers;
leaks from well-maintained pump
packings and seals; sample purgings;
relief device-discharges; discharges from
safety showers and rinsing and cleaning
of personal safety equipment; and
rinsate from empty containers or from
containers that are rendered empty by
that rinsing; or
(E) Wastewater resulting-from
laboratory .operations containing toxic
(T) waste? liisted in Subpart D, provided
that the annualized average flow of : \;
laboratory wastewater does not exceed
one percent 6f total wastewater flow iv
into .thei headworks of'the facility's
wastewater 'treatment or pre-treatment
system, or provided the wastes, •
combined atiinualized average ,
concentration does not exceed one part
per million in the headworks of the ,
facility's wastewater treatment or pre-
treatmentfaicih'ty. Toxic (T) wastes used
in laboratories that are demonstrated .
not to be discharged to wastewater are
not to be included in this calculation.'
JFR Doo. 81-33191 Filed li-lft-Sl; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6! 60-30-M
-------
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Postage and
Fees paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Third-Class
------- |