Friday
November 7, 1986
Part II 1
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 260 et al.
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Land Disposal Restrictions; Final Rule
-------
40572
Jfederal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rule3 and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260,261,262,264, 265,
268,270, and 271
(SWH-FRU 3089-51
Hazardous Wasta Management
System; Land Disposal Restrictions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Final rule. .
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is today promulgating its
approach to implementing the
congressionally mandated prohibitions
on the land disposal of hazardous
waste. This action is responsive to
amendments to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), enacted through the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA).
Today's notice establishes procedures
for setting treatment standards for
hazardous wastes, for granting
nationwide variances from statutory
effective dates, for granting extensions
of effective dates on a case-by-case
basis, for evaluating petitions for a
variance from the treatment standard,
and for evaluating petitions
demonstrating that continued land
disposal of hazardous wastes is
protective of human health and the
environment.
In addition, EPA is promulgating
specific treatment standards and
effective dates for hazardous wastes
included in the first phase of the land
disposal prohibitions: certain dioxin and
solvent-containing hazardous wastes.
EPA also is promulgating the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) for use in determining whether
these wastes meet the applicable
treatment standards. Extensions of the
effective date for certain categories of
these wastes are also promulgated in
today's rule.
Prohibitions on underground injection
of these wastes are on a different
schedule and are being addressed in a
different rulemaking. The treatment
standards, however, will apply when the
restrictions are effective.
DATE This final rule is effective
November S, 1986, except for the
provisions in §§ 268.30{b) and 268.31(a),
which will become effective on
November 8,1988.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemaking under Docket Number LDR-
3 is located in the RCRA Docket (Sub-
basement), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street SW.t
Washington, DC 20460, and is available
for viewing from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.,.
Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The public must make an
appointment to review docket materials
by calling Mia Zmud at (202) 475-9327 or
Kate Blow at (202) 382-4675 for
appointments. The public may copy a
maximum of 50 pages of material from
any one regulatory docket at no cost
Additional copies cost $.20/page. ,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information about this
rulemaking contact the RCRA Hotline,
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW.. Washington, DC 20460,
(800) 424-9346 (toll free) or (202) 382-
3000 in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area.
For information on specific aspects of
this rule contact: Stephen R. Weil or
Jacqueline W. Sales, Office of Solid
Waste (WH-562B), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460 (202) 382-4770.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
I. Background
A. Summary of Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984
1. Solvents and Oioxins
2. California List
3. Scheduled Wastes
4. Newly Listed Wastes
B. Summary of the Proposed Rule
1. Determination of Section 3004(m)
Treatment Standards
2. Variance Based on Lack of National
Capacity
3. Petition Process
4. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
II. Summary of Today's Final Rule
A. Regulatory Framework
a Applicability
1. Scope of Land Disposal Restrictions
2. CERCLA Response Action and RCRA
Corrective Action Wastes
3. Air Emissions
C Section 30M(m) Treatment Standards
D. Petition Procedures for Demonstrating
Land Disposal to be Protective of Human
Health and the Environment ("No-
migration" Petitions)
E. Variance from the Treatment Standard
F. National Variance from the Effective Date
G. Case-by-Case Extensions
H: Storage of Prohibited Wastes
I. Treatment Standards and Effective-Dates
for Solvents
I. Treatment Standards and Effective Dates
for Dioxins
K. Rationale for Immediate Effective Dates
III. Agency Response to Major Comments on
Proposed Rule
A. Applicability
1. Open Burning and Open Detonation
2. Wastes Produced by Small Quantity
Generators
B. Treatment Alternatives (BOAT)
1. BOAT Expressed as a Performance
Standard
2. Process Variability
3. Criteria for Well-Designed and Operated
Treatment Systems
C. Capacity
1. Capacity for Waste-as-Fuel
2. Commercial vs. Private Capacity
3. Permitted Facility vs. Interim Status
Facility Capacity
4. Existing Facility vs. Planned Facility
Capacity
5. National vs. Regional Capacity
D. Petitions Demonstrating Land Disposal of
Untreated Waste is Protective
1. Generic Petitions for Sites with Similar
Hydrogeologic Properties
2. Conditional Petition Approval Based on
Prima Facie Evidence
3. Eligibility for Petitions
E. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
F. CERCLA Interface
1. 48-Month Exemption for CERCLA
Wastes that are Soil or Debris
2. Capacity Shortfall due to CERCLA
Wastes
G. Solvents
1. Definition of Solvent Wastes
2. Impacts on Small-Quantity Generators
and Small-Volume Wastes
3. Disposal of Lab Packs Containing
Solvents
H. Dioxins
1. Quantity of Dioxin-Containing Wastes
Generated
2. Treatment Standard for Dioxin-^
Containing Wastes
3. Land Disposal Restrictions Effective
Date
IV. Detailed Analysis of the Final Regulatory
Framework
A. Determination of Best Demonstrated
Available Treatment Technologies
(BOAT)
\. Waste Treatability Groups
2, Determination of Demonstrated
Treatment Technologies
3. Determination of Available Treatment
Technologies
4. Collection and Analysis of Performance
Data
5. Identification of "Best" Demonstrated
Available Treatment Technologies and
Determination of Treatment Standards
6. Dilution Prohibition
E Comparative Risk Assessment and
Available Treatment Alternatives
1. Proposed Use of Comparative Risk
Assessment
2. Agency Response to Comments
3. Us* of Comparative Risk Assessment in
the Final Framework
C Application of Standards
1. Leaching Procedure
2. Testing and Recordkeeping
3. RCRA Facilities Operating Under a
Permit or Interim Status
D. Determination of Alternative Capacity and
Ban Effective Date
1. Effective Dates
2. Regional and National Capacity
3. The Nationwide Variance and the Case-
by-Case Extension
4. Determination of Capacity Requirements
by Waste Treatability Group
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7, 1966 / Rules and Regulations
40573
5. Definition of Available Capacity
6. Definition of Alternative Treatment
Capacity
7. Definition of Alternative Recovery and
Disposal Capacity
8. Estimation of Capacity
9. Applicability of the Minimum
Technological Requirements
E. Exemption for Treatment in Surface
Impoundments
1. Sampling and Removal of Treatment
Residuals
2. Applicability of Minimum Technological
Requirements
F. Case-by-Case Extensions
1. Demonstrations Included in Applications
2. Where to Send Extension Applications
3. Review of Applications For an Extension
4. Applicability of Case-by-Case
Extensions
5. Length of Case-by-Case Extension and
Renewals
6. Consultation With Affected States
C. Evaluation of Petitions Demonstrating
Land Disposal To Be Protective of
Human Health and the Environment
I. Procedures for Submitting and Reviewing
Petitions
H. Treatability Variance
1. Basis for Establishing Treatabiiity
Variance
2. Demonstrations Included in a Petition
V. Treatment Standards for Solvents
A. Introduction
B. Treatment Standards For F001-F005 Spent
Solvents
1. Industries Affected
2. Demonstrated Technologies for F001-
F005 Spent Solvent
3. Determination of Treatment Standards
(BOAT) for Spent Solvents
C. Comparative Risk Assessment
Determinations for F001-F005 Spent
Solvents
I). Treatment and Recycling Capacity for
Solvents
1. Quantity of Wastes Land Disposed
2. Reanalysis of Land Disposal Practices
Used
3, Comments on EPA's Estimates
4. Summary of Quantities Requiring
Capacity
5. Comments on Types of Treatment
Required
E. Unused Capacity of Solvent Treatment and
Recycling Facilities
I. Capacity for Wastewater Treatment
2. Capacity for Incineration
3. Capacity for Fuel Substitution
4. Capacity for Distillation
F. Determination of the Effective Date
VI. Treatment Standards for Dioxin
Containing Wastes
A. Introduction
B. Summary of Regulations Affecting Land
Disposal of Dioxin-Containing Wastes
C. Analysis of Treatment Technologies for
Dioxin-Containing Wastes and
Determination of BOAT
1. Applicable Treatment Technologies
2. Comparative Risk Assessment
Determinations for Dioxin-Containing
Waste
3. Demonstrated Technologies and
Determination of BOAT
D. Determination of Alternative Capacity and
Effective Dates
1. Required Alternative Treatment
Capacity for Dioxin-Containing Wastes
2. Treatment, Disposal, and Recovery
Capacity Currently Available
VII. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
C. State Implementation
VIII. Effects of the Land Disposal Restrictions
Program on Other Environmental Programs
A. Discharges Regulated Under the Clean
Water Act
B. Discharges Regulated Under the Marine
Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries
Act
C. Air Emissions Regulated Under the Clean
Air Act
IX. Implementation of the Part 268 Land
Disposal Restrictions Program
X. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
1. Cost and Economic Impact Methodology
2. Costs and Economic Impacts
3. Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of the
Restrictions Rule
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Economic Impact on Small Businesses
2. Certification of Finding That No
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
Required
C. Review of Supporting Documents and
Response to Public Comment
1, Review of Supporting Comments
2. Response to Comments
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
XI. References
XII. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 260. 261,
262. 264. 265, 268, 270 and 271
I. Background '
A. Summary of Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), enacted
on November 8,1984, impose substantial
new responsibilities on those who
handle hazardous waste.
In particular, the amendments prohibit
the continued land disposal of untreated
hazardous wastes beyond specified
dates, "unless the Administrator
determines that the prohibition... is not
required in order to protect human
health and the environment for as long
as the wastes remain hazardous ..."
(RCRA sections 3004 (d)(l), (e)(l), (g){5),
42 U.S.C. 6924 (d)(l). (eHD, (g)(5)).
Congress established a separate
schedule in section 3004(f) for making
determinations regarding the disposal of
dioxins and solvents in injection wells.
Wastes treated in accordance with
treatment standards set by EPA under
section 3004(m) of RCRA are not subject
to the prohibitions and may be land
disposed. The statute requires EPA to
set "levels or methods of treatment, if
any. which substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste
so that short-term and long-term threats
to human health and the environment
are minimized" (RCRA section
3004(m)(l), 42 U.S.C. 8924(ml(l}).
Land disposal prohibitions are
effective immediately upon
promulgation unless the Agency sets
another effective date based on the
earliest date that adequate alternative
treatment, recovery, or disposal
capacity which is protective of human
health and the environment will be
available (RCRA sections 3004{h) (1)
and (2), 42 U.S.C. 6924(h) (1) and (2)).
However, these effective date variances
may not exceed 2 years beyond the
applicable statutory deadline. In
addition, two 1-year case-by-case
extensions of the effective date may be
granted under certain circumstances.
For the purposes of the land disposal
restrictions program, the legislation
specifically defines land disposal to
include, but not be limited to, any
placement of hazardous waste 'ui a
landfill, surface impoundment, waste
pile, injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome or salt bed formation.
or underground mine or cave (RGRA
section 3004(k), 42 U.S.C. 6924(k)).
Congress also has prohibited the
storage of any hazardous waste that is
subject to a prohibition from one or
more methods of land disposal unless
"such storage is solely for the purpose of
the accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment or
disposal" (RCRA section 3004(j), 42
U.S.C. 6924(jJ).
There also is a statutory exemption
from the land disposal restrictions for
the treatment of wastes in a surface
impoundment, provided that the
impoundments meet minimum
technological requirements (with limited
exceptions) and that treatment residues
that do not meet the treatment
standard(s) are removed within 1 year
of the entry of the waste into the
impoundment (RCRA section 3005(j)
(11)(A)(B), 42 U.S.C. 6925(j)(ll)(A)(B)).
The legislation sets forth a series of
deadlines for Agency action. At certain
deadlines, further land disposal of a
particular group of hazardous wastes is
prohibited if the Agency has not set
treatment standards under section
3004(m) for such wastes or determined.
based on a case-specific petition, that
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the unit for as long as
the wastes remain hazardous. Other
deadlines cause conditional restrictions
-------
40574
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
on land disposal to take effect if
treatment standards have not been
promulgated or if a petition has not been
granted. In any case, where EPA does
not set a treatment standard for a waste
by the statutory date, it is not precluded
from later promulgating a treatment
standard for that waste. Similarly,
where EPA has set a treatment
standard, it is not precluded from
revising that standard after the statutory
date through rulemaking procedures.
The relevant statutory deadlines are
explained in detail in the following
units.
1. Solvents and Dioxins
Effective November 8,1988, the
statute prohibits further land disposal
(except by deep well injection) of the
following wastes: dioxin-containing
hazardous wastes numbered F020, F021,
F022. and F023.1 and solvent-containing
hazardous wastes numbered F001, F002,
F003, F004. and F005. (RCRA sections
3004 (e)(l), (e)(2), 42 U.S.C. 6924 (e)(l).
(e)(2)). These wastes are listed in 40 CFR
281.31.
If EPA fails to set treatment standards
or grant petitions for solvent- and
dioxin-containing wastes by the
statutory deadline, such wastes are
prohibited from land disposal as of that
deadline (other than in injection wells,
where the prohibition is effective as of
August 8,1988). If EPA has set treatment
standards, wastes that meet the level or
are treated by the specified method may
be land disposed. Wastes subject to a
successful petition may also continue to
be land disposed.
2. California List
Effective July a 1987 (32 months from
November 8,1984), the statute prohibits
disposal (except with respect to deep
well injection) for the following wastes,
listed or identified under RCRA section
3001:*
a. Liquid hazardous wastes, including
free liquids associated with any solid or
sludge, containing free cyanides at
concentrations greater than or equal to
1,000 mg/I.
b. Liquid hazardous wastes, including
free liquids associated with any solid or
sludge, containing the following metals
(or elements) or compounds of these
metals (or elements) at concentrations
1 The final dioxln rulemaking (SO FR 1978. January
U,1985) contains three waste codes, F026. F027.
and F02A, not specified in the statute. The additional
waste codes are a result of reorganization and do
nut represent a substantive departure from the
waste codes enumerated in section 3004(ej(l).
1 This list is based on regulations developed by
the California Department of Health Services for
hazardous waste land disposal restrictions in the
Slate of California. Thus, it has become known as
the "California List."
greater than or equal to those specified
below:
(1) Arsenic and/or compounds (as As)
500 mg/1;
(2) Cadmium and/or compounds fas
Cd) 100 mg/1;
(3) Chromium (VI) and/or compounds
(as Cr VI) 500 mg/1;
(4) Lead and/or compounds (as Pb)
500 mg/1:
(5) Mercury and/or compounds (as
Hg) 20 mg/1;
(6) Nickel and/or compounds (as Ni)
134 mg/1; '
(7) Selenium and/or compounds (as
Se) 100 mg/1;
(8) Thallium and/or compounds (as
Tl) 130 mg/1.
c. Liquid hazardous wastes having a
pH less than or equal to 2.0.
d. Liquid hazardous wastes containing
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at
concentrations greater than or equal to
50 ppm.
e. Hazardous wastes containing
halogenated organic compounds in total
concentrations greater than or equal to
1,000 mg/kg. (RCRA sections 3004(d) (1)
and (2), 42 U.S.C. 6924(d) (1) and (2)).
If EPA fails to set treatment standards
or grant petitions by July 8,1987, for
wastes appearing on the California List,
these wastes will be prohibited from
land disposal (other than in injection
wells, where the applicable statutory
deadline is August 8,1988).
EPA will propose treatment standards
for California List wastes in a future
Federal Register notice.
During the period ending November 8.
1988 (48 months from November 8,1984),
disposal of contaminated soil or debris
resulting from a response action taken
under sections 104 or 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (Superfund), or a
corrective action required under Subtitle
C of RCRA. is not subject to any land
disposal prohibition or treatment
standard for F001-F005 solvent wastes,
dioxin-containing wastes, and wastes
covered by the California List. (RCRA
sections 3004 (d)(3), (e)(3), 42 U.S.C. 6924
3. Scheduled Wastes
Section 3004(g) of RCRA (42 U.S.C.
6924(g)) requires the Agency to set a
schedule for making land disposal
restriction decisions for all hazardous
wastes listed as of November 8,1984,
under RCRA section 3001. This list
excludes solvent and dioxin wastes
prohibited under section 3004(c) and
California List wastes prohibited under
section 3004(d). EPA submitted this
schedule to Congress on May 28,1986
(51 FR 19300).
RCRA section 3004(g)(6) (42 U.S.C
6924(g)(6)J provides that if EPA fails to
set treatment standards or grant
petitions by the statutory deadline for
any hazardous waste according to the
schedule, such hazardous waste may be
disposed of in landfills or surface
impoundments only in facilities in
compliance with the minimum
technological requirements set forth in
RCRA section 3004(o), 42 U.S.C.
6924(o)).s If EPA fails to set treatment
standards or grant a petition for any of
the scheduled listed wastes by May 8,
1990, all such wastes will be prohibited
from land disposal.
4. Newly Listed Wastes
The land disposal prohibitions apply
to all hazardous wastes under RCRA
section 3001 as of November 8,1984, the
date of enactment of HSWA. For any
hazardous waste identified or listed
under RCRA section 3001 after
November 8,1984. EPA is required to
make land disposal restriction
determinations within 6 months of the
date of identification or listing (RCRA
section 3004(g)(4), 42 U.S.C. 6924(jj)(4)).
However, the statute does not impose an
automatic prohibition on land disposal if
EPA misses a deadline for any newly
listed or identified waste. '>-
B. Summary of the Proposed Rule
On January 14,1986, EPA proposed to
establish a framework by which
treatment standards for hazardous
wastes restricted from land disposal
would be established. EPA also
proposed treatment standards and
effective dates (dates by which wastes
must be treated or be prohibited from
land disposal unless subject to a
successful petition) for the first class of
hazardous wastes—solvents and
dioxins—to be evaluated under the
proposed framework (51 FR 1602).
1. Determination of Section 3004(m)
Treatment Standards
In developing treatment standards
under RCRA section 3004(m), the
Agency proposed an approach using
technology-based levels in conjunction
with risk-based standards (screening
levels). The technology-based levels
were derived from the performance of
the best demonstrated available
technologies (BOAT). Performance or
treatment processes was evaluated
based upon the leachability of the
residuals of such treatment in the
* In this situation, placement of such wastes in
other types of land disposal units (e.g.. deep
injection wells) would not be precluded by section
3004(g)(6). See Vol. 130. Cong. Rec. S9192 (daily .-d
July 25.1984|.
-------
Federal Register / Vol.
51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
disposal environment. The screening
levels specified maximum concentration
levels of individual hazardous
constituents in extracts of hazardous
wastes. The Agency also noted that air
emissions contamination was not
addressed in the proposed framework.
However, when work was completed on
the air model, more stringent screening
levels would be set, if necessary, to
protect this media.
To ensure that the total risks to
human health and the environment were
not increased as a result of
implementing the land disposal
restrictions, the Agency proposed to
compare the risks of managing wastes in
land disposal units with the risks of
managing wastes in alternative
treatment technologies. Treatment
technologies found to pose greater risks
than those posed by land disposal of the
waste would be considered unavailable
for purposes of establishing RCRA
section 3004(m) treatment standards.
The proposed rule set treatment
standards in the following way. If
application of BOAT treatment resulted
in concentration levels equal to or lower
than the screening levels, the Agency
proposed to issue the screening level as
the treatment standard, capping off
required BOAT treatment at these
protective levels. If application of BDAT
treatment resulted in levels less
stringent than the screening levels, but
BDAT realized substantial reductions in
toxicity or mobility and did not pose
greater risks than land disposal, then the
technology-based level would become
the treatment standard and the
screening level would remain as a goal
that could be reached as new
technologies emerged.
The Agency proposed to apply this
framework to the waste codes specified
in section 3004(e) (i.e., F020-F023. F026
and F027 * for dioxin-containing wastes,
and F001-F005 and the corresponding
constituents listed in 40 CFR 261.33 (e)
and (f) for solvent-containing wastes s).
» The Agency omitted F028 from the proposed rule
because it is the residue from the thermal treatment
of soils contaminated with other dioxin-containing
wastes. This was an error. a» this waste also is
required to meet the treatment standard. F028 is
included in today's final rule.
5 The solvent wastes are listed as POZ2, U002,
U031. U037 UOS2, U057. U070, U080. U112. UH7
U121, U140 U15I, U158, U181. U169. U196, U210.
U211. U22C, U226. U228 and U239.
The screening levels for dioxin-
containing wastes were below
established detection limits achievable
using standard EPA analytical methods.
thus, the Agency proposed treatment
standards based on the detection limits.
The proposed treatment standards for
solvents were derived from screening
levels and the potential effects of
solvents on synthetic and clay liners.
The Agency requested comments on
an alternative approach, that of
establishing treatment standards under
RCRA section 3004(m) based solely on
the performance of the best
demonstrated available technology
(BDAT). 8y
2. Variance Based on Lack of National
Capacity
Because no incinerator or thermal
treatment facility has been approved by
EPA to treat dioxin-containing wastes,
the Agency proposed to grant a 2-year
national variance for all dioxin-
containing wastes subject to the
restrictions. The Agency also proposed
to grant a 2-year nationwide variance
for F001-F005 solvent wastes containing
less than 1 percent (by weight) total
organic constituents, and solvent-
contaminated soils, because of capacity
limitations on alternative treatment,
recovery, and disposal technologies.
3. Petition Process
The Administrator is authorized to
find that land disposal of a particular
waste will be protective of human
health and the environment if an
interested person demonstrates, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, that
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the land disposal unit
.or injection zone for as long as the
wastes remain hazardous (RCRA
sections 3004 (d)(l). (e)(l), and (g)(5). 42
U.S.C. (d)(l). (e)(l). and (g)(S)). Under
the proposed rule, this demonstration
was to be made in the form of a petition
to the EPA Regional Administrator or
authorized State program director. The
applicant would have been required to
prove that a specified waste could be
contained safely in a particular type of
disposal unit. The Agency proposed that
the "no migration... for as long as the
wastes remain hazardous" standard
could be met if the petitioner
demonstrated that, by the time the
constituent reached a point of potential
human exposure, or a sensitive
environment, it would be at a
concentration level that did not threaten
human health and the environment.
4. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
Section 3004(j) of RCRA specifies that
any waste that is prohibited from one or
more methods of land disposal also is
prohibited from storage unless the
storage is solely to accumulate sufficient
quantities of the waste to allow for
proper recovery, treatment or disposal.
The Agency interprets the statute to
provide that the storage prohibition does
not apply to wastes that have been
treated in accordance with treatment
standards or that have been subject to a
successful petition demonstration. EPA
proposed that generators and treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities be
allowed to accumulate prohibited
wastes on-site for up to 90 days.
II. Summary of Today's Final Rule
A. Regulatory Framework
The Agency is finalizing thef
regulatory framework for imnfementing
the land disposal restrictions and
promulgating treatment standards and
associated effective dates for certain
solvent- and dioxin-containing wastes.
By each statutory deadline, the
Agency will promulgate the applicable
treatment standards under Part 268
Subpart D for each hazardous waste.
After the standards are effective, wastes
may be disposed of in a Subtitle C
facility if they meet the applicable
treatment standard.
After the effective dates of the
prohibitions, wastes that do not comply
with the applicable treatment standards
will be prohibited from continued
placement in land disposal units unless
a petition has been granted by the
Administrator under § .268.6
demonstrating that continued
management of specific hazardous
wastes in land disposal units is
protective of human health and the
environment for as long as the waste
remains hazardous. EPA may provide an
extension of the statutory effective date
under S 268.5.
BILLING CODE MW-M-M
-------
40578
/ VoL51.No.216 / Friday. Kovembef 7,1986 / Rule, and
MUMQ COM MW-W-C
-------
Federal Register / Vol 51 No 21 R / Pm^ M i_
s» / vo*. ai^No. 216 / Friday. November 7, 1986 / Rules and
•-* Applicability
l. Scope of Land Disposal Restrictions
^-^POLA Response Action and RCRA
Corrective Action Wastes
40577
?land disP°sal i
surfer °Jplacement in a landfill.
surface impoundment, waste pile
Wion u> land treatment facility.
sal dome formation, salt bed formation.
or underground mine or cave as
SS3 ?»? identified ,in RCRA section
JUiwikJ. The Agency also considers
placement in concrete vaults or bunkers
intended for disposal purposes as
methods of waste management subject
to the land disposal restrictions, as
proposed. The Agency, however, is
departing from the proposed rule with
respect to open detonation. For purposes
of clarification, the final rule notes that
the Agency interprets any reference to
open detonation to include open burning
(see Unit III.A.). The Agency has
concluded that these methods do not
constitute land disposal, except in cases
where the residuals from open
detonation and open burning of
explosives continue to exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of hazardous
waste.
The Agency interprets the land
disposal restriction adopted in today's
final rule as applying prospectively to
the affected hazardous wastes. In other
words, hazardous wastes placed into
land disposal units after the effective
date are subject to the prohibitions, but
wastes land disposed prior to the
applicable effective date do not have to
be removed or exhumed for treatment.
Similarly, the Agency interprets the
restrictions on storage of prohibited
wastes to apply only to wastes placed in
storage after the effective date of an
applicable land disposal restriction. If
however, wastes subject to land
disposal restrictions are removed from
either a storage or land disposal unit
after the effective date, subsequent
placement of such wastes in or on the
land would be subject to the restrictions
and treatment provisions.
The provisions of today's final rule
also apply to wastes produced by
generators of 100 to 1000 kilograms of
hazardous waste in a calendar month.
The land disposal restrictions apply to
both interim status and permitted
facilities. All permitted facilities are
subject to the restrictions, regardless of
existing permit conditions, because the
provisions of RCRA require compliance
by all facilities even though the
requirements are not specifically
referenced in the permit conditions. The
land disposal restrictions supersede 40
CFR 270.4{a), which currently provides
that compliance with a RCRA permit
constitutes compliance with Subtitle C.
Under section 3004(e)(3) Congress
provided a 48-month exemption (until
November 1988) from the land disposal
restriction provisions for disposal of
contaminated soil and debris from
f^fo^A104 and 106 resPonse actions
and RCRA corrective actions. Because
of this statutory exemption, today's final
rule is not applicable to these wastes.
ine exemption covers the disposal of
any soil and debris wastes under
^"on 3004 (d) and (e). All other
D™ A response action wastes and
KCRA corrective actions wastes are
subject to this rule.
CERCLA response actions and RCRA
corrective actions often address waste
matrices different than those associated
with industrial waste processes on
which this rule is primarily based. These
waste matrices are different in terms of
chemical/physical composition,
concentrations, and media within and
among sites. The Agency anticipates
that treatability variances may be
needed for some soils, debris, and other
similar wastes. Therefore, before
November 8,1988, the Agency plans to
perform additional characterization of
soils and debris and other similar
wastes and. where necessary, amend
the treatment standards by adding
additional standards specifically for
these wastes.
Today's final rule provides a 2-year
national variance for wastes from
CERCLA response actions and RCRA
corrective actions that are not soil and
debris. These wastes must be disposed
of in facilities that are in compliance
with the requirements of section 3004fo)
CERCLA and RCRA soil and debris
wastes include but are not limited to
soils, dirt, and rock as well as materials
such as contaminated wood, stumps.
clothing, equipment, building materials.
storage containers, and liners. In many
cases soils and debris will be mixed
with liquids or sludges. The Agency will
determine on a case-by-case basis
whether all or portions of such mixtures
should be considered soil or debris
3. Air Emissions
The framework for restricting wastes
from land disposal focuses primarily on
the relationship between the land
disposal of hazardous waste and ground
water quality. However, the Agency
also is concerned with air emissions
from land disposal of these wastes. The
Agency plans to address the issue of
releases to the air in a broad context in
response to various provisions in RCRA
including section 3001 (characterization
of waste as hazardous) and section 3004
(restriction of waste from land disposal
and standards for air emissions from
land disposal).
Historically, the Agency has
developed and promulgated rules under
section 3001 of RCRA classifying wastes
as hazardous based on the potential of
these wastes to cause harm to human
health and the environment if managed
!mPr°P«ly. These determinations hive
included the potential for harm as a
result of reactivity, ignitability.
corrosivity, and toxicity via the ground
water or surface water pathway. While
the Agency has consistently maintained
that exposure from air emissions is a
potential problem for wastes that are
treated and disposed improperly, work
to develop a characteristic based on
potential for air contamination has not
as yet been completed. The Agency
plans, however, to propose an air
toxicity characteristic in the future to
provide a more complete definition of
hazardous waste, including a list of
hazardous constituents that are of
concern based on their potential for air
contamination.
In conjunction with the development
of an air toxicity characteristift'the
Agency also plans to propose criteria
and performance standards fat air
emissions in its development of k
treatment standards for wastes in
accordance with section 3004(m). The
development of these criteria is tied to
the characterization of wastes as
hazardous and that portion of the land
disposal restrictions framework related
to the risks posed by air emissions from
best treatment technologies.
Both the air toxicity characteristic and
the criteria for treatment standards
based on air emissions are related to
both the development of air emission
standards under section 3004(n) and the
petition demonstration for continued
land disposal under section 3004(d).
With respect to the former, section
3004(n) requires the Administrator to
promulgate standards for the control
and monitoring of air emissions from
treatment, storage and disposal
facilities. These standards are currently
under development.
In establishing a framework for
dealing with air emissions under the
RCRA statute, the Agency must also
develop criteria under section 3004 (d),
(e). and (g) for determining when the
statutory standard of "no migration of
hazardous constituents from the
disposal unit or injection zone for as
long as the waste remains hazardous"
has been met. As with other portions ot
the statute dealing with air emissions.
the standards and criteria to be applied
to the petition demonstration are closely
-------
Federal Regurtar / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
related to the factors and criteria to be
used to determine when a waste should
be managed as hazardous tinder section
3001 of RCRA. EPA expects that the
technical analysis of air emissions that
will provide a basis for future
rulemaking under sections 3001 and
3004{n) will also be used as a guide in
making decisions on petitions
addressing air emissions concerns.
Implementation of two portions of the
regulatory program, nevertheless, must
proceed as the air strategy is being
developed. These include the issuance
of permits to treatment, storage and
disposal facilities and the establishment
of corrective action requirements as a
part of those permits. In these cases, it is
expected that air contamination from
operating and closed facilities will be
addressed on a case-by-case basis as
part of the permit process.
C. Section 3004(m) Treatment Standards
As discussed earlier, the Agency
proposed two major approaches to
setting treatment standards under
section 3004(m). The first approach
involved development of treatment
standards based on either technology-
or risk-based screening levels. The
second approach was based entirely on
technology-based standards expressed
as BOAT. The Agency is promulgating
the second approach as the framework
under which disposal of solvents,
dioxins, and the scheduled wastes will
be evaluated.
The risk-based methodology proposed
by the Agency considered the degree of
hazard posed by wastes land disposed
In Subtitle C facilities. This led to the
development of "maximum acceptable
contaminant concentrations" (or
screening levels), which were based on
the recognition that the potential for
harm to human health and the
environment will differ depending on
the toxicity, mobility, and persistence of
the waste stream. This approach also
recognized that in some cases, any
single technology-based level may
provide more protection than is
necessary, while in other cases, may
provide insufficient safeguards for
human health and the environment.
Moreover, under the proposed approach,
relatively "low hazard" wastes could be
considered suitable for land disposal
without any treatment at all.
Although a number of comments on
the proposed rule favored the first
approach; that is. the use of screening
levels to "cap" treatment that can be
achieved under BOAT, several
commenters, including eleven members
of Congress, argued strongly that this
approach did not fulfill the intent of the
law. They asserted that because of the
scientific uncertainty inherent hi risk-
based decisions, Congress expressly
directed the Agency to set treatment
standards based on the capabilities of
existing technology.
The Agency believes that the
technology-based approach adopted in
today's final rule, although not the only
approach allowable under the law, best
responds to the above-stated comments.
Accordingly, the final role establishes
treatment standards under RCRA
section 3004(m) based exclusively on
levels achievable by BOAT. The Agency
believes that the treatment standards
will generally be protective of human
health and the environment Levels less
stringent than BOAT may also be
protective.
The plain language of the statute does
not compel the Agency to set treatment
standards based exclusively on the
capabilities of existing technology.
RCRA section 3004(m) requires EPA to
"promulgate regulations specifying those
levels or methods of treatment, if any,
which substantially diminish the toxicity
of the waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that
short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are
minimized" (42 U.S.C 8924(m)). By
calling for standards that minimize
threats to human health and the
environment, the statute clearly allows
for the kind of risk-based standard
originally proposed by the Agency.
However, the plain language of the
statute does not preclude a technology-
based approach. This is made clear by
the legislative history accompanying the
introduction of the final section 3004(m)
language. The legislative history
provides that "(T]he requisite levels of
[sic] methods of treatment established
by the Agency should be the best that
has been demonstrated to be
achievable" and that "[T]he intent here
is to require utilization of available
technology in lieu of continued land
disposal without prior treatment" (Vol.
130. Cong. Rec. 9178, (daily ed, July 25,
1984)). Thus, EPA is acting within the
authority vested by the statute in
selecting to promulgate a final
regulation using its proposed alternative
approach of setting treatment standards
based on BDAT.
The Agency believes that its major
purpose in adopting the risk-based
approach of the proposal (i.e., to allow
different standards for relatively low-
risk, low-hazard wastes) may be better
addressed through changes in other
aspects of its regulatory program. For
example, EPA is considering the use of
its risk-based methodologies to
characterize wastes as hazardous
pursuant to section 3001.
D. Petition Procedures for
Demonstrating Land Disposal To Be
Protective of Human Health and the'
Environment C'No-migration " Petitions}}
In carrying out the directives of RCRA
sections 3004 (d)(l), (e)(l), and (g)(5), the
Agency proposed to consider petitions
to allow land disposal of restricted
wastes, provided that petitioners
demonstrated that any migration from
the disposal site would be at
concentrations that did not pose a threat
to human health and the environment
Today's final rule adopts the statutory
language requiring petitioners to
demonstrate "to a reasonable degree of
certainty that there will be no migration
of hazardous constituents from the
disposal unit or injection zone for as
long as the wastes remain hazardous."
The Agency will allow continued land
disposal of hazardous wastes without
further treatment only where it can be
demonstrated, to a reasonable degree of
certainty, that the statutory standard
will be met. ::
Since the Agency expects that there
will be relatively few cases in which
this demonstration can be made? and,
therefore, that relatively few petitions
might be submitted for review, the
Agency is requiring that petitions be
submitted to the Administrator rather
than to permit writers in authorized
States or Regional EPA offices as
originally proposed. As noted in the
proposed rule, a petition may be
submitted at any time prior to or after
the effective date of the ban (see Unit
rV.G.). However, submission of a
petition will not stay the effective date
of the prohibitions.
E. Variance From the Treatment
Standard
The Agency recognizes that there may
exist unique wastes that cannot be
treated to the levels specified as the
treatment standard (or, in some cases,
by the method specified). In such cases.
generators or owners/operators may
submit a petition to the Administrator
requesting a variance from the treatment
standard. Today's final rule includes
procedures for obtaining such a variance
(see Unit FV.H.). Following a restriction
effective date and while the Agency is
reviewing the request for a variance, the
generator may not land dispose the
waste. Alternatively, continued land
disposal in surface impoundments
meeting the standards of § 268.4(a)(3)
may be feasible for some wastes.
-------
216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40579
F. National Variance From the Effective
Date
The Agency has the authority to grant
national variances to the effective date
based upon a lack of capacity to treat
the wastes. The new effective date of
the prohibition is to be established
based on the earliest date on which
treatment capacity that is protective of
human health and the environment will
be available. In no case can this
extension be longer than 2 years. During
the period of such a variance, the waste
is not subject to the land disposal
restrictions or any requirements relating
to such restrictions. However, during the
period of such an extension, the wastes
must be managed in facilities that are in
compliance with the requirements of
section 3004(o) (42 U.S.C. 6924(o)).
C. Case-by-Case Extensions
The Agency will consider granting up
to a 1-year extension (renewable once)
of a ban effective date if the applicant
demonstrates that a binding contract
has been entered into to construct or
otherwise provide alternative capacity
that cannot reasonably be made
available by the applicable effective
date due to circumstances beyond the
applicant's control. The Agency is
departing from the procedures outlined
in the proposed rule by deleting the
proposed cancellation penalty clause for
contracts to construct or provide
capacity. The final rule makes it clear
that in demonstrating that capacity
cannot reasonably be available the
applicant may show that it is not
feasible to provide such capacity (see
Unit IV.F.). During the period that the
extension is in place, the waste is not
subject to the land disposal restrictions;
thus, the successful applicant also is
exempt from the prohibition on storage
under § 268.50. However, during the
period of the extension, the wastes must
be disposed of in facilities meeting the
requirements of RCRA section 3004(o)
(42 U.S.C. 6924(o)).
H. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
The Agency proposed a 90-day
storage limit to allow the generator and
owner/opera tor of a hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facility
time to accumulate sufficient quantities
of wastes to allow for proper recovery,
treatment, and disposal. Commenters to
the rule stated that 90 days was
insufficient and more time should be
allowed for storage. In today's final rule
the Agency is removing the 90-day
storage limit for owners/operators.
Owners/operators may store restricted
wastes as needed to accumulate
sufficient quantities to allow for proper
recovery, treatment and disposal.
However, where storage occurs beyond
one year, the owner/operator bears the
burden of proving that such storage is
solely for die purpose of accumulating
sufficient quantities to allow for proper
recovery, treatment, or disposal.
Generators who need to store restricted
wastes for periods in excess of the
accumulation time limits in 40 CFR
262.34 must obtain interim status and
eventually a permit. The Agency is
maintaining the proposed 10-day storage
limit for restricted waste at transfer
facilities. The prohibition on storage
applies to restricted wastes, and does
not apply to wastes that meet the
treatment standard or are the subject of
a successful petition under § 268.6 or
extension under § 268.5.
/. Treatment Standards and Effective
Dates for Solvents
The Agency proposed to establish
treatment standards for FOOT, F002. F003,
F004, and F005 solvent wastes and their
corresponding P and U wastes (40 CFR
261.3 (e) and (f)) using screening levels
and a liner protection threshold. Today's
rule, however, addresses only the FOOT
through F005 solvent wastes (including
solvent mixtures). The Agency will
evaluate the P and U solvent wastes in
accordance with the schedule for listed
wastes. In today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating technology-based
treatment standards for the F001-FOOS
solvents. The Agency also is
promulgating the effective dates for
F001-F005 solvent wastes essentially as
proposed, with modifications to the
range of applicable wastes. The land
disposal restrictions become effective
on November 8,1986, for all F001-F005
solvent wastes, with the exception of
the following wastes which will receive
a 2-year variance that extend* the
effective date for the land disposal
restrictions to November 8,1988:
(1) The generator of the solvent waste
is a small quantity generator of 100-1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per
month; or
(2) The solvent waste is generated
from any response action taken under
sections 104 or 108 of CERCLA or any
RCRA corrective action, except where
the waste is contaminated soil or debris
not subject to the provisions of this
chapter until November 8,1988; or
(3) The solvent waste is a solvent-
water mixture, a solvent-containing
sludge, or a solvent-contaminated soil
(non-CERCLA or RCRA corrective
action) containing less than 1 percent
total F001-F005 solvent constituents
listed in Table CCWE of § 268.41.
/, Treatment Standards and Effective
Dates for Dioxins
The proposed rule set treatment
standards for dioxin-containing wastes
(F020. F021. F022, F023, F028, F027)
below the current detection limit of 1
ppb for each of the chlorinated dibenzo-
p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated
dibenzofurans (CDFs) (i.e., all isomers of
tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins and dibenzofurans,
respectively), and the applicable
detection limits for the specified
chlorophenols.* The proposed standards
required that these constituents be
below the 1 ppb limit in the waste
extract before being land disposed.
Wastes having concentrations that meet
or exceed the 1 ppb limit may be treated
in accordance with the criteria
established for incineration (40 CFR
264.343 and 265.352), and thermal
treatment (40 CFR 264.383) for dioxins.
The Agency is promulgating the dioxin
treatment standards as proposed (see
Unit VI). The Agency also is setting
treatment standards for F028, which was
not included in the proposed rjde.
As proposed, the Agency is c
establishing a 2-year national variance
from the effective date for all dioxin-
containing wastes covered under
today's final rule. Accordingly,
treatment standards for dioxin-
containing wastes will not take effect
until November 8,1988.
K. Rationale for Immediate Effective
Dates
Today's rule provides for an effective
date of November 8,1986. It is clear
from the statute that today's rule must
go into effect no later than the effective
date of the prohibition on solvents and
dioxins in section 3004(e). Absent any
regulations, the prohibition on solvents
and dioxins in section 3O04(e) takes
effect automatically on November 8,
1986. Therefore, November 8. 1988 is the
latest date for EPA to promulgate
regulations that will prevent the
"hammer" in section 3004(e) from
falling. Section 3004(h) of RCRA
provides that a prohibition in
regulations under section 3004 (d), (e),
(f), or (g) takes effect immediately upon
promulgation. For section 3004(e), that
date is November 8,1988. Moreover,
section 3004(m) provides that
regulations setting treatment standards
' In addition to CODt and CDFs. the constituents
of concern for the dioxin-containing wastes also
include 2.4.5-trlchlorophenol. 2.4.8-lrichlorophenol
2.3.4.8-tetrachlorophenol. and pentachlorophenot
(see Appendix VII to Part 281). The treatment
standard* for these constituents are 50,50,100, and
10 ppb, respectively.
-------
must have the same effective date as the
applicable regulation promulgated under
subsection (d), (e), (f), and (g). Therefore.
since the statute clearly provides that
the regulations implementing section
3004(e) go into effect on November 8,
1988. EPA finds that good cause exists
under section 3010(b)(3) of RCRA to
provide for an effective date of
November 8,1988. For the same reason,
EPA finds that there is good cause under
section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(d)(3), to
waive the requirement that regulations
be published at least 30 days before
they become effective.
HI. Agency Response to Major
Comments on Proposed Rule
EPA received approximately 200
comments responding to the proposed
rule. Comments were submitted by
treatment, storage, and disposal (TSDF)
facilities, environmental organizations,
trade associations, companies, State and
Federal regulatory agencies, and private
citizens.
The Agency received considerable
comment on all aspects of the proposed
rule. In today's final rule, major
comments on applicability, treatment
alternatives (BDAT), capacity, petitions.
storage. CERCLA interface, solvents,
and dioxins are addressed. Responses to
comments not addressed in today's rule
are available in the background
document to this rulemaking (see
Comment Response Background
Document For the Land Disposal
Restrictions Volume I, November 7,
1988], available in the RCRA docket.
The Agency received numerous
comments on the ground water back
calculation model used in developing
health-based screening levels. However,
because the approach promulgated in
today's rule does not employ screening
levels, the Agency is not addressing
these comments in the final rule. The
Agency does anticipate using similar
models in future regulatory actions. We
will address the issues raised by the
applicable comments in these future
rulemaking activities.
A. Applicability
1. Open Burning and Open Detonation
The majority of the commenters were
opposed to the inclusion of open
detonation and open burning as forms of
land disposal. It was argued that these
two methods of waste management are
treatment rather than disposal, as
supported by the standards in 40 CFR
285.382 for owners and operators who
thermally treat explosive wastes using
open detonation or open burning. The
commenters stated that most wastes
handled in this manner are hazardous
because they exhibit the characteristic
of reactivity (i.e., they are explosive),
and when these wastes are open burned
or detonated they are rendered
nonreactive. The commenters also
indicated that no other available
technologies provide a safer alternative
to handling these wastes.
Although the Agency did not
specifically address open burning in the
proposed rule, current EPA regulations
classify both open detonation and open
burning as types of thermal treatment
under Subpart D of Part 285. Because
open detonation and open burning are
similar waste management methods for
treatment of explosive wastes, the same
regulatory requirements apply to both
methods under 40 CFR 285.382.
Therefore, we believe that considering
open burning in conjunction with open
detonation for purposes of this final rule
is reasonable and consistent with the
current regulatory structure.
Upon revaluation, the Agency agrees
that open burning and open detonation
of explosive wastes does not constitute
land disposal. EPA does not believe that
Congress intended to prohibit these
activities because open burning and
open detonation are not included in the
definition of land disposal in section
3004(k). They are primarily treatment
processes that typically result in by-
products which are no longer reactive
and, therefore, are not considered
hazardous. The Agency also agrees with
commenters that open detonation and
open burning may be the only safe
waste management method for handling
explosive wastes-.
In view of these considerations, the
Agency has concluded that the land
disposal restrictions program is not
applicable to open detonation and open
burning.
2. Wastes Produced by Small Quantity
Generators
While EPA is authorized to vary
standards for small generators under
RCRA section 3001(d), this authority is
circumscribed by the need to protect
human health and the environment. The
Agency has carefully considered the
risks posed by land disposal of small
generator wastes and has weighed these
against the impacts of the land disposal
restrictions on these generators. Given
the smaller aggregate amounts of
hazardous waste produced by small
generators, it is arguable that the
relative risks of land disposal to human
health and the environment are lower.
However, the major concern with land
disposal is the toxicity of the waste
rather than the quantity. As EPA
explained in a recent rulemaking
imposing certain RCRA regulatory
requirements on generators of 100 to
1000 kg of hazardous waste per month.
data from EPA's National Small
Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator
Survey indicate that both small and
large quantity generators produce many
of the same types of waste and use
many of the same waste management
practices. 50 FR 31285 (Aug. 1,1985).
Therefore, it is appropriate to include
wastes produced by small quantity
generators in the land disposal
prohibitions.
B. Treatment Alternatives (BDAT)
1. BDAT Expressed as a Performance
Standard
Generally, commenters supported the
Agency's interpretation of section
3004(m) regarding the criteria for the
selection of BDAT. The statute specifies
that BDAT may be expressed as either a
performance standard or a method of
treatment. Wherever possible, the
Agency prefers to establish «DAT
treatment standards as performance
standards rather than adopting an
approach that would require the use of
specific treatment methods. To date, all
treatment technologies considered as
BDAT can result in a wide range of
performance values depending on'the
operation of the technology. EPA
believes performance standards ensure
that the technology is properly operated.
Additionally, the Agency believes
concentration-based performance
standards offer the regulated community
greater flexibility to develop and
implement compliance strategies as well
as incentive to develop innovative
treatment technologies.
2. Process Variability
One commenter asserted that normal
process variability has not been
accounted for in the Agency's
calculation of treatment standards. The
commenter urged the Agency to
calculate variability factors which
account for variations in influent
composition, system performance,
sampling and analytical test methods.
and site specific conditions. The
commenter further stated that the
variability factors should be used to
develop BDAT treatment standards on a
daily maximum basis.
The Agency agrees with the comments
that treatment standards need to
incorporate a variability analysis. Since
variability in performance occurs even
at facilities that are well designed and
well operated, EPA believes it is
appropriate to include such an analysis
in the development of BDAT treatment
-------
standards. This analysis is not intended
to account for performance differences
which occur as a result of treating a
waste that is significantly different in
composition or for differences which
occur from improper or poor treatment
of the same waste. Instead,
incorporation of a variability factor into
the development of a BOAT standard is
intendedjo account for variations which
arise from mechanical limitations in the
equipment used to maintain treatment
parameters at the proper setting, small
variations in the waste, and variations
in analytical test methods.
The variability factor, as outlined in
the Notice of Availability of Data (see 51
FR 31783, September 5,1988), is the ratio
of the calculated 99th percentile
concentration, €99, to the mean
treatment concentration. A detailed
discussion of the statistical calculation
used to account for process variability is
provided in Unit IV.A.
3. Criteria for Well-Designed and
Operated Treatment Systems
One commenter asserted that the
Agency should document in the record
its rationale for evaluating and editing
data based on the performance of the
treatment system. The commenter stated
that the Agency should not simply
presume that well designed and
operated treatment systems are those
that achieve the lowest performance
values but should instead consider the
effects of the characteristics of the
waste on treatment performance. The
Agency is aware that the level of
treatment achievable is dependent upon
the physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste.
Accordingly, it is necessary for the
Agency to assess design and operating
parameters in determining whether a
system is performing well, in addition to
its consideration of the performance
value achieved. Because the parameters
that comprise a well-designed and
operated system will vary for each
technology, it is difficult for EPA to
generalize the specific parameters that
need to be examined. Whenever the
Agency has little or no data on the
design and operation of the system, the
Agency will evaluate the constituent
concentrations in the waste before and
after treatment and use engineering
judgment to determine whether the
system is performing well. The Agency
also will use a statistical outlier analysis
to confirm engineering judgment. The
statistical analysis to be used was
published in the Federal Register on
September 5,1986 (51 FR 31783). The
rationale the Agency used for editing
performance data can be found in the
technical support documents.
C. Capacity
I. Capacity for Waste-as-Fuel
Several commenters argued that EPA
did not, consider wasters-fuel as a
treatment "alternative in estimating
capacity. As one commenter pointed
out, this is a potentially large treatment
option that cannot be ignored. EPA did
not consider this alternative because the
data were not available. Since the
November 14,1988, proposed rule the
Agency has received waste-as-fuel data
from the "Telephone Verification Survey
of Commercial Facilities that Manage
Solvents" (August 1986). Data from this
survey were noticed for public comment
on September 5,1986 (51 FR 31788) and
have been included in capacity
estimates for today's final rule.
2. Commercial vs. Private Capacity
Several commenters stated that EPA
should not consider private capacity as
available alternative treatment capacity.
They explained that private facilities
may not be willing to accept off-site
wastes because liability could be
considerable, permit conditions may
prohibit accepting off-site waste, or on-
site capacity may be fully committed to
nonhazardous wastes.
EPA recognizes the issues raised by
commenters and agrees that private
capacity should not automatically be
considered as available alternative
treatment capacity. However, when
there is insufficient available
commercial treatment capacity, EPA
plans to consider the potential for
private facilities to become commercial
facilities. EPA will include private
capacity if there is sufficient evidence
that the private facilities plan to accept
off-site wastes. Because limited
information exists on the planned public
availability of current private capacity,
EPA has no basis for including private
capacity in total capacity estimates for
solvents and dioxins subject to today's
final rule.
3. Permitted Facility vs. Interim Status
Facility Capacity
Several commenters stated that only
existing permitted treatment facilities
should be considered in estimating
available capacity. They argued that
interim status facilities may not receive
final permits and consequently may not
provide available capacity.
In calculating available capacity for
solvents and dioxins, EPA included
capacity that is currently available from
some interim status facilities and all
permitted facilities. The interim status
facilities included did not notify the
Agency of an intent to close and.
therefore, can be expected to provide
capacity for the November 8,1986,
effective date. In future capacity
determinations, EPA will assess, on a
case-by-case basis, the number of
interim status facilities expected to*
accept wastes.
4. Existing Facility vs. Planned Facility
Capacity
Several commenters stated that only
existing, permitted facilities should be
considered in estimating available
capacity, because it is uncertain
whether "planned" facilities will be on-
line by the effective date of the
restrictions with approval to operate
from Federal, State, and local agencies.
EPA will include planned capacity only
when there is sufficient evidence that
the planned facilities will be fully
operational by the effective date of the
prohibitions. In the case of solvents and
dioxins. such evidence does not exist;
therefore, planned facilities have not
been included in the capacity estimates
for today's rule.
5. National vs. Regional Capacity
Several commenters stated that EPA
should determine available capacity
under section 3004(h)(2) on a regional
basis rather than on a national basis.
and variances should be regionalized
based on the availability of treatment.
These commenters stated that it is
realistic to assume that economic and
transportation problems affect the
availability of alternative capacity for a
particular generator. They pointed out
that national capacity for some
treatment technologies is based on a
few high-volume treatment facilities,
and emphasized the need for Federal,
State, and local efforts to construct more
waste treatment facilities.
EPA recognizes these problems.
However, the legislative history (S. Rep.
No. 284,98th Cong.. 1st Sess. 19.{1983)),
clearly states that "the available
capacity determination is to be done on
a national basis" in order to prevent a
situation in which regions obtaining
variances would become the "dumping
ground" for wastes generated in regions
implementing the land disposal
restrictions. Accordingly, EPA believes
that national capacity determinations
under section 3004(h)(2) are more in
accord with the statutory intent
D. Petitions Demonstrating Land
Disposal of Untreated Waste is
Protective
1. Generic Petitions for Sites With
Similar Hydrogeologic Properties
Several commenters suggested that
the Agency accept generic petitions that
address similar management techniques
-------
40582
51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
for the same or similar wastes in
hydrogeologic settings with similar
characteristics. Commentera felt that a
generic petition, once approved, would
allow all such sites where the same or
similar wastes were managed with a
similar technique to automatically
receive approval for land disposal
without individual petition
demonstrations.
RCRA sections 3004 (d)(l). (e)(lj, and
(g](5) do not preclude the submission of
generic petitions. However, as a
practical matter, the usefulness of the
generic petition is limited, since a
petition demonstration must include
site- and waste-specific data (see § 268.6
(a) and (b)). Accordingly, petitioners
must demonstrate that each scenario
covered under the generic petition is
similar. For example, a demonstration
that the hydrogeological
characterization of sites is similar would
require a detailed assessment of each
site addressed in the petition. As a
result, the Agency expects few, if any.
generic petitions.
2. Conditional Petition Approval Based
on Prima Facie Evidence
Several commenters expressed
concern over the possibility that land
disposal restrictions would become
effective prior to Agency rulings on
petitions, causing disruption in waste
disposal activities. To prevent this
situation, the commenters suggested that
approval of a petition be granted on the
basis of superficial evidence of
compliance with the statutory standard.
The Agency would perform a brief
review of the petition for completeness.
and would then grant conditional
approval until such time that a full
technical review could be completed.
Other commenters argued that the
statute requires a demonstration that the
statutory standard is met, not merely an
application for petition approval. It
would not be possible, according to
these commenters, for the Agency to
grant approval for such a demonstration
without a full technical review.
Other commenters suggested that the
statute provides the Agency with the
flexibility of granting a 2-year extension
of the effective date, pursuant to section
3004(h)(2) upon receipt of prima facie
evidence that the "no migration"
standard has been met. Commenters
argued that this superficial showing of
evidence would satisfy the requirements
of the extcnsfon to identify the adequate
alternative disposal capacity that
protects human health and the
environment.
The Agency agrees with those
commenters who stated that the statute
calls for a positive demonstration that
the statutory standard is met, which
implies that a full review of the petition
has been made. Thus, the Agency will
not grant a conditional variance for
disposal of untreated restricted waste in
a Subtitle C unit based on a superficial
review of the evidence. The Agency will
only make the decision regarding the
granting of a variance after an in-depth
review of a fully developed no migration
demonstration submitted by the
petitioner.
Under section 3004(h), the Agency is
allowed to set different effective dates
for the restrictions based on lack of
available capacity for treatment,
recovery, or disposal. The Agency does
not believe that submission of a petition
request is relevant to such a finding.
3. Eligibility for Petitions
The Agency requested comment on an
approach limiting eligibility for petitions
to those wastes for which no alternative
treatment is available. Several
commenters objected to this approach,
stating that the statute and the
legislative history do not limit eligibility
for petitions.
Other commenters agreed with this
approach for several reasons. They
argued that the statute clearly reflects
congressional intentions that restricted
wastes be treated prior to land disposal.
They also argued that rendering
ineligible those wastes that can be
treated to meet a BOAT standard fulfills
the spirit of the law and gives a clear
signal to industry to plan for expanded
treatment capacity. Additionally, they
noted that this approach would reduce
the burden on the Agency and the States
for petition review, so that resources
could be devoted to petitions for
untreatable wastes.
The Agency continues to believe that
the better reading of the law allows no
basis for limiting eligibility for the
petition process in the manner
discussed. RCRA sections 3004 (d). (e)
and (g) set up the petition process as a
clear albeit limited alternative treatment
prior to land disposal of hazardous
wastes. Accordingly, the final
regulations do not limit eligibility for
petitioners.
E. Storage of Prohibited Wastes
A number of commenters argued that
because transporters, recyclers, or
treatment facilities often give priority to
larger volumes of waste or even refuse
to take small quantities, more than 90
days are needed to accumulate
sufficient quantities.
All of the comments received
regarding the proposed storage limit for
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
stated that 90 days is inadequate. Some
commenters stated that additional time
is needed because some waste streams
are accumulated more slowly than
others. More specifically, one
commenter presented the case of a plant
that generates a very small amount of
spent solvents (e.g., one drum every
three months), but is not a small
quantity generator due to other
nonrestricted waste streams. Because of
the small amounts generated, the
turnaround time during which waste is
accumulated to an amount sufficient for
a transporter to pick up consistently
takes longer than the 90-day period.
Additionally, another commenter stated
that because halogenated solvents are
often blended with other materials
before incineration, the 90-day period
will be insufficient due to the
evaluations and trial bums that will be
required for these new blends of wastes.
Other commenters cited the frequent
back-ups and delays at treatment
facilities that may require storage for
more than 90 days; however, these
factors are not directly relevant to. the
statute, which allows storage only for
the purpose of accumulating sufficient
quantities necessary to facilitate proper
recovery, treatment, or disposal. .".
The alternatives suggested by ^
commenters ranged from setting a
storage limit of 180 days to not limiting
the storage period. The majority of
commenters suggested that the Agency
establish a 1-year storage limit. Several
of these commenters stated that the
provision should be similar to the
existing speculative accumulation
provision in 40 CFR 261.1(b)(8). This
provision allows for a material to be
accumulated for recycling provided that
during the calendar year (commencing
January 1) at least 75 percent of the
material accumulated at the beginning
of the time period is recycled or is
transferred to a different site for
recycling.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
allowed treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities the same time periods for
accumulating restricted wastes in tanks
and containers as specified under 40
CFR 262.34 for large quantity generators
accumulating hazardous waste prior to
shipment off-site for treatment or
disposal. Effective September 22,1986,
generators of 100-1000 kg/mo can store
hazardous waste for 180 or 270 days
depending on transportation distances.
(See 51 FR 10175 (March 24,1986).) For
hazardous waste storage facilities
operating under interim status or a
RCRA permit, the Agency proposed a
90-day limit for the storage of restricted
wastes.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
40583
After considering the length of an
appropriate storage limit, the Agency
agrees with the commenters that 90 days
may not be sufficient time to accumulate
quantities necessary to facilitate proper
recovery, treatment and disposal of
restricted wastes. However, the Agency
does not believe that the storage time
permissible at a waste management
facility should be indefinite but, rather.
must have some limit because the
legislative history indicates that
Congress' concern in enacting this
provision was to foreclose the
possibility of using long-term storage as
a means of avoiding a land disposal
prohibition. (S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong.,
1st Sess. 18 (1983).)
The Agency disagrees with the
ccmmenters who felt that a system
similar to the speculative accumulation
provision (40 CFR 261.1(b)(8)) should be
implemented for the storage of restricted
wastes. The speculative accumulation
provision is designed to determine when
a material becomes a waste and relies
on assumptions that the materials will
be continuously removed from storage.
The Agency does not believe that this
, provision is applicable to the storage of
restricted wastes.
The Agency believes that a storage
limit of up to one year should generally
provide sufficient time for an owner/
operator to accumulate sufficient
quantities to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment, or disposal of restricted
hazardous wastes while meeting the
intent of Congress to prohibit long-term
storage as a means of avoiding the land
disposal restrictions. The burden is on
the Agency to demonstrate that storage
of restricted wastes for periods less than
or equal to one year is not in compliance
with the storage provisions. The Agency'
also recognizes that there may be
instances where one year does not
provide sufficient time to accumulate
such quantities. Therefore, the Agency
will allow an owner/operator to store
restricted wastes beyond one year.
Although the owner/operator is not
required to submit any data or
application to EPA, in the event of an
enforcement action, the burden of
proving compliance with § 288.50(b) is
on the owner/operator. The Agency
believes that this is reasonable because
the record for this rulemaking indicates
that less than one year should be
sufficient. This provision does not apply
to situations where back-ups at
treatment or recovery facilities,
operational difficulties, and repairs and
maintenance result in additional delays.
Comments received on the proposed
90-day limit on the length of storage of
restricted wastes also indicate that a
substantial number of generators
without permits or interim status will
need to accumulate restricted wastes for
more than 90 days to comply with Part
268.
Section 3005(e) allows generators to
apply for facility interim status if their
accumulation will exceed the time limits
of 40 CFR 262.34. as long as the storage
is necessary to comply with the land
disposal restrictions. 40 CFR 270.70(a)
codifies that provision. This section
provides that facilities "in existence on
the effective date of statutory or
regulatory changes ... that render the
facility subject to the requirement to
have a permit" may qualify for interim
status if they make the appropriate
application. A generator who is
accumulating hazardous wastes in tanks
or containers before the effective date of
today's rule, is "in existence" and may
qualify for interim status provided that
the above stated requirements are met.
Section 3005(e)(l) allows interim status
only where new regulatory requirements
subject an existing facility to permitting
requirements. It is not intended to
provide an opportunity for a facility to
newly engage in hazardous waste
management.
Generators who need to obtain
interim status should submit a Part A
application to the Agency as provided in
Part 270. In the Part A application, the
generator must demonstrate that the
additional accumulation time is
necessary as a result of the land
disposal restrictions of Part 268.
The Part A must be submitted to the
Agency by the deadline specified in
§ 270.10(e). Note that the § 270.10(e)
deadline is the earlier of the following
two alternative dates: (1) Six months
after publication of regulations which
first require the facility to comply with
Part 265, or (2) thirty days after the date
they first become subject to the
standards in Part 265. It is expected that
the deadline for most, if not all, of the
large quantity generators will be
established by the second alternative.
By operation of 40 CFR 270.10(e)(ii), the
generator becomes first subject to the
permitting requirements when he
exceeds the generator accumulation
time limit. For example, the generator
would be required to submit the Part A
within 30 days after the 90-day
accumulation period ends. Therefore, it
is critical that any generator who will be
newly subject to the interim status
requirements becomes familiar with the
Part 270 requirements and submit a Part
A application on time.
The Agency believes that generators
will ship restricted wastes off-site in
accordance with the 90-day provision in
40 CFR 262.34 whenever possible in
order to remain subject only to the
generator standards. Generators
applying for interim status must comply
with the applicable requirements of Part
265. Furthermore, if requested by the
Administrator, the facility will be
required to submit to Part B permit
application.
The Agency received only one
comment addressing the proposed 10-
day storage limit for transporters of
restricted wastes. The commenter stated
that 10 days would be insufficient
because it does not allow for
unexpected back-ups and delays.
Although such situations may occur, the
Agency does not have data indicating
that such delays occur frequently so as
to create a serious problem. Therefore,
the rule being promulgated today
maintains the 10-day limit for the
storage of restricted waste at a transfer
facility to allow for activities incidental
to normal transporter practices.
To implement the storage provision,
the Agency is requiring owners/
operators to comply with the same
requirements for dating containers as
set forth for generators undei40 CFR
262.34(a)(2). The Agency believes that
the restrictions on the storage of wastes
under § 268.50 are consistent.with the
intent of Congress to preclude the
possibility of using long-term storage as
a means of avoiding a land disposal
prohibition and are sensitive to the time
constraints of the regulated community
expressed by the commenters.
F. CERCLA Interface
1. 48-Month Exemption for CERCLA
Wastes That Are Soil or Debris
Several commenters requested
clarification of 5 268.1(c)(3), namely the
scope of the 48-month exemption for
certain CERCLA wastes (soil or debris)
from the solvents and dioxins land
disposal restrictions. It was suggested
that this exemption should be defined to
include all CERCLA bulk wastes. In
addition, it was questioned whether
State-ordered, State-funded, or private
party-funded response action wastes are
granted the same exemption.
The Agency does not believe the 48-
month exemption can be interpreted to
include CERCLA bulk wastes that are
clearly not contaminated soil or debris.
CERCLA soil and debris have been
defined to include, but not be limited to,
soil, dirt and rock as well as natural
and manufactured materials such as
contaminated wood, stumps, clothing.
equipment, building materials, storage
contair ers, and liners. In many cases,
soil or lebris will be mixed with liquids
-------
40584 Federal Renter / Vol.
—J^SggjgEgg^g^^^a^M^M^a^Mi
or sludges. The Agency considers liquid
or sludge-containing wastes, including
bulk wastes that are not contaminated
soil or debris, generated by a CERCLA
response action, to be subject to the
land disposal restriction requirements.
However, a variance from the land
disposal restriction requirements, based
on insufficient treatment capacity, was
granted for these restricted wastes until
November 1988. The Agency is
preparing guidance that will further
define CERCLA soil and debris wastes
in order to assist the regulated
community in determining which wastes
are covered under the exemption. In
addition, before November 8,1988, the
Agency will further analyze the solvent
and dioxin treatment standards to
determine if these standards are
applicable to contaminated soil or
debris.
Only those wastes that result from
CERCLA Fund-financed actions (section
104) and the exercise of CERCLA's
enforcement authority (section 106) are
included in the exemption. Response
action wastes that result from State-
ordered, State-funded, or private party-
funded responses taken under the
authority of CERCLA or exclusive of this
authority are not included in the
exemption. Relevant sections of the
National Contingency Plan (NCP, 50 FR
47912. November 20,1985) that address
these distinctions include Subpart F,
§ 300.62 (State participation) and
§ 300.71 (other party responses). Wastes
not included in the exemption and
prohibited from land disposal are
subject to the schedule imposed by the
land disposal restriction requirements.
Responses generating these wastes may
be preauthorized under section 111 of
CERCLA (see § 300.25 of the NCP) and,
if so, are eligible for the recovery of
certain costs under CERCLA section 107.
Other party responses under NCP
§ 300.71(a)(4) are required to comply
with all legally applicable or relevant,
and appropriate requirements. RCRA
clearly states that the exemption applies
to all CERCLA soil and debris land
disposed before November 8,1988. After
this date, these wastes will be managed
in accordance with the requirements of
the land disposal restrictions applicable
to CERCLA wastes.
2. Capacity Shortfall Due to CERCLA
Wastes
Several commenters stated that the
Agency had not adequately evaluated
the effect on treatment capacity of
CERCLA wastes. As indicated in Unit V.
CERCLA capacity estimates have been
revised to incorporate the results of a
recently completed EPA analysis of
future volumes of wastes resulting from
CERCLA responses. A variance has
been granted for CERCLA wastes, that
are not soil or debris, until November 8,
1988. The Agency acknowledges that
CERCLA demand for treatment capacity
may compete with generator demand for
the same treatment capacity. However
the Agency's "Off-Site Policy" for
disposing CERCLA waste contains
stringent criteria that could render some
existing capacity unavailable for the
management of CERCLA wastes.
G. Solvents
1. Definition of Solvent Wastes
A number of commenters stated that
the scope of the land disposal
restrictions for solvent-containing
wastes extends beyond congressional
intent. In particular, the commenters
stated that the land disposal restrictions
rule should address only F001-F005
hazardous wastes (regulated as of July 1
1983) specified in section 3004(e).
Another specific concern raised by the
commenters was that the impacts of
including the P and U hazardous wastes
as listed in 40 CFR 261.33 (e) and (f),
respectively, have not been adequately
assessed: therefore, these wastes should
not be included in the first class of
solvent-containing wastes (i.e., F001-
F005) subject to the land disposal
restrictions.
In proposing treatment standards for
solvent-containing wastes, the Agency
included the corresponding commercial
chemical products and off-specification
species (P and U hazardous wastes) as
listed in 40 CFR 261.33 (e) and (f),
respectively, and solvent mixtures
containing 10 percent or more of the
listed solvents (pursuant to the solvent
mixtures rule, 50 FR 53315, December 31.
1985). The Agency proposed to exercise
its statutory authority under section
3004(g) 7 and include the corresponding
P and U wastes with decisions on the
F001-F005 wastes because the data
indicate that these wastes may pose
hazards similar to the spent solvents
when disposed in Subtitle C facilities.
However, we are continuing to gather
data to better define and characterize
the P and U wastes and to assess
treatment and recycling capacity for
these wastes. Because the Agency
agrees with the commenters that we do
not have sufficient data to promulgate
treatment standards for these wastes by
the November 8,1986, deadline, we will
postpone decisions on the P and U
wastes until we address the lists of
scheduled wastes.
'Section 3004(g) requires that the Administrator
shall, "not later than the date specified in the
schedule ... promulgate final regulations prohibiting
one or more methods of land disposal."
With respect to solvent mixtures, the
provisions under section 3004(gj(4)
require the Agency to make a
determination within six months
whether to subject newly identified or
listed hazardous wastes to the land
disposal restrictions (the statute does
not impose,an automatic prohibition if
the Agency misses .the deadline).
Because six months have already
elapsed since the Agency promulgated
the final rule to bring certain spent
solvent mixtures into the hazardous
waste system,8 the Agency is including
solvent mixtures in today's rule.
2. Impacts on Small-Quantity
Generators and Small-Volume Wastes
Several comments were received
concerning the impacts of the land
disposal restrictions on small-quantity
generators and small-volume waste
types. One commenter was concerned
that the economic impacts on small-
quantity generators of solvents have not
been adequately assessed.
An assessment of the economic
impacts on small-quantity generators
from land disposal restrictions affecting
solvent-containing wastes is included in
the "Regulatory Analysis of Proposed
Restrictions on Land Disposal otCertain
Solvent Wastes." Total small-quantity
generator costs attributed to the land
disposal restrictions were found to be
significant, but the costs and associated
economic impacts for individual
facilities were found to be small.
Overall, based on economic ratios that
were determined for small-quantity
generators that dispose of solvent-
containing wastes, the land disposal
restrictions appeared not to impose
significant economic burdens on these
generators.
3. Disposal of Lab Packs Containing
Solvents
Several commenters addressed
disposal of small quantities of solvent-
containing wastes in lab packs.
Commenters requested that solvent-
containing lab packs be exempt from the
land disposal restrictions. They stated
that such an exemption would be
consistent with existing exemptions
under 40 CFR 264.316 and would allow
the disposal of only small quantities of
solvent wastes.
Another commenter questioned
whether the entire lab pack is banned
from land disposal if all the packaged
wastes are not solvents. Alternatively,
the commenter proposed to remove
" The Agency promulgated the solvent mixtures
final rule on December 31,1985. The rule became
effective on January 30. 1986 (see 50 FR 33315).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
T
restricted solvents before land disposal
of the lab pack.
Neither the legislative history nor the
statute indicates that lab packs can be
excluded from the land disposal
restrictions if they contain solvents
designated as F001-F005 or other
restricted wastes. Under the approach
promulgated in today's rule, listed
solvents are subject to the land disposal
restrictions. If a lab pack contains these
restricted wastes, the entire lab pack is
subject to the land disposal restrictions.
As a practical matter this means that the
lab pack may not be land disposed
unless the solvents or other restricted-
wastes are removed before land
disposal, the solvents in the lab pack
meet the treatment standard, or a
successful petition demonstration has
been made under § 268.6.
H. Dioxins
1. Quantity of Dioxin-Containing Wastes
Generated
Several commenters argued that the
Agency underestimated the actual
quantity of dioxin-contaminated soil
subject to the proposed rule.
Specifically, one commenter argued that
EPA did not take into consideration the
dioxin-contaminated sites in the States
of Arkansas, New Jersey, and New York
in developing the estimate for the
quantity of dioxin-contaminated soil in
the U.S.
In the proposed rule, EPA
acknowledges that the estimated
quantity of dioxin-contaminated soil
present in the U.S. was derived by-
assessing estimates for such
contaminated soil from the State of
Missouri. At this time, the Agency does
not have data to determine more
accurately the total quantity of dioxin-
contaminated soil from sites in the U.S.
other than the State of Missouri. Thus,
EPA decided to estimate the quantity of
dioxin-contaminated soil nationwide
based solely on the data provided for
the State of Missouri. In making this
determination, the Agency should have
noted that the estimated quantity of 1.1
billion pounds for dioxin-contaminated
soil was accurate within a range of ±20
percent. If this quantity is understated,
then the Agency acknowledges that the
national estimate is also
underestimated. However, such an
underestimation would have no effect
on the decisions made in today's rule
regarding capacity because there is
inadequate disposal or treatment
capacity even for substantially lower
quantities of dioxin-containing wastes.
2. Treatment Standard for Dioxin-
Containing Wastes
One commenter argued that as the
analytical methodology improves,
increasing amounts of materials which
might contain insignificant levels of
dioxins would be prohibited from land
disposal.
The treatment standard for the listed
dioxin-containing wastes is based on
the current limits of technology
available to treat dioxin-containing
wastes. The treatment standard for
these wastes was proposed at the
detection limit afforded by test method
8280 for the CDDs and CDFs in waste
extracts because current analytical
techniques are not capable of detecting
dioxin-containing wastes at the levels
achievable by incineration. Research
analytical methods indicate that
incineration to six 9s destruction
removal efficiency (DRE) can achieve
reduction in the treatment residuals five
to seven orders of magnitude from those
concentrations in the starting material.
The treatment standard of 1.0 ppb
however, represents the routinely
achievable detection limit for the CDDs
and CDFs using test method 8280. (See
51 FR 19862.)
If additional data become available
• which demonstrate a lower detection
limit for these dioxin wastes, the
treatment standard may be revised as
necessary.
Lowering the detection limit and
changing the subsequent treatment
standard will not prohibit significantly
increased amounts of materials
containing low concentrations of dioxins
from land disposal. The prescribed
toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) is designed to
determine the leachability of both
organic and inorganic contaminants
present in liquid, solid, and multiphase
wastes. The constituents of concern in
the listed dioxin-containing wastes are
not mobile, and are generally in low
concentrations. The treatment standard
would have to be significantly lower
than 1 ppb in order to significantly
increase the amount of material that
does not meet the treatment standard
(before any treatment). In addition, to
the extent that incineration achieves
99.999 percent (six 9s) destruction
removal efficiency (DRE) (as required
under the dioxins listing rule), a
lowering of the detection limit will only
verify that treatment is achieving levels
far below the standard method detection
limit. As the detection limit approaches
the actual treatment level, the Agency
will lower the treatment standard to that
level.
3. Land Disposal Restrictions Effective
Date
Several commenters addressed EPA's
proposal to delay the effectiv«"date for
the land disposal restrictions lor dioxin-
containing wastes. All commenters
agreed that the 2-year variance* to the
effective date was necessary because of
a lack of available treatment capacity.
The commenters also argued that unless
treatment capacity is available by the
effective date, they will be confronted
with an unavoidable noncompliance
situation due to the limitations on
storage of resticted wastes.
The Agency, in today's rule, is
granting the maximum 2-year variance
allowed under section 3004(h)(2) for the
listed dioxin-containing wastes. At the
present time, there is no data to show
that treatment capacity for dioxin-
containing wastes will not be available
after the effective date, or after the
additional two 1-year extensions which
are available to generators on a case-by-
case basi«.
cooe «no-«MM
-------
4058(} Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7,1986 / Rules and Regulations
Define 3004(m) Treatment
Standard for:
• Solvents and Dioxins by Nov. 8. 1986
• California Usl by July I, 1987
• First Third by August 8. 19S8
• Second Third by Jurw 8, 1989-
• Third Third by May 8. 1990
Subcatcgorizatlon of RCRA
Hazardous Waste Codes
into Waste Trcauhiluy Ciroupi
Identify "Demonstrated"
Treatment Technologies
Exclude Treatment Technologies
that are not "Available"
Yes
Are
Treatment
Performance
Data Available
from Full Scale
Technologies
Are
Treatment
Performance
Data Available
from Pilot-Scale
Technologies
Are
Trealmcn
Performance
Data Available
from Bench-Scale
Technologies
Perform Full Scale. Pilot-Scale or
Bench-Scale Treatment on Waste
Samples Using the Demonstrated
Available Treatment Technologies
Do
the Treatment
Performance Data
Represent a Well
Designed and
Operated
System
Reject Data
Observation
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7.1988 / Rules and Regulations
48587
Perform the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and
Total Waste Analysis on the
Treatment Residuals for the
Constituents of Concern
Does
the Treatment
Technology Substantially
Diminish the Toxicity
and/or Mobility
of the Waste
Exclude Treatment
Technology for the
Waste Trealability Group
Sot 3004(m) Treatment Standard
Based on the "Best" Performing
Technology
Where
Performance
Data is Represen-
tative of More Than one
Technology, Are Perfor-
mance Data Significantly
Different for a
Particular
Constituent of
Concern
Specify the "Best" Demonstrated
Available Treatment Technology as
the Required 3004Cm) Treatment
Method for a Par'icular Constituent
of Concern
Publish the Waste
Treatabilily Group
and Corresponding
Treatment Method
' in § 268.42
Set 3004(m) Treatment Standards
Based on Performance Achievable
by all Technologies
Specify all Demonstrated
Available Treatment Technologies
as the Required 3004(m) Trcalment
Method
Publish the Waste Trealability
Groups and Corresponding
3004(mj Treatment Standards
in §268.41 and §268.42
BIIUNO CODE 6580-50-C
Publish the Waste
Treatabilily Group
and Corresponding
Treatment Method
in § 268 42
-------
40583
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Detailed Analysis of the Final
Regulatory Framework
A. Determination of Best Demonstrated
Available Treatment Technologies
(BOAT)
This section establishes the
framework under which treatment
standards based on the Best
Demonstrated Available Technology
will be developed in accordance with
3004(m).
1. Waste Treatability Groups
Fundamental to waste treatment is the
concept that the type of treatment
technology used and the level of
treatment achieved depend on the
physical and chemical characteristics of
the waste. In the proposed rule, the
Agency discussed establishing broad
"waste treatability groups" based on
similar physical and chemical properties
(e.g., metal-bearing sludges or wastes
containing cyanides in order to account
for differences in types of treatment
used and effectiveness of treatment on
different wastes. While not directly
addressing this approach, commenters
stated that the proposed solvent
treatment standards did not account for
waste matrix effects. These commenters
suggested that waste matrix effects
could be considered by pooling all
available data on the applicable
constituents from the plants sampled.
presumably without regard to the
varying treatability of the specific
wastes sampled or the design and
operation of the treatment system.
EPA disagrees with this approach
because the use of such a pooled data
set would result in the establishment of
an artificially high treatment standard.
This would occur because the broad
range of treatment levels associated
with numerous waste matrices will yield
a high variability factor. The approach
of pooling all treatment data would
actually result in the masking of
different waste matrices as opposed to
accounting for matrix effects as
suggested by the commenter. While EPA
believed, that waste matrix effects were
considered in the proposed solvent
standards. EPA recognizes, nonetheless,
that these effects may not have been
fully accounted for in the proposed
standards. The Agency anticipates that
in future rulemakings, treatment groups
could require further subdivision to
more fully account for waste matrix
effects subject to the availability of
sufficient resources. In any event, EPA
remains convinced that waste matrix
effects are best accounted for by
establishing treatability groups and
subgroups wherever possible. The
legislative history of 3004(m) supports
this approach by providing that
treatment determinations do not have to
be made only by waste code and by
authorizing EPA to establish "generic"
treatment standards for similar wastes
(130 Congressional Record section 91 '9,
daily edition July 25,1984).
EPA believes that in addition to the
types of treatability groups described h.
the proposed rule, grouping and
subgrouping wastes by industry or
manufacturing process may be used to
account for waste matrix effects on
treatment performance (i.e. similar
manufacturing operations appear to
generate wastes with similar treatability
characteristics). For example, in today's
rule, EPA has sufficient data to create a
separate treatability group for
wastewaters containing spent
methylene chloride generated by the
pharmaceutical industry. However,
while the Agency believes that industry-
specific analyses will generally account
for waste matrix effects, some wastes
(e.g., contaminated soils) cannot be
categorized by industry. Therefore, EPA
may also establish treatability groups
for wastes from unknown sources.
Finally, as noted in the proposal, EPA
intends to focus on the constituents in
sections 3004 (d), (e). and (g) and
Appendix VIII to Part 261.
2. Determination of "Demonstrated"
Treatment Technologies
EPA proposed to determine which
technologies are "demonstrated" for a
specific waste by studying available
data on the types of treatment (including
recycling methods) currently used to
treat a representative sample of wastes
falling within a waste treatability group.
To make this determination, EPA
proposed first to examine wastes
treated by full-scale treatment
technologies. A technology may be
demonstrated if currently used to treat
wastes within the group or wastes
judged to be similar. EPA proposed not
to consider treatment demonstrated on
the basis of insufficient or inadequate
full-scale data, for example, if the
facility was not designed to remove the
constituent or the facility was not well
operated. If the treatment of these
wastes (or wastes judged to be similar)
was not demonstrated by any full scale
facility, EPA proposed to study data
from pilot-scale and bench-scale
treatment operations to determine if a
technology was demonstrated. Some
commenters were concerned, however,
with the use of pilot-scale and bench-
scale operations as the basis for
determining whether a technology was
demonstrated. The Agency agrees with
the commenters position that its
determinations should not be based on
emerging and innovative technologies.
This would be in violation of the intent
of the statute as indicated in the
legislative history; "[tjhe requisite levels
of [sicj methods of treatment established
by the Agency should be the best thai
has been demonstrated to be
achievable" and not a "BAT-type
process which contemplates technology-
forcing standards." (Vol. 130 Cong. Rec.
S9178 (daily ed., July 25,1984). To the
extent that bench- and pilot-scale data
represent such emerging and innovative
technologies, the Agency believes the
proposed approach was too broad.
Therefore, today's final rule represents a
change in the definition of demonstrated
in response to comments. To be
considered a "demonstrated" treatment
technology for purposes of the final rule.
a full scale facility must be known to be
in operation for the waste or similar
wastes. EPA is amending the proposed
approach to the extent that the Agency
will not, at this initial stage, examine
data to see if the data from the
treatment facility represents a welt-
designed and operated system, because
this factor is more appropriateljrtaken
into account when evaluating the
performance of the treatment -T
operations. EPA believes that this
procedure will address the issues raised
by commenters who were concerned
that the Agency specify the design and
operating parameters upon which
determinations were made. Accordingly,
if no full scale treatment operations are
known to exist for a waste or wastes
with similar treatability characteristics.
the Agency will be unable to identify
any "demonstrated" treatment
technologies for the waste and,
accordingly, the waste will be
completely prohibited from continued
placement in land disposal units (unless
handled in accordance with the
exemption and variance provisions
promulgated in today's final rule). The
Agency is, however, committed to
establishing new treatment standards as
soon as new or improved treatment
processes become demonstrated as full-
scale operations.
While, the Agency did not consider
pilot- and bench-scale operations in
identifying "demonstrated" treatment
technologies for solvents and dioxins. in
certain circumstances, data from these
operations may continue to be used by
the Agency in evaluating the
performance of demonstrated full scale
treatment operations for certain wastes.
A more detailed discussion of the
circumstances that would prompt the
use of data from pilot- or bench-scale
operations in assessing treatment
performance, as well as the manner in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
40588
which such data will be used, is
presented below.
3. Determination of "Available"
Treatment Technologies
EPA proposed the following criteria
for "available" treatment technologies:
(1) The technology does not present a
greater total risk than land disposal; (2)
if !hr.v technology is a proprietary or
patented process it can be purchased
from the proprietor; and (3) the
technology provides substantial
treatment. Today's final rule includes an
additional criteria in the determination
of "available" treatment technologies.
Treatment technologies that are
prohibited under section 3004(n)
because of air emissions will be
excluded as "available" technologies for
purposes of establishing treatment
standards.
EPA will not set treatment standards
based on a technology that does not
meet the above criteria. Thus, the
decision to classify a technology as
"unavailable" may have a direct impact
on the treatment standard. If the best
technology is unavailable, the treatment
standard would have to be based upon
the next best treatment technology that
was determined to be available. To the
extent that the resulting treatment
standards are less stringent, greater
concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the treatment residuals
could be placed in land disposal units.
There may also be circumstances
where EPA concludes that for a given
waste none of the demonstrated
treatment technologies are "available"
for purposes of establishing the
treatment standards. These wastes will
be prohibited from continued placement
in or on the land unless managed in
accordance with the exemption and
variance provisions promulgated in
today's final rule. The Agency, however.
is committed to establishing new
treatment standards as soon as new or
improved treatment processes become
"available".
a. Treatment technologies that
present greater total risks than land
disposal methods. As explained in the
proposed rule. EPA will evaluate the
risks associated with treatment
technologies and land disposal methods.
Based on a comparative risk
assessment, those technologies that are
found to present greater total risks than
land disposal of the untreated waste
will be excluded (i.e., considered
"unavailable") as a basis for
establishing treatment standards.
If all demonstrated treatment
technologies are determined to present
greater risks than land disposal for the
waste treatability group, the Agency will
not be able to identify any "available"
treatment technologies and. accordingly,
will not set a treatment standard for that
group. As a result of such a
determination, the waste will be
prohibited from land disposal unless
managed in accordance with the
exemptions and variance provisions in
today's final rule or a new or improved
technology emerges that is determined
not to pose greater total risks than direct
land disposal. Treatment technologies
identified as riskier than land disposal
and. therefore, classified as unavailable
for purposes of establishing standards
may still be used by facilities in
complying with treatment standards
expressed as performance levels. EPA is
committed to developing sufficient
regulatory controls or prohibitions over
the design and operation of these
technologies to ensure that their use in
complying with the treatment standards
do not result in increased risks to human
health and the environment.
b. Proprietary or patented processes.
If the demonstrated treatment
technology is a proprietary or patented
process that is not generally available,
EPA will not consider the technology in
its determination of the treatment
standards. In the proposed rule, EPA
explained that proprietary or patented
processes will be considered available if
the Agency determines that the
treatment method can be purchased
from the proprietor or is commercially
available treatment. The services of the
commercial facility offering this
technology can often be purchased,
although the technology itself cannot. In
these cases, the Agency proposed that
the technology should be considered
"available" to treat wastes generated by
those other than the owner of the
proprietary process.
EPA received some comments
supporting and others disagreeing with
this approach. The comments objecting
to this approach stated that EPA should
use the best demonstrated treatment
regardless of its commercial availability
and thereby, provide strong financial
incentives for development of new
technologies on the grounds that
excluding such technologies from the
analysis may result in less stringent
treatment standards. The Agency
believes, however, that its proposal
represents a reasonable compromise
that is intended to exclude only those -
technologies that would not be made
available even with strong regulatory
and economic incentives. Therefore,
EPA intends to retain the position
expressed in the proposed regulation
that proprietary technology that cannot
be purchased or is not commercially
ava I able treatment cannot be the basis
for the treatment standard. The Agency
will review the availability of
proprietary or patented processes on a
case-by-case basis.
Treatment technologies classified as
proprietary are unavailable for the
purposes of establishing the treatment
standards but may still be used by
facilities in complying with treatment
standards expressed as performance
levels.
c. Substantial treatment. In order to
be considered "available", a
demonstrated treatment technology
must "substantially diminish the
toxicity" of the waste or "substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents" from the waste
in accordance with section 3004(m). By
requiring that substantial treatment be
achieved in order to set a treatment
standard, the statute ensures that all
wastes are adequately treated before
being placed in or on the land, and that
the Agency does not require a treatment
method that provides little or no
environmental benefit. As part of the
proposed regulation, the Agency stated
that treatment will always beseemed
substantial if it results in nondetectable
levels of the hazardous constituents of
concern in the TCLP extract of if the
technology can achieve the protective
screening concentration levels. Although
the screening level approach has been
eliminated in today's rule, EPA still
intends to evaluate whether or not a
treatment technology provides
substantial treatment on a case-by-case
basis when the treatment technology
does not achieve nondetectable
constituent concentrations in the
residual. This approach is necessary due
to the difficulty in establishing a
meaningful guideline that can be applied
broadly to the many wastes and
technologies that will be considered. As
stated in the proposed regulation, EPA
will consider the following factors in an
effort to evaluate whether or not a
technology is substantial on a case-by-
case basis:
(i) Number and types of constituents
treated;
(ii) Performance (concentration of the
constituents in the treatment residuals);
and
(iii) Percent of constituents removed.
Several commenters objected to this
approach. These commenters believed
that EPA should have a standard by
which to judge whether a technology is
simply "treatment for treatment's sake."
Although EPA is sympathetic to this
concern, no workable suggestions for a
standard were provided. The Agency
believes that there will be ample
opportunity for comment on EPA's
-------
individual BDAT decisions as they are
developed. Futhermore, available EPA
data show that few. if any,
demonstrated technologies will not
achieve a high percentage of removal,
destruction, or immobilization in the
wastes for which they are demonstrated.
As a result, the Agency finds no
alternative to the approach as proposed
(omitting, of course, consideration of the
no-longer used screening levels).
If none of the demonstrated treatment
technologies achieve substantial
treatment of a waste, the Agency cannot
establish treatment standards for the
constituents of concern in that waste.
4. Collection and Analysis of
Performance Data
a. Collection of performance data.
Once the demonstrated available
treatment technologies have been
determined for a waste treatability
group, the Agency will collect data
representing treatment performance and
information on the design and operation
of the treatment system. In developing
technology-based standards for today's
final rule, treatment performance is
evaluated using the TCLP. The Agency,
in future land disposal restrictions
nilemakings, may consider using a total
waste analysis as the basis for
determining treatment standards.
Wherever possible, the Agency will
evaluate treatment technologies using
full-scale systems. If performance data
from properly designed and operated
full-scale treatment methods for a
particular waste or waste judged to be
similar are not available. EPA will use
data from pilot-scale operations.
Similarly, where pilot-scale data cannot
be obtained, EPA will use data from
bench-scale treatment operations.
Whenever bench- and pilot-scale data
are used. EPA may explain the use of
such data in the preamble or
background documents and will request
comments on the use of such data.
When data on treatment performance
for a particular waste or similar wastes
are judged by EPA to be insufficient,
EPA will generate data and information
through sampling and analysis regarding
the operational parameters and
performance of the demonstrated
available treatment technologies.
The Agency realizes that in some
instances all wastes represented by a
particular waste code may not be
included in the analysis, therefore, the
possibility exists that some unique
waste matrices may not be considered
in establishing the treatment standard.
EPA is providing the opportunity for
interested parties to petition the Agency
for variances to the treatment standards
based on a demonstration that the
treatment standards for a particular
waste cannot be attained (see Unit
IV.H.). The variance process allows the
applicant to present information which,
if properly considered when the
treatment standard was originally
developed, would have required EPA to
create a separate treatability subgroup
for the waste (see the relevant BDAT
background document for information
regarding the technologies used to
develop the standard).
b. Treatment design and operation.
The Agency will not establish treatment
standards using performance data that
are determined not to be representative
of a well-designed and operated
treatment system. The effectiveness of a
particular treatment technology will
depend, to a significant extent, on how
well the system is designed and
operated. In the proposed rule, the
Agency stated its intention to use only
treatment data from well-designed and
operated systems. Commenters
criticized the Agency for not specifying
the parameters on which these
determinations were made. Today's rule
does not represent a change from the
proposed rule with regard to EPA's
consideration of the design and
operation of treatment in developing
treatment standards. Instead, we have
revised the BDAT background document
to better explain EPA's rationale for
data editing with regard to the design
and operation of the treatment system. It
is difficult for EPA to generalize on the
specific parameters that will be
examined because parameters that
comprise a well designed and operated
system will vary for each technology.
EPA intends to explain the factors
considered in connection with
individual regulatory packages. For
example, some of the critical design and
operating parameters for steam stripping
include the number of equilibrium stages
in the column, the temperature at which
the unit is designed to operate, and how
well the design temperature is
controlled. In evaluating performance
data from a steam stripping operation,
the Agency would examine the design
specifications (e.g. the basis for
selecting the number of stages and
design temperature) for the treatment
unit in order to determine the extent to
which the hazardous constituents could
be expected to volatilize. After the
design specifications are established,
the Agency would collect data (e.g.,
hourly readings of the column
temperature) throughout the operation of
the treatment process demonstrating
that the unit was operating according to
design specifications. If the data
collected varies considerably from the
design requirements, it could form the
basis of a determination that the
treatment was improperly operated. If
the temperature data show, for example,
that for significant periods of time the
temperature varied considerably from
the design requirements, the Agency
would not use this data to determine the
levels of performance achievable bv
BDAT.
Ideally, for all treatment data EPA
will have associated design and
operating data. However, because
treatment performance data are limited,
EPA may use treatment performance
data for which there are few or no
associated design and operating data. In
these instances, EPA will use
engineering judgement based on a
comparison of constituent
concentrations before and after
treatment to determine whether the data
reflect a well-designed and operated
treatment system. The Agency will also
use a statistical outlier analysis to
confirm the engineering analysis. An
outlier in a data set is an observation
that is significantly different from the
trend in the data. The measure of 1
difference is determined by the <
statistical method known as the Z^score.
The Z-score is calculated fay dividing the
difference between the data pointTand
the average of the data set by the -
standard deviation. For data that are
normally distributed, 95.5 percent (or
two standard deviations) of the
measurements will have a Z-score
between -2.0 and 2.0. A data point
outside this range is not considered to
be representative of the population from
which the data are drawn. The Agency
requested comment on this analysis in
its September 5.1986 Notice of
Availability (51 FR 31783). A
comprehensive discussion of this
statistical method can be found in many
statistics texts (see, for example,
Statistical Concepts and Methods by
Bhattacharyya and Johnson, 1977, John
Wiley Publications, NY). The Agency
believes this approach is reasonable in
view of statutory time constraints.
5. Identification of "Best" Demonstrated
Available Treatment Technologies and
Determination of Treatment Standards
In the proposed regulation, EPA based
the calculation of the treatment
standards on the mean of all data points
after rejection of outliers by inspection.
Commenters criticized the proposed
method to setting treatment standards
stating that: (1) EPA did not account for
process variability; (2) the Agency did
not explain how it would assess
whether a treatment system was well
designed and operated; and (3) the
Agency did not explain how it wculd
-------
Federal Register / VoL 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1086 / Rules and Regulations 40591
determine txeatine&t standards •where
more than one technology applied to a
waste. In response to these comments,
EPA revised its methodology for
establishing treatment standards. The
revised approach incorporates several
statistical methods that were presented
in EPA's Notice of Availability,
September 5,1986 (51 FR 31783).
a. Analysis of variance. EPA is using
the statistical method known as analysis
of variance in the determination of the
level of performance that represents
BOAT. This method provides a measure
of the differences between data sets. If
the differences are not statistically
different, the data sets are said to be
homogeneous.
This method may be used in two
cases. The first case is where more than
one technology can be used to treat a
waste. In this case, the analysis of
variance method would be used to
determine whether BOAT would
represent a level of performance
achieved by only one technology or
represent a level of performance
achievable by more than one or all of
the technologies.
~ If the Agency found that the levels of
performance for one or more
technologies are not statistically
different (i.e., the data sets are
homogeneous), EPA would average the
long term performance values achieved
by each technology and then multiply
this value by the largest variability
factor associated with any of the
acceptable technologies. If EPA found
that one technology performs
significantly better (i.e., the data sets are
not homogeneous), BDAT would be the
level of performance achieved by the
best technology multiplied by its
variability factor.
The second case where the analysis of
variance may be used is where different
wastes with common constituents are
treated with the same technology. The
Agency could use this statistical method
to determine whether separate BDAT
values should be established for each
waste or whether the levels of
performance are homogeneous and,
therefore, amenable to a single
concentration level for a given
constituent
To determine whether any or all of the
treatment performance data sets are
homogeneous using the analysis of
variance method, it is necessary to
compare a calculated "F value" to what
is known as a "critical value". These
critical values are available in most
statistics texts (see for example,
Statistical Concepts and Methods by
Bhattacharyya and Johnson, 1977, John
Wiley Publications, NY).
-.
Where the F value is leu than the
critical value, all treatment data sets are
homogeneous. If the F value exceeds the
critical value, it is necessary to perform
a "pair wise F' test to determine if any
of die sets are homogeneous. The "pair
wise F' test would be done for all of the
various combinations of data sets using
the same method and equation as the
general F test
The F value is calculated as follows:
(i) All data need to be logtransformed.
(ii) The sum of the data points for
each data set are computed (Ti).
(ill) The statistical parameter known
as the sum of the squares between data
sets (SSB) is computed:
COMPUTATIONAL TABLE FOR THE F VALUE—
Continued
Ti.2
SSB
where:
k=number of treatment technologies
n,=number of data points for technology i
N=number of data points for all technologies
T=sum of data point* for all technologies
(iv) The sum of the squares within
data sets (SSW) is computed:
ni
SSW
i i
i-X J-X
Ti
nT"
i-X
where:
Xu=the observations (j) for treatment
technology (i)
(v) The degrees of freedom
corresponding to SSB and SSW are
calculated. For SSB, the degrees of
freedom is given by k-1. For SSW, the
degrees of freedom is given by N-k.
(vi) Using the above parameters, the F
value is calculated as follows:
MSB
MSW
where:
MSB=SSB/(k-l)and
MSW=SSW/(N-k).
A computational table summarizing
the above parameters is shown below.
COMPUTATIONAL TABLE POR THE F VALUE
Sourc*
Oiftrttr
Sum 01
k-1
Mse-sss/
K-1
Sumot
ssw
N-k
MSW-83W/.
N-k
MS8/
MSW
b. Process variability. Since
variability in performance principally
arises from inherent mechanical
limitations in maintaining control
parameters at the optimum setting,
calculation of the treatment standard
now incorporates a process variability
factor. An example of process
variability would be an automatic pH
control system used to maintain the
proper pH range for precipitation of a
toxic metal. In this system, a pH sensing
device provides a signal to the controller
that the pH is not at the set point (i.e.,
the optimum design point). The
controller then changes (either
pneumatically or electrically) the
position of the valve that supplies the
reagent(s) used to adjust pH.The
Agency would consider such-a system to
be well-operated provided that it is
properly designed, calibrated*, and
maintained. Nevertheless, thfi system
cannot be operated without any
variation in the level of performance.
Control valves are not manufactured in
such a way that they can precisely add
the exact amount of reagent needed to
be at the set point; either too much or
too little reagent will be added. Also,
there is a lag time between the time
when the sensing device detects a
problem and the time that the controller
adjusts the valve to the correct position.
Additionally, there can be process
upsets that require greater changes to
the system corresponding to greater
variations in performance. Another
source of variability will occur during
the analysis of the treatment samples.
Finally, it is acknowledged that EPA
approved methods will exhibit some
degree of variability in test results for
identical samples. All of the above
variations can be expected to occur at
well designed and operated treatment
facilities. Therefore, setting treatment
standards utilizing a variability factor
should be viewed not as "relaxing"
3004(m) requirements, but rather as a
function of the normal variability of the
treatment processes. A plant will have
to be designed to meet the mean
achievable treatment performance level
in order to be assured that the
performance levels remain within the
limits of the treatment standard. The
Agency will calculate a variability
factor for each constituent of concern
-------
40592
within a waste testability group using
the statistical calculation presented in
the Notice of Availability. The equation
for calculating the variability factor, as
shown below, is the same as has been
used by EPA for the development of
numerous regulations in the Effluent
Guidelines Program under the Clean
Water Act.
VF=
MEAN
where:
VF»Estimate of daily maximum variability
factor determined from a sample
population of daily data
C«=Estimate of performance values for
which 99 percent of the daily
observations will be below. C» is
calculated using the following equation:
C»»Exp(y+2.33Sy) where y and Sy are
the mean and standard deviation.
respectively, of the logtransformed data.
moan=average of the individual performance
values.
EPA is establishing this figure as a
daily maximum because the Agency
believes that on a day-to-day basis the
waste should meet the applicable
treatment standards. In addition,
establishing this requirement makes it
easier to check compliance on a single
day. The 99th percentile is appropriate
because it accounts for almost all
process variability.
6. Dilution Prohibition
In the proposed rule. EPA recognized
that successful implementation of the
land disposal restrictions program
required that dilution be prohibited as a
partial or complete substitute for
adequate treatment of restricted wastes.
The legislative history indicates that
such a prohibition "is particularly
important where regulations are based
on concentrations of hazardous
constituents." (H.R. Rep. No. 198. Part I,
98th Cong., 1st Sess. 38 (1983)).
The commenters unanimously support
a prohibition on dilution. Their
comments indicate a concern with
dilution after the waste is generated but
before the applicable treatment
standard and effective date have been
determined, and after the treatment
standard has been determined but
before the residuals are land disposed. It
should be noted that this prohibition
does not affect provisions in other EPA
regulations which may allow dilution for
other purposes.
a. Dilution before determination of the
applicable treatment standard and
effective date. One commenter urged
EPA to prohibit dilution to avoid an
effective date. Today's rule does not
include this provision. EPA's proposed
prohibition was limited to dilution for
the purpose of substituting for adequate
treatment under section 3004(m). A
prohibition on dilution for the purpose of
avoiding an effective date is outside the
scope of this proposal and, therefore,
would have to be the subject of a
separate proposal. However, as noted in
the waste analysis section to today's
rule, the applicable treatment standards
are to be determined by generators in
accordance with § 268.7.
b. Dilution to meet the treatment
standards. One commenter suggested
that EPA reiterate that dilution with
non-aqueous agents (e.g., flyash,
sawdust, or other materials) is also
prohibited. The Agency agrees and
intends that the addition of any other
material, either liquids or non-liquids, is
prohibited as a substitute for treatment
under section 3004(m).
Several commenters expressed
concern that some treatment processes
(e.g., equalization ponds), which require
the addition of other materials to
physically or chemically treat the
wastes, would be prohibited. As stated
in the preamble to the proposed rule (51
FR1680), the Agency recognizes that
many treatment methods require the
addition of reagents. These reagents,
however, produce physical or chemical
changes and do not merely dilute the
hazardous constituents into a larger
volume of waste so as to lower the
constituent concentration. In
establishing BOAT, EPA considered
dilution which is a normal part of the
production process or a necessary part
of the process to treat a waste. The
legislative history indicates that this is
consistent with congressional intent (see
S. Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 17
(1983)). In prohibiting dilution as a
substitute for adequate treatment, the
Agency does not intend to prevent the
regulated community from adding
materials that are necessary to facilitate
proper treatment in meeting treatment
standards (e.g., adding lime to neutralize
or precipitate a waste prior to further
treatment). In addition, EPA does not
intend to disrupt or alter the normal and
customary practices of properly
operated treatment facilities. For
example, treatment facilities could mix
compatible wastes in order to treat (e.g.,
incinerate) at capacity levels rather than
treating wastes in small batches.
c. Dilution of residuals. One
commenter recommended that the
language of the prohibition should be
modified to reflect that the prohibition
on dilution also applies after treatment.
In particular, wastes meeting Subpart D
treatment standards must not be mixed
with wastes that do not meet such
standards in order to achieve the
treatment standard for the mixture. EPA
agrees with the commenter and intends
that this type of dilution after treatment
or at any other time is prohibited under
§ 268.3. The Agency believes that the
language in § 268.3 prohibiting dilution
"as a substitute for adequate treatment
to achieve compliance with Subpart D"
is sufficiently broad enough to cover this
scenario.
EPA is adopting the proposed
prohibition with the following
modifications. First, the prohibition
extends to transporters and handlers
which were inadvertently excluded from
the proposed prohibition. Since the
proposal cited legislative history which
included the transportation and
handling stages within the prohibition as
the basis for § 268.3, the Agency
believes that the favorable comments
indicate support for such a modification
which conforms more closely to
congressional intent. In addition.
support for the prohibition was very
broad and did not indicate any intent to
treat transporters or handlers ~-
differently. EPA believes that this
modification is reasonable and i
necessary in order to implemenfthis
provision.
Second, the prohibition extends only
to the act of dilution itself. The Agency's
proposed language would have
prohibited "attempted dilution" but not
dilution itself. This is clearly not what
was intended by EPA. Overall, the
commenters who supported the
prohibition expressed concern with the
act of dilution.
B. Comparative Risk Assessment and
Available Treatment Alternatives
I. Proposed Use of Comparative Risk
Assessment
EPA proposed the use of comparative
risk analyses as part of its evaluation of
treatment technologies in conjunction
with establishing treatment standards.
As described in the proposed rule, a
number of criteria affect the
determination of "available" treatment
technologies for the purpose of setting
treatment standards. Among the criteria
considered is whether application of a
treatment technology (including land
disposal of treatment residuals) poses
greater risks to human health and the
environment than those posed by direct
land disposal of the waste. Comparative
risk analyses were proposed to prevent
situations in which regulations
restricting hazardous wastes from land
disposal would encourage treatment
technologies posing greater risks to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 218 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / RuJes and Regulations
40593
human health and the environment than
risks posed by direct land disposal.
2. Agency Response to Comments
The majority of the comments
supported the concept of conducting
comparative risk assessments. However.
several comments strongly opposed this
concept. Both sets of commenters had
specific criticisms and suggestions.
The commenters who objected to the
use of comparative risk assessment
stated that EPA does not have the
authority under RCRA to conduct such
analyses. The Agency disagrees with the
commenters. The Agency interprets the
provisions in section 3004(m) to direct
EPA to set treatment standards which
minimize threats to the "environment"
as applying to all media (i.e., air, land,
and water). Because there is no
language indicating that this term does
not include all media, accordingly, EPA
does not believe that the section 3004(m)
standard can be read to preclude
comparative risk analyses. Therefore,
EPA believes that Congress did not
intend that risks to human health and
the environment be increased as a result
of implementation of the land disposal
prohibitions. The national policy
provision in section 1003 supports this
approach in stating that hazardous
wastes should be treated in order to
minimize the present and future threat
to human health and the environment.
Moreover, this provision, as well as the
legislative history (e.g., H.R. Rep. No.
198, Part I, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 32
(1983)), does not focus merely on the
risks of land disposal, but instead
demonstrates a concern for the toxicity
and mobility of hazardous wastes in all
media. EPA believes that it is desirable.
reasonable, and consistent with the
intent of Congress to include
comparative risk assessments in the
determination of available technologies
for purposes of setting technology-based
treatment standards.
One commenter felt that the use of
comparative risk assessments are
reasonable, but questioned whether it is
appropriate to use worst case scenarios
in assessing the relative risks. The
suggested approach is to utilize a
"middle-of-the-road" scenario in
evaluating risks at both land disposal
and alternative treatment facilities. In
response to the comment, the Agency is
not using best or worst case scenarios.
Instead, EPA has chosen to analyze
several land disposal and treatment
facilities which represent high, medium,
and low exposure sites. High risk, low
risk, and representative waste streams
were modeled through each of these
facilities in order to capture the entire
range of waste site scenarios.
Several commenters were critical of
EPA's proposal to evaluate population
risk in assessing comparative risks. The
Agency believes it useful to consider
population in comparative risk analyses
because it can identify sources of
increased risks where a comparison
with the Maximum Exposed Individual
(MEI) risks may not do so. For example.
the MEI risks of incinerating certain
wastes may be low in comparison to the
MEI risks of land disposal. This could be
due to few people living in the
immediate path of an incinerator plume.
The Agency does, however, want to
consider cases where there may be a
larger population affected by incinerator
emissions.
One commenter was concerned that
the treatment methods for a given waste
may be riskier in absolute terms than
the treatment method for another waste.
Their concern was that the riskier
technology could be used to define the
treatment standard as long as the
process poses comparatively less risk
than land disposal. In the context of
ensuring that the land disposal
restrictions do not shift higher risks to
other media, the Agency maintains that
comparative risk analyses are not the
proper vehicle for making absolute risk
determinations. The analyses are aimed
at assessing whether the land disposal
of a given waste or waste stream will
pose relatively greater risks than
alternative treatment technologies. As
stated above, if the alternative
treatment method is determined to be
less risky than land disposal it will be
used in the determination of BOAT. The
Agency does, however, have the
authority to impose additional controls
on the technology if it later determines
that the actual risks are unacceptable.
Such a determination could lead to
either a modification of the BOAT
standard or the imposition of additional
standards on treatment facilities.
3. Use of Comparative Risk Assessment
in the Final Framework
Results of the comparative risk
analysis will not be used to allow
continued land disposal of untreated
hazardous waste. As discussed in
section A of this unit, treatment
technologies that are determined to pose
greater risks than direct land disposal of
a waste will be considered
"unavailable" as a basis for establishing
the treatment standard for the waste.
C. Application of Standards
1. Leaching Procedure
a. Final decision. The Agency
proposed to use the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLPJ to determine whether applicable
treatment standards have been met.
Although EPA is changing its overall
approach in today's final rule (i.e., from
risk-based decisions to technology-
based decisions), the Agency will
continue to require the use of the TCLP
to determine whether a waste requires
treatment or when a treated waste
meets the applicable treatment
standards. Today the Agency is
promulgating the TCLP with
improvements and modifications based
on the comments received on the
proposed rule, as well as applicable
comments received on the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) proposed rule (51 FR
21648, June 13,1986). The Agency is
promulgating the TCLP in today's final
rule specifically for evaluation of the
solvent and dioxin-containing wastes.
The revised TCLP is promulgated as
Appendix I to Part 268.
Because the Agency is continuing to
investigate other means of defining
BOAT (e.g., a definition based on the
concentration of hazardous constituents
in the waste, at least in the case where
treatment is based on destruction), EPA
will make decisions regarding the
applicability of the TCLP to other
restricted wastes according te the final
schedule for land disposal restrictions
which was promulgated on May 28,
1986. In addition, the Extraction
Procedure (EP) will continue to be used
in determining which nonlisted wastes
are hazardous in accordance with the
EP toxicity characteristic (40 CFR
261.24). The Agency expects to
promulgate the TC by early 1988.
b. Response to comments. The general
comments EPA received on the leaching
test as it applies to its use in this
rulemaking, and EPA's response to these
comments are summarized below.
Technical and procedural comments on
the TCLP. and related issues are
summarized and addressed in a
background document supporting the
use of the TCLP in today's final rule
(Ref. 3). The background document also
summarizes modifications to the TCLP
based on further evaluation of the
procedure.
(1) Use of the TCLP is premature.
Many of the commenters argued that use
of the TCLP was premature. Reasons
that were given include: (i) An
inadequate amount of time was given to
evaluate the method and its impact on
current waste management practices,
due to the unavailability of test
equipment; (ii) the institution of a new
test would impose unreasonable delays
on treatment facilities who need to test
the wastes prior to disposal; and (iii) the
test had not been properly validated.
-------
40594
EPA does not believe that these
concerns are sufficient reasons to
prevent the use of the TCLP in today's
regulation. In view of the statutory
S«nihilsVEPA was aware that the
available for public review of the
leaching test would be relatively short
As a result, during the course of
developing and evaluating the TCLP.
publ c presentations were held to
familiarize interested parties with the
test procedure, in order to facilitate their
evaluation of the test.
In addition, most of the equipment
needed to conduct the TCLP is the same
as that used for the existing EP. The
only "new" equipment is the Zero-
Headspace Extractor (ZHE) and
ancillary equipment (e.g., TEDLAR bags
and gas-tight syringes) needed for
evaluation of volatile organic
compounds.
' In addition to the data and
information made available to the public
in the January 14.1986 proposal.
information on the development and
evaluation of the TCLP was provided in
the toxicity characteristic proposed rule
Further supporting information on the
leaching test was also provided through
o°,nC0nS,of !Iailab'l«y of reports on July
?™f ~ *%/*•24856' and September 19.
1986 (SI FR 33297). EPA received over
150 comments on the TCLP in response
to these proposals and notices. These
comments were considered in issuing
today's final rule. EPA. therefore, does
not agree with the commenter's claim
that they have not had adequate
opportunity to evaluate the method. The
Agency believes that adequate data has
been developed and noticed for public
comment to allow generators to
adequately evaluate the procedure.
Another general concern expressed by
commenters related to the belief that the
institution of a new test would present
unreasonable delays on treatment
facilities. Although there may be some
delay, EPA does not believe that this
would be caused by the introduction of
a new testing protocol or a protocol
requiring new equipment. Some form of
waste analysis is required in order to
implement the land disposal restrictions
rule. EPA anticipates that the institution
of a new protocol will not cause delays
beyond those required to perform any
waste characterization. The procedures
used in conducting the TCLP are very
similar to the existing EP. Therefore, the
Agency expects that laboratories
familiar with the EP protocol should
have little problem conducting the TCLP.
Commenters also expressed concern
that the TCLP was not ready for
application because the method had not
been properly tested or validated. The
TCLP has been the subject of an
extensive evaluation. EPA has
completed both intra- and inter-
laboratory (collaborative) studies of
method reproducibility using a variety of
wastes. Industry groups and commercial
laboratories participated in EPA's TCLP
collaborative evaluation. In addition, the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
also evaluated the TCLP in a
collaborative study. Finally, six industry
associations submitted data to the
Agency from a collaborative study of
the TCLP (The results of these studies
are detailed in the TCLP Background
Document supporting today's rule (Ref.
3)). Based on all these efforts. EPA
believes that the test has been
sufficiently evaluated.
(2) The TCLP is inappropriate for use
m the land disposal restriction's rule
Approximately one third of all
commenters addressing the leaching test
argued that it is inappropriate for such
use. Specifically, these commenters
argued that the method would be
inappropriate as a means to evaluate
Subtitle C hazardous wastes because it
was developed based on a municipal/
industrial waste codisposal scenario.
They specifically pointed out that
hazardous waste landfills do not contain
municipal wastes and. therefore, that
the leaching medium within these
landfills was unlikely to contain acetate
or acetic acid, common degradation
products of decomposing refuse. These
commenters further suggested that a
water leaching medium would be more
representative of a Subtitle C disposal
facility.
Several commenters also disagreed
with application of the TCLP because of
other differences between Subtitle C
and Subtitle D land disposal facilities.
They asserted that Subtitle C facilities
differ in design from municipal facilities
in several respects, including
minimization of surface and ground
water intrusion and containment of
accumulated fluids through the 30-year
post-closure period beyond the
operating life of the facility. They
pointed out that well-engineered
hazardous waste land disposal units
provide a physical-chemical
environment that is significantly
different from the municipal landfill.
EPA recognizes that RCRA Subtitle C
and Subtitle D facilities differ in many
respects. However, commenters
generally addressed only the fairly
narrow example of a well engineered
Subtitle C landfill that accepts treated
wastes or that is dedicated to a
particular waste. Subtitle C facilities
include not only these types of landfills
but also existing facilities which may be
unlined or which may contain a variety
of untreated wastes. The current
regulations do not prohibit the
landfilling of mildly acidic wastes, nor is
it uncommon to put liquid acidic wastes
m surface impoundments. Thus, a
significant number of facilities may not
conform to the model suggested by the
commenters. In view of these
differences, EPA does not believe the
commenters have shown that it is
unreasonable to assume that wastes in a
Subtitle C environment may be subject
to mildly acidic conditions. In view of
these factors, and considering the time
constraints imposed on the Agency's
issuance of land disposal regulations.
?^n f IC ues if is iustified to "sing the
I CLP for the wastes covered by today's
In this regard, it is important to note
tnat the leaching of the organics covered
by today's rule is not significantly
effected by minor changes to the
predominantly aqueous leaching media
used in the TCLP (Ref. 24). Thus the
Agency believes it is being prudent in
not introducing yet another leaching test
for regulatory application.
(3) Effect of the TCLP on constituents
other than solvents and dioxins.-
Because today's final rule addresses
only solvents and dioxins, EPA i*.not
responding to those comments dealing
with inorganics at this time. EPA has
received substantial comment regarding
theTCLP's use of a "stronger" leaching
fluid for wastes of moderate to high
alkalinity, and the need for particle size
reduction of all wastes, including
monolithic materials. A detailed
discussion is available in the TCLP
background document.
(4) Potential laboratory capacity
shortfall. Several commenters,
anticipating that the TCLP may
eventually be required as a result of
both the land disposal restrictions
program and the toxicity characteristic,
were concerned over a potential
laboratory capacity shortfall. They
indicated that commercial laboratories
are currently backlogged with work, and
that TCLP requirements under both rules
would make the situation critical.
We disagree with these commnenters.
Many commercial laboratories are
presently performing TCLP analyses. For
example, over 20 laboratories were
involved in EPA's TCLP collaborative
effort. In addition. EPA is aware that
laboratories have been in the process of
gearing-up to perform TCLP analyses,
primarily in anticipation that the TCLP
will be required as part of both the land
disposal restrictions rule and the
toxicity characteristic. In addition, due
to the phased approach for the
restrictions rule, and the fact that the
toxicity characteristic will not be
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40595
promulgated until early 1988, EPA
believes that the laboratory capacity
problem will not be as severe as
commenters suggest. By the time the
toxicity characteristic becomes
effective. EPA believes that sufficient
laboratory capacity should exist to
conduct the required analyses. Several
commenters agreed with EPA. indicating
that there are (or would be) a sufficient
number of laboratories that will be able
to perform the TCLP.
(5) TCLP reproducibility. EPA also
received substantial comments
regarding the precision or
reproducibility of the TCLP, most of
which were critical of the method's
precision. While specific comments
regarding method precision are
addressed in the TCLP background
document, the outcome of EPA's general
evaluation of these comments is
presented below.
The relevant question with respect to
method precision is; "is the method
sufficiently precise for its intended
application?" In other words, given a
particular waste, can the same
conclusions derived from results of
running the TCLP in one laboratory (i.e.,
are treatment levels exceeded) be
reached in other laboratories. EPA
believes that the TCLP is sufficiently
precise in this application, as indicated
below.
A total of three separate multi-
laboratory collaborative evaluations of
the precision of the TCLP were
conducted {Ref. 3). One of these
evaluations was sponsored by the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI),
and was limited to investigating the
precision of the method for inorganic
parameters and dealt specifically with •
utility industry wastes. This study is
unique in that it attempted to determine
the relative contribution to total
variability due to the three major
components of variability; sampling
variability, analytical variability, and
variability due to the TCLP itself. EPRI
also conducted side by side
comparisons of the EP to the TCLP. This
study was similar to a study EPRI did on
the EP in 1979 (Ref. 3).
EPRI's evaluation concluded in
general, that the TCLP's reproducibility
was equal to or greater than that of the
EP (Ref. 3). More significantly, EPRI
found that the most frequently
encountered source of variability in the
TCLP extracts was the analytical
variability associated with analysis of
duplicate extracts Fy different
laboratories. EPRI. however, also
indicated that the interpretation of
results may depend on the statistical
approach used to analyze the data.
Nevertheless, il appears that regardless
of how data are interpreted, analytical
variability can account for a major
source of variability in results.
EPA's collaborative study addressed
the conventional bottle extraction (i.e.,
for metals, semi-volatile organics. and
pesticides and herbicides) and the Zero-
Headspace Extractor (ZHE) used for
volatile organics. The results of this
study, noticed in the September 21,1986
Federal Register, presented the full
results of the evaluation for the
conventional extraction, and a summary
of the results for the ZHE extraction.
This report has since been finalized. The
general conclusion reached in this study
was that "the TCLP could be applied
consistently by a diverse group of
organizations."
The third collaborative effort was
sponsored by six industry trade
associations, and dealt with both the
conventional bottle extraction and the
ZHE. This study also compared the
precision of the EP to the TCLP, and, like
the EPRI study, concluded that the
precision of the TCLP was
approximately the same as, or slightly
better than, that of the EP. This study
further concluded, however, that the
TCLP procedure was not a precise test.
but attributed the major source of
variability to the "lack of homogeneity
of wastes and the resulting difficulty in
obtaining representative samples ..."
One comment received, however (from
one of the participating trade
associations), concluded that the
association's study seemed to be
consistent with the EPA effort in that the
data for meta.ls and non-volatile
organics showed adequate
reproducibility, and that the
"preliminary" data for volatile organics
also indicated adequate reproducibility.
EPA believes that these three efforts
adequately demonstrate the precision of
the TCLP, and also support EPA's
contention that precision over the
existing EP has been improved.
Specifically, these studies show that
considering the variability contributed
by both sampling and analytical
variability, the TCLP can be applied
consistently among laboratories with
reasonable precision.
Nevertheless, EPA agrees with the
conclusion in the industry association
study that sampling variability is likely
to be the most significant contribution to
total variability. (EPA is also concerned,
to a lesser extent, with the contribution
of analytical variability.) Further, EPA
believes that sampling variability may
actually be more of a problem than
indicated in these studies. Whereas
extra efforts are usually made in
collaborative studies to minimize
variability due to the samples, such
efforts are not always entirely
successful. When sampling for waste
analyses or characterizations, it is likely
that sample representativeness will not
receive the same close attention that it
receives during collaborative efforts.
EPA believes that the best way to
deal with the variability problem is to
take multiple "representative" samples
of wastes following a well-developed
sampling plan, and to subject these
samples to the intended analyses.
Following fairly simple and fundamental
statistical concepts, the results can then
be subjected to a statistical evaluation
designed to determine whether
applicable regulatory levels are
exceeded with a certain degree of
confidence (e.g., the upper limit of the 90
percent confidence interval). This
approach is detailed in Chapter 9 of
EPA's 3rd edition of its solid waste
testing manual (Test Methods For
Evaluating Solid Waste—SW-346),
which is complete with several easy
ways to follow example (Ref. 3).
(6) Applicability of the TCLP to multi-
phasic (oily) wastes. EPA has- also
received substantial comment on the
applicability of the TCLP to ojy wastes.
Commenters were both concerned that .
the TCLP would not distinguish "liquid"
oils from solid materials, resulting in
little or no filtration of oil through the
TCLP's glass fiber filter (GFF), and that
the TCLP's GFF would treat these oils as
liquids, resulting in too much oil passing
through the filter. These commenters
further criticized the TCLP because it
treated aqueous liquids and non-
aqueous (oily) liquids in an identical
manner, when these commenters
perceived these liquids to behave
differently in the environment.
Materials which filter through the GFF
are defined as liquids and are analyzed
directly, whereas the "solid" portion of
the waste (i.e., that portion which does
not pass through the GFF) is extracted
with an amount of extraction fluid equal
to twenty times its weight. This
differentiation is especially critical for
oily wastes (which are known to pose
filtration problems, especially with the
EP's membrane filter), as exceedance of
the treatment level can depend very
heavily on whether the "liquid oil"
within the waste is defined as a liquid
(passes through the GFF and is analyzed
directly), or is defined as a solid (does
not filter and is extracted with twenty
times its weight of extraction fluid).
EPA agrees that this is a difficult issue
and believes that it is important that the
TCLP be capable of indicating the
movement of oily material, as these
materials have been'known to migrate
from wastes.
-------
40596
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
Data is available which suggests that
the TCLP's GFF more readily passes oily
material than does the HP's membrane
filter. In developing the TCLP, EPA
investigated eleven wastes in its
lysimeter evaluations, three of which
were oily wastes (Ref. 24). During this
phase of the research, it was
demonstrated that oil is capable of
migrating from the "solid" matrix of the
waste as droplets.
While the GFF was selected mainly
for operational reasons, the research
also indicated that it was consistently
more efficient at detecting
contamination due to movement of the
oil than was the EP's membrane filter.
The GFF is therefore expected to
provide a more reasonable
differentiation between liquids and
solids.
While the GFF then, is an
improvement upon the EP's membrane
filter, in terms of its ability to pass oils.
EPA is continuing to investigate if the
TCLP's filtration regime should be
altered to better predict movement of
the oily phase of a waste. Upon
completion of these evaluations, EPA
may propose modifications to the TCLP
specifically for wastes containing oily or
other non-aqueous liquids. In the
meantime, given the GFF's ability to
better indicate the movement of oil. EPA
believes that the TCLP's filtration
regime will be sufficiently capable of
indicating whether oily wastes meet the
treatment levels.
(7) Complexity of TCLP. Several
commenters were also concerned that
the TCLP is too complex and too
dependent on the use of skilled
personnel and specialized equipment
like the ZHE. Many of these commenters
suggested changes to the ZHE protocol.
Commenters further asserted that the
procedure was overly burdensome.
especially for wastes containing solids
and multiple liquid phases.
As indicated previously, the TCLP
involves two separate procedures with
differing equipment. The conventional
bottle extraction conducted for "non-
volatile" constituents is much simplified
over the EP protocol. In fact, one of the
conclusions of the EPRI collaborative
TCLP study was that "the main
advantage of the TCLP appears to be in
the ease of use." The TCLP extraction
for volatiles, involving the ZHE, is
agreeably more complicated than the
conventional extraction. The two
protocols, however, are very similar,
and EPA believes that analysts familiar
with the EP method will have little
problem, successfully conducting the
TCLP. As with any new procedure, there
will be some learning involved,
especially with regard to the ZHE
device. Familiarization with the device
should be fairly rapid, however.
EPA has also taken steps to simplify
the procedure, both on our own further
evaluation of the method, and in
response to the comments received on
the method. EPA is also considering
further simplification of the ZHE
protocol, as indicated in the background
document. Finally, while EPA believes
that the protocol can be successfully run
by technicians and analysts, as with any
waste characterization (including the
EP). the oversight of skilled chemists is
always essential.
(8) Operational difficulty of the TCLP
with some waste types. EPA has
received many comments addressing the
operational difficulties perceived in
performing the TCLP on some waste
types. For example, EPA is aware that
the TCLP will be more difficult to
perform on wastes containing
immiscible liquid phases, and on wastes
which contain low percent solids (e.g.,
<5 percent solids). EPA is also aware
that the ZHE device may be difficult to
clean after extraction of a particularly
contaminated waste.
To help generators in dealing with
these problems in a consistent manner,
EPA is in the process of preparing a
guidance section for the TCLP, that will
offer suggestions on the best way to deal
with these problems. In addition, this
guidance will offer suggested reporting
forms for recording results, and will also
contain helpful suggestions in dealing
with minor problems. This guidance
section will accompany the method
when it is published in SW-846. The
background document supporting the
TCLP provides more detail regarding the
content of the guidance section, along
with responses to comments addressing
technical and procedural issues (Ref. 3).
(9) Specific wastes and compounds.
Many commenters also expressed their
concern that application of the TCLP
would be inappropriate for their specific
wastes. These commenters, however
were most concerned with inorganic
constituents and the effect of the acetic
acid (used in the TCLP) on these
constituents. These commenters
asserted that their wastes were not
managed in municipal landfills (which
the acetic acid is designed to simulate)
and thus, that the use of acetic acid
would be inappropriate. As mentioned
earilier, since today's rule applies only
to solvents and dioxins, and since the
TCLP is only used in the rule as a
monitoring technique, EPA is not
responding to these comments at this
time.
Similar comments were received
which assert that reproducibility testing
performed on the TCLP should have
been done with "their wastes." EPA
would like to reemphasize that these
were two outside evaluations of the
TCLP (Ref. 3). Nonetheless, EPA
believes that it would be unnecessary to
conduct precision studies on all wastes
that may be subject to the TCLP. This
would be a waste of resources. Rather,
in precision studies, it is more important
to test a range of wastes, in terms of
physical and chemical characteristics.
Between all the investigations
conducted on the TCLP, a wide variety
of wastes have been tested, including
those that would sufficiently challenge
the procedure, such as oily (multi-
phasic) wastes. This is important, as
many of these commenters were
specifically referring to oily wastes. EPA
believes that the TCLP has been
sufficiently tested on a variety of
wastes.
Other commenters were concerned
that the TCLP would be inefficient at
extracting chlorinated (volatile)
compounds, as they observed that
during the research EPA conducted to
develop the TCLP, chlorinated
compounds were extracted in the>-
laboratory procedure at levels .--
significantly less than the levels '••
expected (Ref. 24). EPA acknowledged
the poor extraction of volatile "i
compounds in general during this
research. These results led EPA to the
conclusion that volatiles were being lost
to the headspace within the
conventional (bottle) extraction and as a
result of the air pressure filtration.
Consequently, the Agency determined
that a device which precludes
headspace and enables the use of piston
pressure for liquid/solid separation was
necessary, and the Zero-Headspace
Extractor was developed to minimize
the loss of volatiles.
2. Testing and Recordkeeping
Under the framework being finalized
today, determination of whether a
hazardous waste treatment residue
requires further treatment prior to land
disposal generally depends on whether
the concentration of constituents in an
extract from the waste (using the TCLP)
exceeds the applicable treatment
standards. Because this determination is
critical to the scheme, EPA is imposing
certain waste testing/analysis
requirements.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
solicited comments on the issue of who
should bear responsibility for testing
restricted wastes and certifying that the
wastes meet the applicable treatment
standards. The commenters were
equally divided on these issues. Sonv
commenters believed that the generator
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 216 / Friday,-November 7
^^^^^^^"^^^^^^^^^^^^•^•••••^••^^^•••^•^^••••^•••••••^^^^•••^^^^^^••.
1988 / Rules and Regulations 40597
should be responsible for testing,
certification, and recordkeeping. Others
agreed with the proposed approach
requiring the disposal facility to certify
that the wastes meet the treatment
standards.
Because the approach promulgated
today does not cap BOAT with
screening levels, more wastes will
require treatment to meet the specified
treatment standards. The Agency
believes that the shift towards treatment
of restricted wastes will place an
increased responsibility on treatment
facilities to ensure that treated wastes
meet the specified treatment standard.
Although the provisions in section
3004(m)(2) place the ultimate
responsibility on the disposal facility to
ensure that only wastes which meet the
treatment standards are land disposed,
the Agency believes that testing and
certification by the treatment facility is
critical to implemention of the
regulatory program. Thus, the Agency is
requiring that the treatment facility
provide waste analysis data showing
that a waste meets the applicable
treatment standard to ensure that only
wastes which meet the standards will
be transported to disposal facilities. In
cases where the generator is shipping a
"waste directly to the disposal facility
(i.e., the waste naturally meets the
treatment standard, or has been treated
on-site), the generator is responsible for
testing and recordkeeping. However, the
disposal facility has the ultimate
responsibility to ensure that all
restricted wastes meet applicable
treatment standards before being land
disposed. The disposer also is required
to maintain all records.
The rules promulgated today are not
intended to shift responsibility for
improper disposal to the generator. Of
course, nothing in these rules prevents
the generator and disposer from entering
into a private agreement to allocate
liability in the event that prohibited
wastes are land disposed.
a. Generator requirements. For
today's final rule, the generator of a
restricted waste must notify the
treatment facility in writing of the
appropriate treatment standard for the
waste. The generator may make this
determination based on waste analysis
data, knowledge of the waste, or both.
Where this determination is based
solely on the generator's knowledge of
the waste, the Agency is requiring that
the generator maintain in the facility
operating record all supporting data
used to make this certification. A waste
analysis must be conducted if there is
reason to believe that the composition of
the waste has changed or if the
treatment process has changed. The
notification must specify the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number, the
applicable treatment standard, the
manifest number associated with the
shipment of waste, and the waste
analysis data (if available). The notice
must be placed in the operating record
of the treatment facility along with a
copy of the manifest. Generators who
are also treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities must place the same
information in the operating record,
although a formal notification and
manifest is not required.
According to the provisions in § 268.7,
a generator who determines that a
waste can be land disposed without
treatment must submit to the disposal
facility a certification statement and a
notice which contains the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number, the manifest
number, the applicable treatment
standard(s), and the waste analysis data
(if available) or cross references to
relevant data submitted at an earlier
time. The certification is required only in
cases where the generator is
representing that the waste meets the
treatment standard. Generators who
dispose on-site must put the same
information in the operating record
(except for the manifest number).
b. Treatment facility requirements.
The treatment facility is responsible for
treating the restricted waste to the level
specified in the applicable treatment
standard. An off-site treatment facility
must obtain the required data from the
generator prior to treatment and place
that data in the operating record.
Treatment residues must be tested
prior to land disposal according to the
requirements of the treatment facility's
waste analysis plan to determine if
treatment has achieved the required
levels.
For instance, if the waste analysis
plan calls for testing of each batch of
waste from an incineration process,
these data must be submitted to the land
disposal facility along with the
certification statement. If a particular
generator's waste does not vary and is
consistently treated by the same
treatment facility using the same
treatment process, the treatment
facility's waste analysis plan may
require less frequent testing of the
treatment residue. It should be
emphasized that a waste analysis must
be conducted if there is any reason to
believe that the composition of the
waste has changed or if the treatment
process has changed.
Each waste shipment must be
accompanied by a certification
statement including cross references to
any relevant data submitted at an
earlier time, and a notice which includes
the EPA Hazardous Waste Number, the
manifest number, the applicable
treatment standard(s), and waste
analysis data (if available). The disposal
facility must place the certification
notice and accompanying data in the
operating record. A treatment facility
that disposes on-site must put the same
information in the operating record
(except for the manifest number).
c. Land disposal facility requirements.
The disposal facility, which is ultimately
responsible for verifying that only
wastes meeting the treatment standards
are land disposed, must maintain all
documentation that the waste has been
treated in accordance with the
standards. If generation, treatment, and
disposal all occur at the same site, all
testing records must be placed in the
operating record. The Agency believes
that this approach will produce the
desired result—an assurance that
wastes placed in land disposal units
have met the applicable treatment
standards. -
The testing and recordkeejing
requirements promulgated in today's
rule do not relieve the generator of his
responsibility under 40 CFR'262.20 to
designate a facility on the manifest
which is permitted to accept the waste
for off-site management.
d. Implementation affinal rule. To
implement the additional waste testing/
analysis standards, the Agency has
included a reference to the requirements
of 40 CFR Part 268 in the general waste
analysis requirements of 40 CFR 264.13
(a)(l) and (b)(6) for permitted facilities,
and in 40 CFR 265.13 (a)(l) and (b)(6) for
interim status facilities. Consistent with
the current approach to waste analysis
requirements in Parts 264 and 265, the
Agency has added these specific waste
analysis requirements in today's final
rule that must be incorporated into the
general waste analysis as a separate
section in Part 268. The Agency has also
revised the operating record
requirements in 40 CFR 264.73 and 40
CFR 265.73 to indicate that waste
analyses conducted pursuant to such
requirements must be recorded and
maintained in the land disposal facility's
operating record.
e. Waste analysis. Wastes must be
tested in accordance with a facilities
waste analysis plan. Where treatment
standards are expressed as a
concentration in a waste extract. EPA is
requiring that the TCLP be used to
determine whether the waste meets the
treatment standard (see Appendix I to
Part 268). Guidance on methods for
waste sampling and analysis is provided
-------
40593
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
in Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Wastes. 2nd Edition, EPA Document
SW-846,1982, as amended. In addition.
guidance on the preparation of waste
analysis plans is provided in Waste
Analysis Plans. A Guidance Manual.
September 1984. A revised edition of
this waste analysis plan (WAP)
guidance is forthcoming.
The current WAP guidance describes
four basic components of the waste
analysis plan. It discusses how the
owner or operator of a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility should
describe:
(1) Specific wastes that will be
managed;
(2) Waste-associated properties that
are of concern in ensuring safe and
effective management;
(3) Specific waste parameters that
must be quantified before waste is
accepted for treatment, storage and/or
disposal;
(4) Methods and frequency of
sampling and analysis required to
obtain the data on waste
characterization and the attendant
quality control/quality assurance
procedures.
For the purposes of compliance with
the land disposal restrictions rule, a
waste analysis plan for an off-site
disposal facility must address the
procedures for screening incoming
shipments of waste to ensure that
wastes received conform to the
certification made by the generator or
treatment facility. That is, the waste
analysis plan must address the
procedures necessary for determining
whether an extract of the waste or
treated waste meets the treatment
standards.
These testing requirements for
treatment residuals apply to generators
who treat, store, and dispose onsite.
Less frequent testing may be appropriate
when there are fewer and less variable
waste streams at combined facilities.
but waste must be tested if the
composition or treatment method
changes. In developing these waste
analysis plans, the Agency recommends
that the land disposal facilities follow
the general guidelines in the WAP
guidance.
For each waste stream, the waste
constituents regulated under the land
disposal restrictions rule must be
comprehensively analyzed. Although the
frequency of testing will depend to some
extent upon the variability of the waste
stream, the Agency recommends that a
comprehensive analysis of each waste
stream be performed at least annually
by the generator or treater. When the
comprehensive analysis is performed.
however, it must contain data on all the
applicable constituents in Subpart D so
that the owner/operator will be able to
determine whether the waste meets all
applicable treatment standards. If the
owner/operator of. the land disposal
facility does not receive this information
in writing from the generator or
treatment facility, he must perform the
analysis to determine whether the waste
meets the treatment standards
according to the waste analysis plan.
The test results of this comprehensive
analysis must be placed in the land
disposal facility's operating record.
The Agency believes that this
approach is consistent with existing
industry practice. Off-site land disposal
facilities already require extensive
waste analysis information from the
generator or treatment facility before
they initially accept hazardous wastes
for disposal.
Finally, by requiring that all waste
analyses be placed in the operating
record, the owners/operators will be
able to demonstrate compliance with the
waste analysis requirements in 5 268.7.
Where the treatment standard for the
applicable waste is a specified method
of treatment, the last facility to treat the
waste must send a certification to the
land disposal facility that the waste has
been treated using the specified
technology. The certification, which is to
be placed in the land disposal facility's
operating record, must include the
statement required under § 268.7(b)(l).
3. RCRA Facilities Operating Under a
Permit or Interim Status
These regulations, when they become
effective, will place an increased
demand on existing hazardous waste
treatment facilities. EPA believes that it
is important for these facilities to have
the regulatory flexibility to add
restricted wastes to their treatment
inventories quickly. This flexibility is
necessary to permit the prompt
treatment of restricted wastes.
Treatment facilities operating under
interim status are generally provided
with the flexibility to handle new
wastes by 40 CFR 270.72, which
specifies permissible changes during
interim status. Under this section,
interim status facilities may add new
wastes, increase design capacity (if they
can demonstrate a lack of available
capacity), or make changes in treatment,
storage, or disposal processes (if the
changes are necessary to comply with
Federal regulations or State or local
laws). 40 CFR 270.72(e), however, limits
these changes to alterations and
expansions of a facility that do not
exceed 50 percent of the capital cost of a
comparable new facility. In cases where
changes exceed 50 percent, the changes
cannot be made until the facility
receives a RCRA permit.
In the preamble to the proposed rule,
the Agency requested comments on
whether an amendment to 40 CFR 270.72
is necessary to provide interim status
facilities the flexibility to manage
restricted wastes. EPA received few
comments recommending such a change,
however, the commenters did not
provide data indicating that this
provision would prevent modifications
needed in order to comply with today's
rule. The Agency is reviewing this issue
and will modify 40 CFR 270.72. if
needed, by promulgating a rule at a later
date. However, at this time, we believe
that 40 CFR 270.72 allows sufficient
flexibility for interim status facilities to
readily manage restricted wastes.
Treatment facilities operating under a
permit have significantly less flexibility
to make changes than interim status
treatment facilities. Under current
regulations, these facilities may add
new wastes or change treatment,
storage, or disposal processes, usually
through major permit modifications.
Major permit modifications, whic&are
substantially the same as permit '-
issuance procedures, require a draft
permit, public notice and comment and
opportunity for a public hearing. Itf
many cases, these procedures can be
time-consuming and may discourage
facilities from changing permit
conditions to treat restricted wastes,
thereby limiting available treatment
capacity.
To provide greater flexibility to
permitted facilities, the Agency
proposed to allow treatment facilities to
manage restricted wastes not listed in
their permit after a minor permit
modification (51FR1692). The EPA
received several comments on this issue.
In general, industry supported the
increased flexibility provided in the
proposed rule. Environmentalists,
however, argued that permit
modifications which permit management
of new wastes should not be granted
without the opportunity for at least
abbreviated public notice and comment.
They stated, however, that certain
restrictions should be placed on new
wastes that could be added to a permit
through minor modification procedures.
After reviewing these comments the
EPA has decided to add a new section
(40 CFR 270.42(o)) to allow permit
holders greater flexibility in treating
restricted wastes. Under this new
provision, owners and operators of
treatment facilities may treat restricted
wastes not listed in their permits after
Federal or State approval of a minor
permit modification equest. However.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulation
in response to public comments and to
ensure that changes made under this
provision are in fact minor, the EPA has
restricted the scope of 40 CFR 270.42(o)
in several important respects.
First, new waste must be treated in
accordance with the treatment
standards issued under Subpart D of
Part 268. This will ensure that the
treatment is appropriate for the
restricted waste. Second, as suggested
by the commenters, minor permit
modifications are not allowed under this
provision if treatment of the new waste
will present substantially different risks
from the risks associated with wastes
listed in the permit. For example, a
facility not already permitted to handle
acutely hazardous or reactive wastes
would not be allowed to treat such
wastes under this provision. Finally,
under this provision, treatment of the
new waste cannot involve any permit
changes other than the addition of waste
codes and administrative or technical
changes necessary to handle the waste,
such as changes in the waste analysis
plan. Changes in treatment processes or
the addition of new treatment processes
will continue to require a major permit
modification.
This amendment to the minor
modification requirements should
provide flexibility to permitted facilities
treating restricted wastes. It should be
emphasized, that the modifications
allowed under this provision are
significantly limited and they apply only
to restricted wastes as described above.
The purpose of the amendment is to
allow the prompt treatment of restricted
wastes in accordance with the land
disposal restrictions standards and to
increase available treatment capacity.
Without these changes, the EPA
believes that the ability of permitted
facilities to treat restricted wastes
promptly will be significantly reduced.
Because of the conditions limiting the
applicability of this provision, any
permit modifications made under it will
be minor. For this reason the EPA does
not believe that public notice and
comment procedures are necessary, just
as they are not required for other minor
permit modifications. Such procedure
would eliminate the flexibility provided
by the minor modification procedures
and could complicate or delay treatment
of restricted wastes.
The EPA acknowledges that 40 CFR
270.42(o) only partially addresses the
difficulties that will be faced by
permitted facilities seeking to treat
restricted wastes. In particular, it does
not allow the modification of existing
treatment processes or the addition of
new treatment processes to handle
restricted wastes. The Agency believes
that such changes raise more
complicated issues than does the
addition of waste codes. However, the
Agency is exploring this issue as part of
an overall review of the minor permit
modification regulations. The EPA is
now conducting regulatory negotiations
on minor modifications, announced on
July 16,1986 in the Federal Register, (51
FR 25739), and anticipates issuing a
proposed rule revising this regulation in
1987.
D. Determination of Alternative
Capacity And Ban Effective Dates
RCRA section 3004{h)(2J states that
the Agency may grant a nationwide
variance of up to 2 years from the
statutory effective date if adequate
alternative treatment, recovery, or
disposal capacity which protects human
health and the environment is not
available. EPA will consider several
factors when calculating alternative
capacity and when determining the
length of any variance from the effective
dates of the restrictions. These factors
are discussed below.
1. Effective Dates
EPA will develop estimates of
treatment capacity needed versus
capacity available to determine if
current capacity for alternative
treatment, recovery, and disposal
technologies is adequate to manage
restricted wastes. These estimates will
be developed from currently available
data on capacity requirements and
technology capacity.
If capacity is available, the
prohibition will go into effect
immediately. If capacity is not available,
the Administrator may set an alternative
effective date on the basis of the earliest
date on which adequate alternative
treatment, recovery, or disposal
capacity which protects human health
and the environment becomes available.
Establishment of the effective date will
not be affected by the processing of
petitions under section 3004 (d), (e), and
(g). The relationship between the
variance to the effective date and the
case-by-case extension under section
3004(h)(3) is discussed later in this unit.
2. Regional and National Capacity
The Agency will determine both the
quantity of restricted waste generated
and the capacity of alternative
treatment, recovery, and disposal
technologies on a nationwide basis. If
there is a significant shortfall in
capacity to treat all of the restricted
waste, the Agency will extend the
effective date of the prohibitions. If
national capacity is only slightly
lacking, EPA may grant case-by-case
effective date extensions while allowing
the nationwide prohibition to go into
effect immediately. If national capacity
is sufficient, the prohibition will become
effective immediately, even if, for"
instance, the only capacity for a waste
generated in California is located in
Ohio.
Many commenters urged EPA to make
regional instead of national estimates of
required and available capacities.
However, the national approach is
consistent with congressional intent.
The Senate legislative history provides
that "the available capacity
determination is to be done on a
national basis" (S. Rep. No. 284, 98th
Cong., 1st Sess. 19 (1983)). That is. the
effective date of the prohibitions for a
given waste should not vary from region
to region because one region has
sufficient alternative capacity and
another does not. If land disposal were
prohibited in only a portion of the
country, it is possible that waste
generated in one region would be
transported outside of that region and
land disposed elsewhere. As the Senate
report points out. those regions of the
country in which land disposal is
allowed might become the 'jumping
ground" for wastes generated in regions
where land disposal is banned (S. Rep.
No. 284. 98th Cong.. 1st Sess. 19 (1983)).
3. The Nationwide Variance and the
Case-By-Case Extension
In cases where EPA has not granted a
nationwide variance, it is not precluded
from granting case-by-case effective
date extensions. It may be more
desirable to grant case-by-case
extensions to specific applicants who
lack alternative capacity than to allow
everyone, even those for whom
alternatives are available, to continue to
land dispose restricted wastes. This
approach is consistent with
congressional intent to prohibit land
disposal at the earliest possible time.
EPA also may grant variances of less
than 2 years, even though not all
facilities under construction will be
completed. Wastes requiring the
capacity from uncompleted facilities
also could be handled by case-by-case
extensions, without allowing continued
land disposal nationwide.
If the Agency proposes an immediate
effective date, it will accept applications
for case-by-case extensions before the
final rule is promulgated so the
extensions will be effective when the
final rule is published in the Federal
Register. EPA will consider information
provided by case-by-case extension
applicants as well as comments
submitted during the public commer
-------
40600 Federal Resdste, / Vol. 51. No. 216 , Friday.
period, in determining whether to grant
a nationwide variance in the final rule.
Th£ Agency will consider the
possibility of granting a nationwide
variance after the prohibition becomes
effective if available data (including
data from case-by-case extension
applications) indicate that nationwide
capacity is inadequate. EPA also will
consider whether it should shorten the
period of a nationwide variance based
on new information showing that
nationwide capacity is adequate.
However, after EPA promulgates a
nationwide effective date, this date is
not likely to be amended because it is
unlikely that Federal rulemaking
activities could be completed in
significantly less than 2 years.
4. Determination of Capacity
Requirements by Waste Treatability
Croup
In general. EPA will develop
treatment standards for waste groups
derived from the physical/chemical
characteristics of the restricted wastes.
EPA also will determine the quantities
of wastes that require specific treatment
of recovery methods by waste
treatability group. These treatability
groups will enable EPA to compare
required capacity (capacity demand)
with available capacity (capacity
supply). In addition, EPA will consider
other increases in capacity demand
generated by emergency and remedial
responses, and to the extent possible,
the impact of other final rulemakings
that affect-availability of or demand for
treatment capacity. As necessary. EPA
will set different effective dates for
different waste groups or subdivisions of
waste groups.
In some cases, the same technology
will apply to several waste groups that
must be regulated in the same or in
sequential rulemakings. However, total
capacity may not be sufficient to treat
all of these groups of wastes. In such
cases, the Agency will subdivide the
waste groups in order to use all
available treatment capacity on specific
subgroups so as to implement the
restrictions as quickly as possible.
Under this approach, as much waste as
possible would be prohibited
immediately.
5. Definition of Available Capacity
In estimating available capacity, the
Agency will consider current on-line
facilities, which include permitted
facilities and facilities operating under
RCRA interim status, and planned
facilities and capacity extensions that
will be on-line by the effective date of a
land disposal prohibition.
Current on-line facilities consist of off-
site and on-site facilities, including both
stationary and mobile facilities which
have been approved by Federal, State,
and local agencies to operate and accept
certain wastes. Facilities operating
under RCRA interim status meet these
criteria, and therefore will be included
ui the capacity determination. Some
commenters disagreed with this
approach, suggesting that interim status
facilities may not receive final permits.
However, unless EPA receives
notification of intent to close an interim
status facility, the Agency will assume
continued operation of a facility
throughout the permitting process and
continued available capacity on the
effective date of a prohibition.
Planned facilities are facilities that
are under development or under
construction. Planned facilities include
new off-site and on-site treatment.
recovery, and disposal facilities, as well
as planned capacity additions or
expansions to existing facilities.
Some commenters questioned the
validity of including planned facilities in
estimates of available capacity. They
stated that the Agency could not make
accurate predictions about such
capacity. The Agency will consider
planned capacity only if it is reasonably
certain that the facility will be on-line
by the effective date of a prohibition. To
predict whether a facility will be on-line
m time, EPA will consider the time
needed to complete the facility,
including reasonable estimates of time
needed to site the facility, obtain
permits, construct, and test. In most
cases, EPA will consider the capacity of
planned facilities only when all permits
required for construction have been
approved and sufficient additional
evidence of intent to build are available
(such as contracts issued for
construction). Planned capacity was not
included in the estimates of available
capacity for solvents and dioxins.
8. Definition of Alternative Treatment
Capacity
The Agency believes that treatment
technologies that will achieve the
standards established under section
3004(m) can be considered available
treatment capacity under the provision
in section 3003(h)(2).
Section 3004(m) directs EPA to
establish standards based on treatment
that will minimize long- and short-term
threats to human health and the
environment. The Agency believes that
this provision generally will be satisfied
by technologies classified as BDAT. In
most cases, treatment levels or methods
based on BDAT are expected to fully
protect human health and the
environment. Accordingly, technologies
that form the basis for such standards
are candidates for the capacity
evaluation under section 3004(h) (2) and
(3).
In those cases where standards based
on BDAT are not deemed to be fully
protective of human health and the
environment, the Agency may, as a
matter of policy, exercise its
discretionary authority not to extend the
effective date of a prohibition in cases
where the existing capacity of fully
protective technologies, coupled with
the existing capacity of treatment
technologies that meet BDAT, is
adequate to address the restricted
wastes.
The Agency believes that this
approach is consistent with
Congressional intent. The section
3004(h) variance is intended to
encourage the development of protective
alternative treatment, recovery.and
disposal capacity. (S. Rep. No. 284,98th
100on?," I8-8888'18 fl983>- H-R- ReP- No.
198. 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 37 (1983)).
However, in cases where BDAT fs not
fully protective, the regulated -~
community will have little incentive to
develop protective alternative treatment
methods during the variance period in
light of the fact that, at the end of tmy
such variance, hazardous waste may be
land disposed if the wastes comply with
less protective technology-based
standards. In such a case, the effect of
the variance would simply be to delay
compliance with BDAT and not as
Congress intended, to provide limited
additional time for the development of
protective alternative technologies.
Treatment methods that are not
identified as the basis for BDAT for the
waste group being considered also will
be included in the capacity
determination, as long as EPA judges
that the method can achieve the
treatment standards for the wastes in
question and will pose less risk than
land disposal. EPA believes that this
approach is consistent with the
congressional intent to ban hazardous
wastes from land disposal at the earliest
possible date, as discussed earlier.
7. Definition of Alternative Recovery
and Disposal Capacity
In assessing available capacity, the
Agency will consider the capacity of all
on-line recovery and disposal facilities
that are protective of human health and
the environment. These include disposal
facilities for which EPA has granted a
site-specific petition demonstrating no
migration of hazardous constituents for
as long as the wastes remain hazardous
(but not facilities where a petition is
-------
Federal Register / Vol.
51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
pending, but not granted). Planned
Facilities, including expansion of
existing facilities, also will be
considered where appropriate.
However, alternative land disposal
methods (e.g., deep well injection) will
not be considered as available capacity
for a restricted waste unless EPA has
determined that such methods of
disposal are fully protective of human
health and the environment. Therefore.
EPA will not consider underground
injection to be available disposal
capacity, until the Agency has
determined whether the injection of
such wastes is fully protective of human
health and the environment. Although
EPA is not including underground
injection into deep wells in its capacity
determinations this does not preclude its
use for disposal of these wastes before
August 1988.
8. Estimation of Capacity
EPA will estimate the annual unused
or surplus capacity of alternative
treatment, recovery, and disposal
facilities that is available nationwide to
manage wastes restricted from land
disposal. The Agency will compare
nationwide capacity (capacity supply) to
the quantities of restricted waste
generated annually nationwide
- (capacity demand).
Surplus capacity will be expressed as
throughput capacity. Because data on
unused throughput may be difficult to
obtain in some instances, EPA may use
other available information to calculate
capacity, such as the difference between
practical maximum design capacity and
capacity currently utilized. As discussed
earlier, when information is available,
EPA will consider both current surplus
capacity and planned capacity when
calculating surplus capacity. However.
today's final rule considers only current
surplus capacity because data on
planned capacity were not available.
Current surplus capacity is defined as
present capacity which is not being
used. Surplus capacity can beany of the
following:
(i) Commercially available.
(ii) Private capacity which can be
used to process additional waste
produced by the facility.
(iii) Private capacity, where the owner
is willing and able to accept wastes
from other generators, i.e., to provide
commercial services.
EPA assumes that commercial
facilities are willing to accept wastes
that they are capable of treating. In
cases where commercial capacity is
inadequate, EPA will consider the
likelihood that available private
capacity not needed to process
additional waste produced by the
facility will be converted to commercial
capacity. However, due to limited
information on the availability of private
capacity for solvents and dioxins, EPA
has considered only commercial
capacity for this rulemaking.
In today's final rule, capacity
estimates are based on currently
available information, including the
"National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators and Treatment facilities
regulated under RCRA in 1981" (OSW
RIA Mail Survey. RCRA LDR-2 docket
for the proposal), a 1986 EPA study on
incinerator and cement kiln capacity
(Ref. 15). a 1984 survey of the National
Association of Solvent Recyclers (Ref.
6), and the 1986 EPA National Screening
Survey of Hazardous Waste Facilities
(Ref. 21). The Agency is developing a
new survey of commercial and private
treatment facilities which will address
the concerns of commenters who
pointed out the need for an updated
data base. EPA intends to use data from
this survey in making capacity
determinations for future rulemakings.
9. Applicability of the Minimum
Technological Requirements
Section 3004(h)(4) provides that during
the period of a national variance under
(h)(2) or a case-by-case extension under
(h)(4). the waste may be disposed in a
landfill or surface impoundment only if
the facility is in compliance with section
3004(o).
E. Exemption for Treatment in Surface
Impoundments
The Agency proposed to exempt
treatment surface impoundments from
the land disposal restrictions under the
conditions specified in section 268.4.
This exemption is authorized by
sections 3005{j){ll)(A) and (B). EPA
received few comments on the proposed
interpretation of sections 3005(j)(ll)(A)
and (B). Most commenters criticized
EPA's general approach as being too
restrictive, though some commenters
viewed it as too lenient. Some
commenters suggested that the Agency
not allow treatment of restricted wastes
in surface impoundments. After cafeful
review and consideration of the
comments, EPA still believes that its
proposed approach is the most
defensible and logical reading of the
statutory language and is consistent
with congressional intent. Therefore, the
Agency is promulgating exemption for
treatment in surface impoundments
essentially as proposed.
Under today's final rule, a waste that
otherwise would be prohibited from one
or more methods of land disposal may
be treated in a surface impoundment
that meets certain technological
requirements as long as treatment
residuals that do not meet the applicable
treatment standard are removed within
1 year of the entry of the waste into the
impoundment.
The provision applies only to "
restricted wastes and not to wastes that
meet the treatment standards
established under section 3004(m), or
that have been exempted from the
effective date of the prohibition by a
case-by-case extension or have been
• exempted from the ban through the
petition process. Such wastes are not
considered "prohibited" wastes and,
accordingly, may be given additional
treatment in a surface impoundment
without complying with the restrictions
imposed by section 3005(j)(ll)(B). This
provision also applies to both permitted
and interim status surface
impoundments used for the treatment of
hazardous wastes. For the purpose of
this rulemaking, EPA considers the term
"surface impoundment" to include both
single units and series of surface
impoundments. The Agency believes
that Congress did not intend to preclude
the use of a series of impoundments.
1. Sampling and Removal oJfTreatinent
Residuals ^
Within 1 year after a restricted waste
is placed in an impoundment
representative samples of the treatment
residuals must be tested to determine
whether they meet the applicable
treatment standards. Sampling
techniques are detailed in the Waste
Analysis Plans, A Guidance Manual,
September 1984 (ref. 8). The sampling
plan must be designed such that the
sludge and supernatant (liquid portion)
are tested separately, rather than mixed
to form a homogeneous sample. If the
treatment residuals meet the applicable
treatment standard, they remain subject
to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA
but are no longer restricted wastes and
may remain in the surface impoundment
for disposal. Treatment residuals that
exceed the treatment standards must be
removed at least annually from the time
the waste is first placed in the
impoundment. These residuals may not
be placed in any other surface
impoundment for subsequent
management.
Treatment impoundments do not
necessarily have to be drained in order
to remove treatment residuals. (See Vol.
130, Cong. Rec. S13815, (daily ed.
October 5,1984)). In the case where the
treatment residual is a liquid, that
residual may be removed by pumping. If
the volume flowing annually through an
impoundment (or series of
impoundments) is greater than the
-------
40602
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1966 / Rules and Regulations
volume of the impoundment, this flow-
through constitutes removal of the
supernatant for purposes of this
requirement. However, as stated earlier.
any treatment residual that exceeds the
applicable treatment standards and.
therefore, must be removed annually
from the impoundment or series of
impoundments, may not be placed in
any other surface impoundment for
subsequent management.
The two general methods available for
removing residuals with a lower water
content, such as sludges and solids, are
excavation and dredging. The technique
used depends upon such variables as
surface impoundment design
characteristics (e.g., shape, surface area.
depth, presence of liner, type of liner),
waste characteristics and type, and
accessibility of the impoundment.
One commenter argued that the
annual removal requirements does not
address the potential for damage to the
liner. The Agency recognizes that there
is a potential for liner damage during the
removal process. However, the annual
removal requirement is a statutory
standard under section 3005(j)(ll)(B).
The Agency may issue guidance at a
later date regarding removal
requirements such as testing for liner
damage and prohibiting certain types of
removal methods.
2. Applicability of Minimum
Technological Requirements
Under today's final rule, an owner/
operator operating an impoundment
under the treatment surface
impoundment exemption must certify to
the Administrator that the impoundment
meets the liner, leachate collection
system, and ground water monitoring
requirements imposed by section
3004fo)(l). unless the impoundment
qualifies for certain exemptions.9 A
surface impoundment is exempted from
liner and leachate collection system
requirements if the impoundment has at
least one liner that is not leaking, is
located more than one-quarter mile from
an underground source of drinking
water, and is in compliance with certain
ground water monitoring requirements
in section 3005(j)(2), or if it is
demonstrated that there will be no
migration of any hazardous constituent
to ground water or surface water at any
future time according to section
3005(j)(4). (See "Interim Status Surface
Impoundments Retrofitting Variances
Guidance Document," EPA/530-SW-86-
017, July 18,1988, for information
• EPA construes section 3005{j)(ll)(A) to impose
an additional condition on the treatment of
hazardous wastes in surface impoundments under
section 3005(j){ll)(B).
concerning the requirements specified in
RCRA sections 300S(j)(2) and (j)(4).) An
owner or operator of an existing surface
impoundment must apply to the
Administrator prior to November 8,
1986, to be considered for waivers of the
minimum technological requirements.
Several commenters suggested that
EPA also should allow an owner/
operator to treat restricted wastes in a
surface impoundment if they are exempt
from the minimum technological
requirements under sections 3005(j){3) or
(13). (Paragraph (j)(3) pertains to certain
wastewater treatment units; paragraph
(j)(13) pertains to certain impoundments
subject to corrective action
requirements.) However, in specifying
the requirements in section
3005(j)(ll)(A) for surface impoundments
that are used to treat restricted wastes,
Congress specifically included only the
section 3005(j)(2) and (4) exemptions to
the minimum technological
requirements. Therefore, only these two
exemptions are included in the final
rule. Accordingly, an impoundment that
was granted an exemption from the
minimum technological requirements
under sections 3005(j)(3) or (13),
nonetheless, would be prohibited from
treating restricted wastes.
F. Case-By-Case Extensions
According to section 3004(h)(3), in
cases where adequate alternative
treatment, recovery, or disposal
capacity cannot reasonably be made
available by the effective date, any
person who generates or manages a
restricted hazardous waste may submit
an application to the Administrator for
an extension of the effective date if such
alternative capacity can be provided at
a later date. Pursuant to this provision,
the Agency proposed to allow a case-by-
case extension of the effective date if
the applicant can demonstrate that he
has entered into a binding contract to
construct or otherwise provide such
alternative treatment, recovery or
disposal capacity. The applicant must
also demonstrate that, due to
circumstances beyond his control, such
alternative capacity reasonably cannot
be made available by the applicable
effective date. In the event that an
extension is granted, an applicant is
exempted from the land disposal
restrictions, including the conditional
prohibition on storage under § 288.50.
Any landfill or surface impoundment
receiving waste during the extension
must comply with the ground water
monitoring, liner, and leachate
collection system requirements in
§ 268.4(a)(3).
The majority of the commenters
supported the proposed approach for
case-by-case extensions. However, the
Agency received comments requesting
modifications to several aspects of the
proposed rule. Section 288.5 of today's
final rule incorporates the procedures*
for case-by-case extensions essentially
as proposed, but with modifications
based on these comments.
1. Demonstrations Included in
Applications
a. The applicant has made a good-
faith effort to locate and contract with
alternative technologies nationwide.
EPA proposed to require applicants to
make a good-faith effort to locate
available capacity before being granted
a case-by-case extension. Section
3004(h)(3) requires that the applicant
demonstrate a binding contractual
commitment to provide capacity and
show that "such" capacity (i.e., the
capacity contracted for) cannot
reasonably be made available by the
effective date. Thus, there is no
requirement on the face of the statute
that the applicant be denied an
extension if alternate capacity is *
currently available. As noted in tfie
proposal, however, the legislative;
history to the original Senate bill i
suggests that requiring facilities to
investigate available capacity is '•
consistent with congressional intent.
Thus, the good-faith showing provided
in today's rule, though not statutorily
required, is consistent with the
legislative history and is within the
Agency's authority.
The applicant may provide copies of
correspondence with commercial
facilities that leave rejected the waste
on the basis of waste composition or
capacity shortages as part of the
demonstration for S 268.5(a)(l) and
(a)(3).»° EPA's "1985 Hazardous Waste
Treatment Directory" (available at no
charge in limited quantities from the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline or available
for sale through the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) as PB86
#178431/AS) lists commercial treatment
and recycling facilities that are
identified from the Hazardous Waste
Data Management Systems (HWDMS).
A more up-to-date list of commercial
treatment and recycling facilities is
being prepared from data gathered from
the 1988 National Screening Survey of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
Disposal, and Recycling Facilities. The
new Treatment Facility Directory
10 In cases where a waste cannot be treated by
the BOAT method or to the specified level using
BOAT, the generator or owner/operator may
petition the Agency for a variance from the
treatment standard under 5 268.44.
-------
Fadard Register / Vol. 51» No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1988 / Rulea and Regulations
prepared from this screening
questionnaire is expected to be
available in November, 1988.
b. Binding contractual commitment.
One commenter argued that the use of
the case-by-case extension would be
limited to on-site alternative capacity
because of the requirement in
§ 268.5(a)(2) for a binding contractual
commitment. EPA disagrees with the
commenter. The Agency believes that
the requlation is consistent with the
statutory provision which requires that
the applicant enter into a binding
contractual commitment "to construct or
otherwise provide alternative. . .
capacity" (emphasis added). In other
words, a generator may enter into a
binding contractual commitment with a
commercial facility to guarantee that the
capacity to manage his waste will be
available at the commercial facility.
This demonstration requires a
commercial facility to agree that
alternative capacity under development
at the facility is set aside for the
applicant's waste. One commenter
argued that, in such situations, the
generator would not be a party to the
contractual commitment to construct the
facility. EPA agrees with the comment
but the point is not relevant since the
generator would have a contract with a
commercial facility which will provide
the needed alternative capacity.
One commenter argued that State law
defines binding contractual
commitments, therefore, the Agency
does not need to judge whether the
penalties for cancelling the contract are
adequate. EPA agrees with the
commenter. Accordingly, the Agency is
amending the regulatory language by
deleting the stipulation for a
cancellation penalty clause.
c. Lack of capacity w beyond the
applicant's control. For technologies
under construction, the applicant may
document the completion schedule.
including dates already passed, (eg,
date of permit application submission)
to demonstrate that the technology
cannot be made available by the
effective date. This schedule, if
available, also will be used by the
Agency to identify key target dates that
should be discussed in progress reports.
Several commenters stated that the
legislative history allows EPA to
consider economic factors in evaluating
requests for case-by-case extension*.
The Agency agrees that the statutory
language can be construed to allow an
applicant to show that if would not be
feasible to use existing capacity.
Although the legislation a* enacted did
not include House of Representatives
language expressly providing a variance
based on "severe economic hardship,"
the conference report did add language
allowing for a demonstration that
adequate alternative capacity cannot
"reasonably" be made available by me
effective date. Therefore, in making its
determinations concerning the
availability of such alternative capacity,
EPA will consider the feasibility of
providing alternative capacity during the
period of the requested extension in
order to determine whether capacity
reasonably is available. The
determination of feasibility may involve
consideration of the technical and
practical difficulties associated with
providing alternative capacity.
d. The capacity will be sufficient to
manage all of the waste covered by the
application. One commenter stated that
research and development activities
generate variable amounts of waste, so
it may be difficult to prove that
alternative capacity will be sufficient for
all the wastes covered by an extension.
EPA recognizes that the amount of
waste affected by the land disposal
regulations may vary according to
economic conditions and unforeseen
changes in quantities of waste produced
or in consitituents present in the waste.
However, the Agency expects
applicants to plan to provide adequate
capacity for all wastes expected to be
affected by the restriction decisions.
Therefore. EPA expects applicants to
make capacity determinations on the
basis of the maximum volume of waste
expected to be subject to the land
disposal restrictions.
The Agency is requiring under
§ 26&5(a)(4) that the applicant provide
information (e.g., waste quantities and
operating capacity) to demonstrate that
after the extension, sufficient capacity
will exist for the waste covered by the
application for extension. EPA will not
grant an extenknt in cases where
alternative capacity is not being
provided for the entire volume of waste
addressed in the application.
The Ageacy will grant extensions to
applicants demonstrating planned
changes to a process that eliminate
wastes, decrease volume, or render a
waste treatable. Any waste not
eliminated by process changes instituted
as a result of the extension must be sent
to other specified capacity.
e. Detailed schedule for providing
capacity. The completion schedule, if
available, will be used to identify the
dates and events that should be
addressed in the progress reports.
Progress reports should indicate either
the existence of alternate capacity that
will be available according to the time
frame outlined or the circumstances
causing delays in the schedule and the
efforts required to compensate for the
loss of time. If capacity is aot available-
near the end of the first extension, tae
applicant must request a renewal of the
extension, not to exceed one yeas. la
cases where it is obvious that the
schedule to provide capacity wiH exceed
one year, the request for a second
extension should be straightforward,
since the second extension was foreseen
from the start
f. Document locations with adequate
capacity to manage waste during an
extension. The applicant must
demonstrate that sufficient capacity will
exist during the extension to store,
dispose of, or otherwise manage the
waste. This demonstration must include
the location of all off-site waste
management facilities and a short
description of the porocesses that will
be used for waste management during
the extension (e.g., storage in on-site
tanks). The identification of off-site
facilities that will accept the waste
during the extension should be part of
the demonstration. This information will
be shared with the States and will be
available for inspection in the event of a
public hearing on the extension
decision. ,
g. Any surface impoundment or
landfill managing wastes during an
extension must meet the requirements of
§ 26S.5(h)(2}. During the period of a
national variance under section
3004fh)(2) or a case-by-case extension
under section 3004(h)(4). the waste may
be managed hi a landfill or a surface
impoundment in compliance with
section 3004(o). This section, enacted as
part of the 1984 amendments to RCRA.
imposes minimum technological
requirements on certain new landfill and
surface impoundment units, and on
replacements and lateral expansions of
existing units. The proposed rule would
have construed section 3 exempts
such units.
Upon reconsideration, however. EPA
believes that the proposed interpretation
is not the appropriate reading of the
statutory language. On its face, the
statute requires the "facility" to be in
compliance with section 3004{o). The
facility includes the area within the
property boundary and encompasses all
waste management units (both new and
existing). Accordingly, a straightforward
reading of the statute would provide
that the facility is in compliance- with
section 3004(o) as long as the new units.
-------
40604
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulation,
lateral expansions and replacements
referred to in section 3004(o) are in
compliance with the requirements of
that section. Because existing units are
excluded from section 3004{o), they
would also not be required to comply
with the minimum technological
requirements under section 3004{h}(4).
Section 3004(h)(4) thus makes clear that
obtaining a variance from the effective
date of the land disposal prohibitions
does not relieve the owner or operator
of a disposal facility of the obligation to
comply with the technical requirements
independently imposed by other
statutory provisions.
In addition, this interpretation is
reasonable in view of the fact that the
alternative capacity under consideration
in today's rule includes treatment in
surface impoundments that meet the
requirements of section 300S(j)(li).
These requirements include double
liners (with limited exceptions).
Construing section 3004{h) to require
minimum technological requirements for
all units would mean that a prohibited
waste that was granted a variance from
the effective date due, in part, to a lack
of double-lined surface impoundment
capacity would nonetheless have to be
disposed of in an impoundment in
compliance with section 3004(o). EPA
believes that the statute should not be
construed to require such an illogical
result. Therefore, today's rule requires
that the facility be in compliance with
the regulatory provisions that
incorporate the requirements of section
3004(o).
2. Where To Send Extension
Applications
A petitioner should submit one copy
of the application for extension to the
applicable land disposal restrictions
effective dates to:
The Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
An additional copy marked
"Extensions" should be submitted to:
Office of Solid Waste (WH-665), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Applications containing confidential
information should be sent with only the
inner envelope marked "Extensions"
and "Confidential Business Information"
and with the contents marked in
accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR Part 2 (41FR 36902. September 1.
1976. as amended by 43 FR 40000).
3. Review of Applications for an
Extension
Several commenters recommended
that the Agency establish regulatory
time constraints for reviewing extension
applications under 5 288.5(e). One
commenter specifically requested
deadlines similar to those for evaluation
of delisting petitions pursuant to section
3001(fJ(2). In particular, they stated that
the Agency should impose internal
processing deadlines for review of
extension applications and set a limit on
the period for public comment. Although
EPA fully understands the need to grant
extensions before theeffective date of
the land disposal restrictions, EPA will
not commit to establishing a set
response time for extension applications
for several reasons.
First, EPA cannot anticipate the level
of resources necessary to process
applications. As of August 8.1986. three
months before the statutory restrictions
on solvents become effective, EPA had
received only one request for an
extension, despite one comment
predicting extensive use of this
provision. Second, experience with the
permitting and delisting processes has
shown that the review process often
includes several requests for
clarification or additional information
before an application is considered
completed. Turnaround time regarding
deficiencies can vary depending on the
responsiveness of the applicants.
Finally, time required for consultation
with the affected States is difficult to
predict.
While the Agency will not specifically
limit its internal review period, EPA has
recommended that applicants submit
extension requests at least six months
before an effective date (when possible)
to provide a reasonable opportunity to
process applications before the effective
date. To further expedite the review
process, the Agency will limit the public
comment period to 30 days.
Under some circumstances, capacity
under development will not become
available until after a national variance
expires. In these situations, persons
requiring an extension should submit an
application as soon as the capacity
shortage is identified.
4. Applicability of Case-by-Case
Extensions
One commenter stated that EPA
shoud grant case-by-case extensions
only in cases where a national capacity
shortfall exists. The Agency disagrees
with the commenter. The case-by-case
extension process was intended to cover
those rare situations when an individual
applicant can demonstrate that capacity
will not be reasonably available to him
even if national capacity is otherwise
sufficient As stated earlier, the variance
is based on the "feasibility" of providing
alternative capacity.
5. Length of the Case-by-Case Extension
and Renewals
As discussed in the proposed rule, -
case-by-case extensions cannot extend
beyond 48 months from the statutory
land disposal restriction dates.
Therefore, extensions will not exceed
the following dates:
November 8,1990. for certain listed
dioxin-containing and solvent wastes;
July 8,1991, for wastes identified as
California List wastes;
August 8,1992, for the first third of the
listed hazardous wastes;
June 8.1993, for the second third of the
listed hazardous wastes; and
May 8,1994. for the remaining
hazardous wastes, including
characteristic hazardous wastes.
On the applicable effective date, a
restricted waste is subject to the
provisions of Part 268 until a case-by-
case extension is granted. For example,
if a person requests an extension on
January 8,1987, for a solvent waste
restricted from land disposal on
November 8,1988, the waste is 3
restricted from land disposal from
November 8,1986. until the extension is
granted. The extension would not ••
exceed the November 8,1990. deadline.
The effective date for certain newly
listed wastes may fall after the May 8,
1990, date for scheduled wastes. Such
wastes may require extensions beyond
the May 8,1994, date. EPA expects that
the short duration of the extensions (not
to exceed two years) will encourage
generators of hazardous waste to
minimize the quantity of hazardous
waste subject to the land disposal
restrictions. Generators should explore
changes in process substitution,
materials recovery, recycling and reuse,
and alternative treatment as alternative
methods of complying with the land
disposal restrictions. EPA has prepared
a report to Congress for presentation
during November 1986, on waste
minimization which identifies some
waste minimization practices.
6. Consultation With Affected States
All states will be notified via Federal
Register announcement of tentative
decisions to permit extensions for
restricted wastes. States that anticipate
that they may be affected by a specific
extension should contact EPA. EPA then
consult with appropriate agencies in the
affected States as required by section
3004(h}(3). EPA expects that states most
interested in extension decisions will be
those in which the waste was generated,
those accepting waste during the
extension period, and those with
capacity under development. Applicants
-------
~sBfg
Federal
can expedite the review process by
submitting information outlining how
the wastes will be managed in each of
the affected States as part of the
demonstrations under 3 288.5 fa){4),
(a}(6), and (a)(7).
G. Evaluation of Petitions
Demonstrating Land Disposal To Be
Protective of Human Health and the
Environment
The statutory standard for evaluation
of these petitions requires that the
applicable land disposal method be
protective of human health and the
environment The statute further
specifies that a method of land disposal
may not be determined to be protective
unless it has been demonstrated, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, that
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long as the wastes
remain hazardous. (RCRA section
3004{d). 42 U.S.C. 2964(d)(l)).
In demonstrating "no migration." the
petitioner must take into consideration
the likely effects of long-term geologic
processes and climatic phenomena, such
as, but not limited to, earthquakes and
floods, and any other events that can be
reasonably predicted. The petitioner
should not assume that any man-made
barriers or engineered systems will
satisfy the "no migration" standard,
because artificial barriers alone cannot
be relied upon to provide the long-term
assurances that the statutory standard
requires. However, these units may
satisfy the standard when the petitioner
is requesting temporary storage of
restricted waste on the land.
The Agency has identified three
scenarios that may satisfy the
requirements of the statutory standard
of "no migration". The first involves a
situation where environmental
parameters are such that no detectable
migration of hazardous constituents
would occur from the disposal unit For
example, this scenario may occur when
a waste consisting of relatively
immobile hazardous constituents is
placed in a monofill located in an arid
climate with no ground water recharge.
Another example involves placement of
a small volume of compatible waste in a
massive and stable salt dome formation.
The second would rely on an active
chemical or physical process, such as
the neutralization of a corrosive waste
in a surface impoundment where no
hazardous waste remains in the unit.
This is especially applicable to
characteristic wastes. The third involves
the temporary storage of hazardous
waste in a land-based unit such as an
indoor waste pile, where engineered
containment systems are effective over
the period the waste remains m storage.
The "no migration" standard clearly
would be violated in a situation where
unacceptable concentrations of
hazardous constituents are occurring at
the waste management boundary, even
though the concentration at a potential
receptor site some distance from the
waste management boundary is below
an applicable health-based level.
The Agency, generally, will deny a
petition where there re a history of
continuing mismanagement of
hazardous waste at the disposal unit as
evidenced by State or EPA monitoring
and on-site inspection reports.
1. Procedures for Submitting and
Reviewing Petitions
The Agency proposed that petition
review would eventually be the
responsibility of either the EPA Regional
offices or authorized States. Upon
reevaluation. the Agency believes that
there will be relatively few petitions
submitted. Accordingly, the Agency is
requring that applicants submit petitions
to the Administrator.
The five general steps of the petition
review process involve the submittal of
the petition. Agency review of the
petition, notice of the Agency's tentative
decision in the Federal Register, a 30-
day public comment period, and notice
of the Agency's final decision in the
Federal Register. (See § 268.6.) Two
copies of the petition should be
submitted (by registered mail} to the
Administrator. The Agency will initially
review a petition for completeness.
Once a petition is considered complete.
it will be reviewed on the basis of the
technical information supplied. The
Agency will publish in the Federal
Register a tentative decision to grant or
deny a petition. The Agency will
consider public comments and any new
data submitted during the comment
period. The Agency will then publish its
final decision in the Federal Register.
During the petition review period,
petition applicants are required to
comply with all restrictions on land
disposal of the waste. The receipt of a
petition by the Agency does not delay
the effective date of any restrictions
applicable to the waste.
H. Treatab/Jity Variance
1. Basis for Establishing a Treatability
Variance
Several commenters recognized that
there may be particular waste streams
that cannot be treated to the level (or by
the method) specified by the treatment
standard. The Agency agrees with these
commenters, and is establishing a
40605
procedure to evaluate petitions for a
variance from the treatment standard;
The Agency envisions that wastes
may be smbject to a treatability variance
hi cases where the treatment standard
for a particular waste cannot be met
because the waste does not fit into one
of the BDAT treatability groups. A
particular waste may be significantly
different from the wastes considered in
establishing treatability groups because
the waste contains a more complex
matrix which makes it more difficult to
treat. For example, complex mixtures
may be formed when a restricted waste
is mixed with other waste streams by
spills or other forms of inadvertent
mixing. As a result, the treatability of
the restricted waste may be altered such
that it cannot meet the applicable
treatment standard. In such a case,
generators or owners/operators may
petition the Agency for an alternative
treatment standard.
On September 5,1988. the Agency
published a Notice of Availability of
Data in the Federal Register,(51 FR
31783) outlining its authority under
section 7004(a) to act on petitions to
amend or repeal any regulation under
RCRA and requesting comments on a
procedure by which petitionaifor a
variance from the treatment standard
would be evaluated. Commenters on the
Notice of Availability generally
supported the concept of a variance
from the treatment standard. Two
commenters specifically supported
providing variances through a
rulemaking procedure, while another
commenter, though recognizing EPA's
authority to amend the treatment
standards by rulemaking, urged the
Agency to adopt a more streamlined
variance procedure similar to that used
in other EPA rales. Commenters also
suggested specific criteria to be
considered in evaluating variance
petitions.
EPA agrees that the Agency has the
authority to choose between a
rulemaking and a variance procedure
when considering the unique aspects of
wastes that were not considered in
developing the treatment standards.
Nothing in the language or legislative
history of the statute suggests that
Congress intended to preclude EPA from
adopting a variance procedure once the
Agency has issued treatment regulations
under section 3004(m).
The Agency is promulgating
procedures for a variance from the
treatment standard under § 268.44 of
today's rule. Essentially, the new
provision will allow applicants to use
procedures similar to those now used for
rulemaking petitions under 40 GFR
-------
40606
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulation,
260.20. In light of the comments.
however. EPA intends to issue a
proposal asking for further comments on
the option of using a variance procedure
rather than a rulemaking. Because there
was insufficient time prior to today's
rule to fully consider all issues relating
lo the establishment of a variance
procedure. EPA believes it is more
appropriate to request additional
comments. Similarly. EPA will consider
additional comments on the appropriate
criteria by which to evaluate variance
requests in the context of the future
rulemaking. In the meantime, this
preamble outlines some criteria that
EPA believes should be considered by
applicants for a variance from the
treatment standard.
2. Demonstrations Included in a Petition
Variance petitions must demonstrate
that the treatment standard established
for a given waste cannot be met. This
demonstration can be made by showing
that attempts to treat the waste by
available technologies were not
successful, or through appropriate
analyses of the waste which
demonstrate that the waste cannot be
treated to the specified levels. Variances
will not be granted based on a showing
that adequate BDAT treatment capacity
la unavailable. Such demonstrations can
be made according to the provisions in
§ 268.5 for case-by-case extensions of
the effective date.
The Agency will consider granting
generic petitions provided that
representative data are submitted to
support a variance for each facility
covered by the petition.
Petitioners should submit at least one
:opy to:
The Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401M Street, SW.,
Washington. DC 20460.
An additional copy marked
TreatabiJity Variance" should be
submitted to:
Chief. Waste Treatment Branch, Office
of Solid Waste (WH-S65), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street. SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Petitions containing confidential
information should be sent with only the
inner envelope marked "Treatability
Variance" and "Confidential Business
Information." and the contents marked
in accordance with the requirements of
40 CFR Part 2 (41FR 36902. September 1,
1976. amended by 43 FR 40000).
The petition should contain the
following information:
(1) The petitioner's name and address;
(2) A statement of the petitioner's
interest in the proposed action
(3) name, address, and EPA
identification number of the facility
generating the waste, and the name and
telephone number of the plant contact:
(4) The process(es) and feed materials
generating the waste and an assessment
of whether such process(es) or feed
materials may produce a waste that is
not covered by the demonstration;
(5) A description of the waste
sufficient for comparison with the
wastes considered by the Agency in
developing BDAT, and an estimate of
the average and maximum monthly and
annual quantities of waste covered by
the demonstration; (Note: The petitioner
should consult the appropriate BDAT
background document for determining
the characteristics of the wastes
considered in developing treatment
standards.)
(6) If the waste has been treated,
provide a description of the system used
for treating the waste, including the
process design, operating conditions and
an explanation of the reasons the
treatment standards are not achievable
or are based on inappropriate
technology for treating the waste; (Note:
The petitioner should refer to the
appropriate BDAT background
document as guidance for determining
the design and operating parameters
that the Agency used in developing
treatment standards.)
(7) A description of the alternative
treatment systems examined by the
petitioner (if any), a description of the
treatment system deemed appropriate
by the petitioner for the waste in
question, and, as appropriate, the
concentrations in the treatment residual
or extract of the treatment residual
(using the TCLP) that can be achieved
by applying such treatment to the waste;
(8) The dates of the sampling and
testing;
(9) A description of the methodologies
and equipment used to obtain
representative samples;
(10) A description of the sample
handling and preparation techniques,
including techniques used for extraction.
containerization, and preservation of the
samples; and
(11) A description of the tests
performed (including results).
After receiving a petition for a
variance, the Administrator may request
any additional information or waste
samples which he may require to
evaluate and process the petition.
Additionally, all petitioners must
certify that the information provided to
the Agency is accurate under § 268.4(b).
In determining whether a variance
would be granted, the Agency will first
look at the design and operation of the
treatment system being used. If EPA
determines that the technology and
operation are consistent with BDAT, the
Agency will evaluate the waste to
determine if the waste matrix and/or -
physical parameters are such the BDAT
properly reflects treatment of the waste.
In cases where more than one
technology is applicable to a waste, the
petitioner would have to demonstrate
that the treatment standard cannot be
met using any of the technologies, or
that none of the technologies is
appropriate for treatment of the waste.
After the Agency has made a
determination on the petition, the
Agency's findings will be published in
the Federal Register, followed by a 30-
day period for public comment. After
review of the public comments, EPA will
publish its final determination in the
Federal Register as an amendment to
the treatment standards in Part 268
Subpart D.
V. Treatment Standards for Solvents
A. Introduction
On May 19,1980 (45 FR 33119), the
Agency listed 27 commonly used organic
solvents as hazardous wastes when
spent or discarded. The solvents vyjere
listed as EPA Hazardous Waste Nss.
FOOl, F002, F003, F004. and F005. The
listed solvents include certain spent
halogenated and non-halogenated
solvents, and still bottoms from the
recovery of these solvents. Due to the
manner in which the F001-F005 listings
were originally structured, a major
regulatory loophole was created by the
Agency. As written, the listings only
covered the pure form or the commercial
grades of these solvents. Therefore, the
Agency amended the listing to include
mixtures containing a total of 10 percent
or more (by volume) of one or more of
the listed solvents, as published in the
Federal Register, December 31,1985 (50
FR 53315).
In the proposed rule to the land
disposal restrictions, several
commenters requested that the Agency
clarify the scope of the spent solvent
listings. The commenters stated that
confusion exists regarding specifically
what wastes are covered by the solvent
listings. The Agency recognizes this
problem and has incuded the following
discussion in today's rule to provide
further clarification of the F001-F005
solvent listings.
The spent solvent listings cover only
those solvents that are used for their
solvent properties—that is to solubilize
(dissolve) or mobilize other constituents
For example, solvents used in
degreasing, cleaning, fabric scouring; as
diluents, extractants, reaction and
synthesis media; and similar
-------
Federt Register / Vol. St No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
application* are covered under the
listing (when "spent"). A advent is
considered spent when it has been used
and is no longer fit for use without being
regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise
reprocessed.
Manufacturing process wastes where
solvents were used as reactants or
ingredients in the formulation of
commercial chemical products are not
covered by the listings. The products
themselves also are not covered. See the
original solvent listing background
document (Novennber 14,1980)
available in the RCRA docket.
Today's final rule does not include
treatment standards for the commercial
chemical products, manufacturing
chemical intermediates and off-
specification commercial chemical
products (P and U wastes) that
correspond to the F001-F005 spent
solvent wastes. These wastes will be
addressed according to the schedule
promulgated on May 28,1986 (51 FR
19300). The final rule also does not cover
the four newly listed solvents in the
F001-FOOS listing: benzene, 2-
ethoxyethanol. 2-nitropropane, and
i,l,2-trichloroethane (51 FR 6537). The
Agency currently is gathering data to
fully characterize and evaluate these
wastes. We expect to make decisions on
these additional solvents when we
address the first group of scheduled
wastes.
In today's rule, the Agency is
promulgating treatment standards for
the following F001-F005 solvent
constituents listed in Table CCWE:
tetrachloroethylene
trichloroethytene
methylene chloride
1,1.1-trichloroe thane
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
l,l,2-trichloro-1.2^-trifluoroetbane
ortho-dichlorobenzene
trichlorofluoromethane
xylene
acetone
ethyl acetate
ethyl benzene
ethyl ether
methyl isobutyl ketone
n-butyl alcohol
cyclohexanone
methanol
cresols (cresylic acid)
toluene
isobutanol
carbon disulfide
nitrobenzene
pyridine
methyl ethyl ketone
Lab packs containing these solvents
also are subject to the treatment
standards promulgated in today's final
rule.
-.
The treatment standards become.
effective on November ft, 1906, for all
F001 through F005 solvent wastes which
do not meet any of the criteria
established for a national two-year
variance. Solvent wastes that meet at
least one of the criteria are subject to
the variance and will be restricted from
land disposal effective November 8.
1988. The criteria are:
1. The generator of the solvent waste
is a small quantity generator of 100-1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per
month.
2. The solvent waste is generated from
any response action taken under
CERCLA or any corrective action taken
under RCRA. except where the waste is
contaminated soil or debris not subject
to the provisions of this chapter until
November 8,1988.
3. The solvent waste is a solvent-
water mixture, a solvent-containing
sludge, or a solvent-contaminated soil
(non-CERCLA or RCRA corrective
action) containing less than 1 percent
total F001-P005 solvent constituents
listed in Table CCWE of § 268.41.
R Treatment Standards For F001-FOOS
Spent Solvents
This unit describes the industries
affected by the land disposal restrictions
for the F001-F005 spent solvents and the
demonstrated technologies which the
Agency determined to be available. The
unit further describes how the Agency
developed treatment standards for these
wastes.
1. Industries Affected
The Agency has identified a variety of
industries which generate waste subject
to the land disposal restrictions for
FOOl-FOOS spent solvents. Much of the
FOQ1-F006 spent solvents, as defined hi
40 CFR 261.31. are generated from
manufacturing operations where
solvents are used as reactant carriers or
for surface preparation. Such industries
include pharmaceutical plants,
semiconductor facilities, printing plants,
and plastic and synthetic resin
manufacturers. Another large group of
spent solvent wastes is generated by
paint and ink formulating facilities when
tanks containing solvent-based
materials are cleaned. Machine shops
also generate significant amounts of
solvents from degreasing operations. A
further description of these industries
and the characteristics of the wastes
generated is presented in EPA's "BOAT
Background Document for FOOl-FOOS
Spent Solvents" {Ref. 4).
2. Demonstrated Technologies for FOOt-
F005 Spent Solvents
As presented in the proposed rule, the
demonstrated treatment technologies for
FOOl-FOOS spent solvents are:
(1) Batch distillation
(2) Thin film evaporation
(3) Fractionation
(4) Incineration
(5) Steam stripping
(6) Biological treatment
(7) Carbon adsorption
(8) Air stripping
(9) Wet air oxidation
AH of these technologies are
demonstrated and commercially
available. EPA has determined that
none have been found to be riskier than
land disposal. (See Unit IV.B. for a
detailed discussion.)
Below is a brief description of each of
these technologies and their general
applicability to treatment of spent
solvents. The BOAT background
document provides a detailed discussion
of these technologies.
a. Batch distillation. Batdi distillation
is used to separate various-organic
compounds from a contaminated spent
solvent mixture in order to collect and
reuse the individual compotmds. The
separation is accomplished'by the
addition of heat which causes the more
volatile compounds to vaporize. Batch
distillation generally is used in cases
where the recovered solvent has
sufficient economic value to offset the
costs associated with the operation of
the distillation system. As a
consequence, batch distillation is
generally applied to spent solvent
wastes that are highly concentrated and
yield significant amounts of material
upon separation. This technology has
been demonstrated for FOOl-FOOS spent
solvent wastes as well as those judged
to be similar. EPA estimates that at least
400 facilities perform full-scale batch
distillation on-site or as commercial
treatment.
This technology yields a residue that
contains a high amount of suspended
solids, is quite viscous, and may require
subsequent incineration. The level of
performance achieved by this
technology will depend on the
temperature and duration of the
distillation process.
b. Thin filar evaporation. This
technology is also a demonstrated
distillation process. Thin film
evaporation differs from batch
distillation in that the waste stream for
thin film evaporation must contain
considerably less suspended solids. Use
of this technology results in an overhead
stream which almost always can be
-------
reused as a solvent and a bottom stream
which often is used as fuel for
Incinerators. Depending on the
suspended solids level of the waste,
treatment using thin film evaporation
may result in a residue that requires
land disposal. EPA has identified
several full-scale facilities using thin
film evaporation of waste solvents.
c. Fractionation. This technology also
is a demonstrated distillation process. It
differs from batch distillation and thin
film evaporation in that it is designed to
achieve a finer separation than these
other treatment technologies. It would
be used when there are recoverable
quantities of more than one solvent in a
waste. Generally, fractionation will
result in multiple product streams while
generating minimal amounts of residue
to be land disposed. Fractionation is
practiced by full scale facilities on spent
solvent wastes.
d. Incineration. Incineration is a well
demonstrated technology commonly
used to treat spent solvent wastes. The
Agency estimates that there are over 200
full-scale incinerators for hazardous
wastes, many of which incinerate F001-
F005 spent solvents. This technology
destroys the organic fraction of the
spent solvents by oxidation to carbon
dioxide and water vapor. Chlorinated
organics are converted to carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and hydrochloric
acid vapor.
Incineration generates one or two
residual wastes that need to be land
disposed depending on whether the
incinerator includes air emission
controls. The residual wastes are the
incinerator ash and the scrubber sludges
or air emission control dust. The vast
majority of incinerator residue that will
require land disposal is generated by
rotary kiln incinerators that burn spent
solvent wastes containing high
concentrations of solids.
e. Steam stripping. While steam
stripping is a distillation process, the
technology is significantly different from
the distillation processes previously
discussed both from the standpoint of
the type of wastes treated and the
design and operation of the process.
Steam stripping is used by a number of
facilities to reduce organic
concentration in dilute spent solvent
wastes containing mostly water. As
such, the stripped solvent is not
generally recovered in commercially
viable quantities. Data from the
Agency's screening questionnaire for
capacity showed that 17 full-scale
facilities performed steam stripping of
spent solvent wastes and that three
facilities perform steam stripping
specifically on F001-F005 spent solvents.
f. Biological treatment Biological
treatment is a demonstrated technology
which involves the use of
microorganisms to degrade spent
solvent compounds. There are a number
of different types of biological treatment
processes. These processes include
aerobic treatment such as activated
sludge systems, aerated lagoons, and
trickling filters, facultative degradation
in waste stabilization ponds, and
anaerobic digestion. In aerobic systems,
organic compounds are degraded to
carbon dioxide and water. Anaerobic
processes convert organic wastes into
methane and carbon dioxide.
Facultative systems alternate between
aerobic and anaerobic treatment.
Biological treatment residues include
treated water and a biomass sludge. The
sludge is a mixture of dead and living
microorganisms containing
nonbiodegradable inorganic compounds,
as well as any organics that are not
degraded (i.e. refractory organics) and
are adsorbed by the biomass. Depending
on the composition of the spent solvent
wastewater, the biomass sludge may
require treatment prior to land disposal.
Treatment could consist of chemical
fixation for metals and/or incineration
for the organic compounds.
g. Carbon adsorption. Carbon
adsorption is the use of specially
prepared carbon granules (activated
carbon) to remove contaminants from
wastewaters. Carbon adsorption is
applicable to wastewaters containing
low concentrations of F001-F005 spent
solvent wastes. The spent solvent
wastes are removed by adsorption onto
the carbon surface. The affinity that a
particular spent solvent compound has
for carbon will depend on the type of
carbon used and the properties of the
compound. The residues from carbon
adsorption include spent carbon and
treated wastewater. Once the quality of
the treated wastewater approaches a
predetermined level the spent carbon
can be regenerated and reused or
destroyed in an incinerator. This
technology is generally used in
combination with steam stripping or
biological treatment. This technology is
demonstrated for F001-F005 spent
solvent wastewaters as well as those
judged to be similar.
h. Air stripping. Air stripping uses
forced air to remove low concentrations
of volatile organic compounds, such as
solvents, from wastewater. During air
stripping, air and wastewater are
brought into contact with each other for
the purpose of transferring the volatile
organic compounds from the wastewater
to the air. Transfer is caused by a
concentration gradient of the volatile
organic compounds, which tends to
move these compounds in a direction
that will equalize the concentration in
the air with that in the water. Air
stripping has been used to treat '
contaminated ground wafer containing
F001-F005 spent solvent constituents.
This technology was not chosen as the
basis of any BOAT treatment standards
for reasons presented in the BOAT
background document.
i. Wet air oxidation. Wet air oxidation
utilizes elevated temperature and
pressure to oxidize dissolved or
- suspended organic contaminants in
wastewaters. The wastewater is fed to
the wet air oxidation treatment system
by a high-pressure pump. It is then
mixed with compressed air and passed
through a heat exchanger. The heated
waste-air mixture exits the exchanger
and enters a reactor where oxygen from
the compressed air reacts with organic
contaminants in the waste to form
carbon dioxide and water vapor.
This technology has full scale
applications but primarily in areas, other
than treatment of spent solvent wastes.
The Agency is aware of one facility that
treats F001-F005 spent solvent
wastewater. Unlike the other 7
technologies discussed, this technology
was not considered a demonstrated
technology at proposal. Subsequent to
proposal, we received additional data
showing this technology to be
demonstrated for F001-F005 spent
solvent wastes.
3. Determination of Treatment
Standards (BOAT) for Spent Solvents
a. Data base. The majority of the data
used in developing BOAT for F001-FOOS
solvents were from full scale treatment.
The Agency included some pilot- and
bench-scale data from treatment
technologies which are also
demonstrated on a full scale basis.
Below is a description of all available
treatment data by technology.
—For biological treatment, the Agency
analyzed full scale treatment data
from 28 plants in the organic
chemicals, plastics, and synthetic
fibers industries which
manufacture, in total, over 200
different products. These data were
from treatment of wastes containing
F001-F005 constituents as a result of
process contamination. While the
waste are not included in EPA's
definition of spent solvent wastes,
the Agency believes that these
wastes are similar to spent solvent
wastes. The Agency has biological
treatment data on carbon
tetrachloride, chlorobenzene,
cresols, 1,2-dichlorobenzene,
-------
_Fedeial Reftstor / Vol a. Na 2i» / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rufea and Regulafems
ethylbenaene. melhylene chloride,
nitrobenzene, tetrachloroethylene,
toluene, trichloroethylene, 1.1.1-
trichloroathane, and
trichloroQuoromethanes.
—For steam stripping, the Agency
analyzed full scale data from four
plants and pilot scale data on
treatment of contaminated ground
water. The full scale data
represented treatment of F001-F005
spent solvents at one plant: the
remaining three plants were treating
wastes containing F001-F005
constituents generated as process
contaminants. The Agency analyzed
steam stripping data on
ethylbenzene, methylene chloride,
methyl isobutyl ketone,
nitrobenzene, toluene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and
trichloroethylene.
—For carbon adsorption, EPA
analyzed full scale data from four
plants and pilot scale data from two
plants. At one of these full scale
plants, carbon adsorption is used
after biological treatment. The
Agency obtained data on
chlorobenzene, 1.2-dichlorobenzene,
methylene chloride, nitrobenzene.
toluene, and trichloroethylene from
this facility. At another full scale
plant, carbon adsorption follows
steam stripping. The Agency
obtained data on nitrobenzene and
toluene from this facility. In the
third case, EPA has full scale data
from a plant in the pesticides
industry which generates
wastewater containing cresols. EPA
has full scale data for process
wastewater containing cresol at the
fourth plant Pilot scale data for
trichloroethylene are available on
treatment of contaminated drinking
water. Pilot scale data are also
available for methylene chloride,
toluene, and xylene on treatment of
runoff water from a waste disposal
site.
—For wet air oxidation, the Agency
analyzed pilot-scale data for
methylene chloride, methanol,
methyl ethyl ketone,
tetrachloroethylene. toluene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, and xylene. These
data were submitted as part of a
comment on the proposed rule.
—For air stripping, EPA analyzed pilot
scale data from treatment of ground
water contaminated with 1,1,1'
trichloroefhane, trichloroethylene,
methyl isobutyl ketone, toluene.
tetrachloroethylene, and ethyl-
benzene.
—The Agency also analyzed die
extract of incinerator ash for ten
incinerators at nine facilities. All
incinerators were operatingJuil
scale and treating a variety of -
wastes including spent solvents.
The FOW-F005 constituents for
which data were available are
acetone, carbon disulfide,
chlorobenzene, 1,2-dichlorobenzene,
ethylbenzene, methylene chloride,
methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl
ketone, nitrobenzenes,
tetrachloroethylene, toluene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, trichloroethylene
and xylene.
b. Analysis of data and establishment
of treatability group. The Agency
reviewed all available treatment data to
determine if any data represented
treatment from a system that was not
well designed or operated. Consistent
with the general framework for BDAT,
such data were deleted (the BDAT
background document provides a
detailed analysis of the Agency's
rationale for such data editing). The
Agency then calculated average
performance values for each specific
waste treated with a particular
technology. In cases where the Agency
had data on treatment of the same or
similar wastes using more than one
technology, we performed an analysis of
variance test to determine if one of the
technologies performed significantly
better. In cases where a particular
technology performed better, the
treatment standard was based on the
best technology. If one of the
technologies did not perform
significantly better, we averaged the
performance values and multiplied this
value by the highest variability factor to
derive the treatment standard.
In several cases, the Agency analyzed
data from the treatment of different
wastes containing the same constituent
of concern but achieving significantly
different levels of performance. The
Agency established a separate
treatability group in cases where the
data and information on the waste were
sufficient to do so. Within any
treatability group, however, the Agency
used the highest treatment value
reflecting well designed and operated
treatment to establish BDAT. EPA
believes that this approach ensures that
the treatment standard can be achieved
by facilities managing FOO1-F005
solvent* with a wide range of waste
matrices.
As proposed, the Agency established
a separate treatability group for spent
solvent wastewaters. For purposes of
defining applicability of the treatment
standards for wastewater continuing
F001-F005 spent solvents, wastewaters
are denned as solvent-water mixtures
containing total organic carbon of one
peccant at less. Within the general
wastewater category, available data
supported « separate treatafaility group
for spent methylene chloride from the
pharmaceutical industry. For spent
solvents other than wastewaters, the
Agency was not abk te identify
additional treatability groups.
c. Development of the FQ01-FOO5 spent
solvent treatment standards. The
Agency determined that available data
support the establishment of the final
treatment standards as shown for the
treatability groups in Table 1. Consistent
with the general framework, we believe
that each treatment standard ensures
substantial treatment of F001-F005 spent
solvents. A discussion of our rationale
for determining substantial treatment
can be found in the BDAT background
document.
In cases where data for F001-F005
spent solvents were not available to
establish BDAT. the Agency evaluated
the wastes to determine if treatment
values could be transferred. EPA
believes that based on chemical
structure BDAT treatment values can be
transferred to F001-F005 constituents.
except for carbon disulfide* where data
are unavailable. Chemical itructure,
especially as related to functional
groups, is used to predict how organic
compounds will react with other
compounds and under various
conditions. The structural groups
considered by the Agency for F001-F005
spent solvents are halogenated
aliphatics, halogenated alkenes,
halogenated aromatics, ketones,
alcohols non-halogenated aromatics,
ethers, esters, phenols, and organic
sulfur compounds. In the case of carbon
disulfide, the Agency relied on Henry's
Law constants to assess transfer of
performance.
The Agency is aware that within
similar structure groups compounds can
exhibit a range of physical and chemical
properties that affect treatability. EPA
believes, however, that structure is the
best method available at this time for
estimafing treatability. To best account
for the range of physical and chemical
properties that affect treatment within a
structural group, the Agency will
transfer treatment performance from the
highest treatment value observed within
the structural group.
In some instances, treatment
standards were derived using analytical
quantification levels that the Agency
believes may not represent
quantification levels over the entire
range of F001-F005 spent solvents
subject to today's final rule. In such
instances. EPA increased the treatment
standard to a level reflective of the
quantification level which we believe
-------
can be achieved for all F001-FOOS spent
solvents. Any changes made to the
treatment standards as a result of
quantification levels can be found in the
BOAT development document.
The Agency proposed treatment
standards for each of the F001-F005
constituents listed in Table CCWE of
Subpart D in the proposed rule. During
the comment period, the Agency
obtained additional data which were
summarized in the Notice of Availability
of Data (51 FR 31783. Septembers, 1986}.
EPA also reevaluated existing data
using a number of statistical methods.
These methods were also outlined in the
Notice of Availability. Finally, the
Agency revised the proposed data
editing procedure which excluded data
when the influent value less than the
screening level (generally 2.0 ppm). In
today's final rule all data are used
provided influent concentrations are
above quantification levels.
The departure from the proposed rule
which most affected the final treatment
standards is the incorporation of a
variability factor. The BOAT
background document contains all data
used to develop the treatment standards
and a discussion of procedures used to
evaluate these data in determining
BOAT for each constituent of concern
within a treatability group.
TABLE 1.—TREATMENT STANDARDS (As CONCENTRATIONS IN THE TREATMENT RESIDUAL
EXTRACT)
CNdr The lachnolog** (Down are the basis o» the treatment standards. They are not required to be used in moating the
treatment standards.]
ConsMutnU ot F001-F005 tpent solvent
wasua
Acetone
n-Sutyt Ueohol „._..„. __.
Carbon Osurfide™.^ .
Carbon tttracnionde.
Chtorob«rBtne™™.,_...H
CfMoit (crasylie sod)..™. -...
Cyctohexanooe ........... ..„„_. _„„„__
1,2-Ochlorobenzafle ~™™.,,.__™™_..«m_,Z
Ethyl acetate™. m .
E(hy»eraane._.«.™m,-,,,™.-_m.
Ethyl ether ».„„. ._„,. „ ..,„„
Mttnanol,™, — .„,, _„
Matnylene cNonde, __™__™__
M*lltyl atfiyl katone..^..
M«tnyl uobuttf ketooe,«,,«. „„,
Niliooeraaria,..™™,™,.™,.™....™.,...,.....^
PynOne ;„„„_„_ „
Tatfachloroetriytene™ ,
Toluene,,..,,,,..™...™
UM-TflcrHoroethane „._
1,1 Jt.Tnchtoro-liA-tnfluoroethane .
TfteNoroethylane «™_ .
Xytona,
Waste traatabiMy group, for F001-F005 spent solvent wastes (mo/1)
Wastewater
<0.05
5.00
1.05
«0.05
0.15
2,82
« 0.125
0.65
<0.05
• 0.05
-------
Fadarri Kegkter / Voi
No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
chemical products, off-specification
products (P and U wastes], mixtures of
these waste coda, and spent solvents
from small quantity generators.
For today's rule. EPA has made
several modifications to its estimate.
First, as explained previously, the
Agency decided not to promulgate the
land disposal restrictions for those
wastes designated as P and U wastes.
The estimate of the total quantity of
solvent wastes covered under today's
rule, therefore, does not include the 11.2
million gal/yr of P and U wastes which
previously were included in the
proposed rule.
A second modification is more
significant. The quantity estimate in the
proposed rule included wastes that were
mixtures of F001. F002, F003, F004, F005,
and P and U wastes, but did not include
those wastes that were reported as
mixtures of F001-F005 with other
nonsolvent waste codes. These waste
quantities were not included in the
proposed rule because EPA believed
that a relatively small solvent portion of
these mixtures could be segregated from
a much larger component of the
nonsolvent wastes. This assumption
was based on limited descriptions of
these wastes provided by some
generators indicating that these wastes
primarily were dilute solvent-water
mixtures. In the proposal, EPA also
determined that the resultant quantity of
concentrated segregated solvent wastes
could not be estimated properly due to
the lack of concentration data for these
particular solvent waste mixtures prior
to segregation. Although EPA has not
changed its position that the quantity of
segregable solvent wastes cannot be
accurately estimated, it is assuming that
the entire quantity of these mixtures
would require alternative treatment
capacity. This is consistent with several
comments indicating that EPA had
grossly underestimated the quantity of
wastes identified as solvent-water
mixtures and generally had
underestimated the other types of
concentrated solvent wastes. Based on
these comments, EPA believes it may
have overestimated the ability of
generators to separate the concentrated
solvents from the nonsolvent
components (primarily water) without
treatment. This change results in an
increase in solvent-water mixtures land
disposed of 1,663 million gal/yr and an.
increase in quantity for all other waste
types land disposed of 19 million gal/yr.
A third modification involved
correction of invalid data used at
proposal. The OSW RIA Mail Survey of
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities regulated in 1981 was the
primary source of quantity data for the
proposed rule and for today's rate.
Because some facilities indicated that
they handled very large volumes of
waste or were suspect because
somewhat large quantities of recyclable
organic liquids were being hud
disposed, EPA decided to verify whether
these facilities had made an error in the
data submitted. EPA performed follow-
up inquiries to these facilities in order to
confirm the descriptions of the physical/
chemical forms of the wastes managed.
These responses were the subject of a
request for comment published
September S, 1986 (51FR 31783).
Some of the facilities indicated that
they no longer handled these wastes.
However. EPA does not believe that
these reported full or partial closures
can be extrapolated accurately to the
entire 1981 survey population because of
the site-specific nature of these closures.
Therefore, updating the survey for
closures would require more extensive
follow-up by EPA. EPA believes such
broad modification to the survey, hi
order to extrapolate these closures to
the universe of facilities, would
unreasonably disrupt the statistical
reliability of the 1981 survey.
However, EPA does believe that these
telephone responses support very
limited changes to the descriptions of
wastes at five facilities in the data base.
The responses from two facilities
indicated that a 172.8 million gal/yr
waste and a 28.3 million gal/yr waste
that had been identified in the survey as
organic liquids were actually solvent-
water mixtures. Another response from
a different facility indicated that a 2.6
million gal/yr waste mat had been
identified as an organic sludge was
actually a solvent-water mixture that
had been treated in an impoundment.
This waste also had been double-
counted as being handled in a landfill.
Two additional wastes treated in
impoundments also had been double-
counted as being disposed in landfiHs.
Therefore, the quantities of these wastes
which were subtracted from the total
quantity of waste landfilled and
subtracted from the total.
A fourth change to EPA's estimate is
based on EPA's determination that those
wastes from the 1981 RIA Mail Survey
that were not described should have
been added to the total organic liquids
land disposed rather than distributing
the wastes to all physical/chemical
forms. EPA believes that assuming the
undescribed waste quantities are
organic liquids is more consistent with
the type of wastes identified as the basis
for listing these solvent wastes as
hazardous. Spent solvents and still
40811
bottoms usually are pumpabte organic
liquids. This modified assumption
increases the estimated quantity of
organic liquids by approximately $5
million gai/yr, and reduces to solvent-
water estimate by an equal amount
This quantity represents a total of six
wastes at two facilities.
Two final changes were made to the
quantity of waste from small quantity
generators and CERCLA actions. The 8.7
million gal/yr of solvent wastes from
small quantity generators increased
from the estimate of 7.8 million gal/yr in
the proposed rule as a result of
correcting a calculation error. More
importantly, the proposed rule contained
no quantity estimates for increases in
solvent wastes anticipated to result from
removal and/or remedial actions taken
by the Agency under CERCLA or RCRA
corrective action. For today's rule, this
has been estimated to be 21.7 million
gal/yr based on a recently completed
EPA analysis of future land disposal.
These quantities are explained in
greater detail in Appendix B of the
Background Document to-today's rule
(Ref. 2). Therefore, the overall total
quantity of wastes including small
quantity generator and CERCLA wastes
is increased to 2,859 million gal/yr for
today's rule. "'--
2. Reanalysis of Land Disposal Practices
Used
EPA has reanalyzed the 1981 data
accounting for ah* of the changes
described in the previous section.
Complete analysis of the data is
provided in the background document to
support today's rule (Ref. 2). The
following table indicates how the total
quantity of wastes estimated in Che
previous section is distributed among
the various land disposal management
techniques covered under today s rule.
These figures do not include wastes
which were deep well injected.
land dtapoul poetic*
Treated ti surface impoundments.
Stored n surface impoundment*.
Disposed in surface impoundments
Waste pen _ .
l.vxl •pe*ca*on
tandW_. ....
Total land dtopoaed _
Quantity
(miiuongaj/
y>
2.485.4
3092
8 00
0 78
5S.5
2.858.881
3. Comments on EPA's Estimates
Several commenter objected to EPA's
use of the 1981 RIA Mail Survey for
estimation of the volumes of wastes
land disposed, based on their belief that
these data underestimate the quantity of
hazardous waste which is being land
-------
40612___Federgl_Re^gter_rVol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
disposed annually. As explained earlier,
EPA agrees that the quantity of solvent
wastes identified as solvent-water
mixtures was underestimated. Inclusion
of the additional mixed solvent wastes
has increased the total quantity of
solvent-water mixtures to 2.652 million
gal/yr. Nevertheless, EPA believes that
the 1981 data is currently the only
readily available source for estimating
the quantities based on the physical/
chemical characteristics that influence
the selection of applicable treatment
technologies.
Several commenters suggested that
EPA use other data sources such as Part
A applications, Part B applications,
RCRA Biennial reports, and various
state and regional reports. EPA agrees
with the commenters that the data
contained in these sources are more
recent, than the 1981 data. However,
none of the sources provide data that
readily allow EPA to estimate national
quantity of solvent wastes land
disposed by individual management
units and by physical/chemical forms.
One commenter also contended that
EPA'a 1981 data grossly underestimated
the quantities of hazardous waste which
were being land disposed: this statement
was based on privately collected data
from 725 facilities in standard industrial
classification (SIC) code 2800
(Chemicals and Allied Products
Manufacturers). The data indicated that
this industry treated and disposed of
approximately 202 million tons of
hazardous waste per year. Since EPA
estimated only 240 million tons per year
for all hazardous waste facilities, the
commenter believes that EPA
underestimated the total quantity of
hazardous waste. However, the same
commenter acknowleged that EPA
estimated that this same industry
managed 66 percent of the total. These
figures, when multiplied together, yield a
total quantity of 158 million tons per
year for this particular industry (SIC
2800). EPA does not believe that 158
million tons per year is a gross
underestimation of 202 million tons per
year. EPA's estimate was lower than the
commenter's quantity estimate, but by
only 22 percent.
However, the commenter did not
indicate whether the privately collected
quantity figures were for RCRA
hazardous wastes or all wastes
considered hazardous by state and local
authorities. EPA's estimates of waste
quantities specifically exclude
hazardous wastewaters which are
exempt from RCRA (such as those
treated solely in tanks and subsequently
discharged under NPDES permits). It
was not clear that the commenter's
estimate of 202 million tons per year of
wastes treated and disposed includes or
excludes these wastewaters. The same
commenter provided more recent data,
also based on an independent survey of
this industry, that indicated the total
amount of hazardous waste treated and
disposed by responding plants in 1985
was 278.5 million tons per year (276.8
million tons per year of wastewater and
1.7 million tons per year of solid waste).
Of the solid wastes treated and
disposed, 0.57 million tons per year were
landfilled, 0.52 million tons per year
were incinerated, 0.46 million tons per
year were disposed in surface
impoundments, and 0.18 million tons per
year were treated by other methods. The
corresponding 1981 EPA estimates for
all hazardous waste were, 3.0 million
tons per year of hazardous waste
landfilled, 1.7 million tons per year
incinerated, 19 million tons per year
disposed in surface impoundments, and
17 million tons per year treated by other
means. EPA believes that these data,
which represent significantly larger
quantities of solid waste being land
disposed, further indicate that EPA
estimates of quantities of wastes being
land disposed are reasonable and are
not grossly underestimated.
4. Summary of Quantities Requiring
Capacity
Based on the 1981RIA Mail Survey
quantity data presented in the previous
section, EPA estimates that a total of
19.0 million gal/yr of pumpable organic
solvent wastes will require incineration
capacity, 3.4 million gal/yr will require
distillation capacity, and 15.3 million
gal/yr will require fuel substitution
capactity.
EPA also estimates that 21.7 million
gal/yr of solvent-containing sludge
mixtures will require some form of high
solids combustion treatment such as
rotary kiln incineration.
A total quantity of 2,481 million gal/yr
of solvent wastes described as solvent-
water mixtures also will require some
form of wastewater treatment. The
following table summarizes this
information.
Oittiaiion
Fuel Substitution ..„.„....„„«„.„«..
Incineration . .
Wutawilor tmtnwnt
Quantity
requiring
capcoty
(mtfongal/
y)
3.4
1S.3
19.0
21.7
2.481.0
include the 20.2 million gal/yr increase
in solvent wastes anticipated to be
generated from remedial and removal
actions taken under CERCLA and RCRA
correction action. The waste
characterization data which would be
necessary to assign treatment
technologies for these two waste
sources are very limited. Although it is
possible that all small quantity
generator wastes may have to go to
incineration, EPA believes that a more
reasonable approach is to extrapolate
the waste characterization data from the
1981 survey to the total quantity by
applying the ratio of quantities which
were directed to each technology. Since
the solvent wastes from small quantity
generators are not anticipated to include
solvent-water mixtures nor any solvent-
inorganic sludge mixtures, the ratio
developed from the distillation, fuel
substitution, and incineration quantities
have been applied:
AlKcn«iv« if««UT»H ttehnotogy
DWWtaon.
Fuol SUxJttuttoo..
y)
0.8
3.5
4.4
These quantities do not include the 8.7
million gal/yr of solvent wastes from
small quantity generators, nor do they
All 18.1 million gal/yr of increased
capacity needed for RCRA corrective
action and the 4.1 million gal/yr for
CERCLA responses has been assigned
to incineration based on studies of
current projects.
5, Comments on Types of Treatment
Required
Solvent wastes identified as F001,
F002, F003, F004, and F005 typically are
described as spent solvents or still
bottoms as specifically identified in the
listing for these waste codes. However,
these waste code designations are used
to identify wastes which are regulated
as F001-F005 wastes as a result of the
mixture rule (in 40 CFR 261.3), i.e., a spill
residue or combination of solvent
wastes with other wastes or materials,
such as wastewater, soil, organic or
inorganic sludges.
In the preamble to the proposed rule,
EPA made clear its assumption that
those wastes that are solvent-water
mixtures are indeed F001-F005 wastes
that are derived from the mixture rule in
40 CFR 261.3. The Agency also assumed
that these wastes contain less than 1.0
percent total organic carbon and
approximately 99 percent water. This is
consistent with EPA's guidance in
defining wastewater as a waste with
primarily water and a small amount of
contaminants. In addition, several of the
large volume, solvent-water mixtures
-------
J"ederaTRegater / Vol. 51. Na 216 / Friday, November 7, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
4M13
identified in the TSDF mail survey
specifically described their wastes as
containing 99 percent water.
Several commenters suggested that
defining solvent-water mixtures as those
wastes containing less than 1.0 percent
total organics would exclude many non-
hazardous wastewaters which they
indicate typically can contain greater
than 1.0 percent total organics. One
commenter suggested that the level be
raised to 4.0 percent total organtcs.
However, none of these commenters
submitted any data substantiating these
comments.
Another commenter stated mat EPA
had overestimated the concentrations of
solvents in wastes identified as
wastewaters. The commenter supplied
data on wastes containing part per
million levels of individual solvent
constituents. EPA believes that the
commenter had misinterpreted EPA's
intended use of these data. EPA
recognizes that there are many
wastewaters that contain only parts per
million or even parts per billion levels of
individual solvent constitutents.
However, EPA used a summation of the
individual solvent concentrations to
arrive at the estimations of total solvent
concentrations in wastewaters
:f classified as F001-F005. EPA has
established a definition of solvent-water
mixtures based on this maximum
solvent concentration that it believes is
representative of this type of waste. As
explained in the proposed rule, the
Agency believes this assumption is
corroborated by data that indicate that
the majority of wastewaters from the
organic chemicals manufacturing
industry being treated in surface
impoundments contains less than 1.0 •
percent total solvents.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
selected the analysis of total organic
carbon (TOG) as a surrogate analysis for
the total solvent concentration. Several
commenters objected to the use of the
TOG test because it measures both
hazardous and nonhazardous organics,
and is not appropriate for nonliquids.
While the Agency recognizes that there
is no standard method which
specifically defines a total solvent
concentration in wastewater, there do
exist several standard methods for the
individual solvent constitutents for
which the F001-F005 solvent wastes are
listed (40 CFR 261 Appendix VII). These
individual solvent concentrations then
can be summed to yield a total solvent
concentration for a particular waste.
The Agency never intended to include
nonhazardous wastes or wastewaters in
this rule, and the Agency agrees with
the commenters that there may exist
nonhazardous wastes and wastewaters
with greater than 1.0 percent total
organic carbon. Therefore, the Agency
has reevaluated its position on the
method for determining that an F001.
F002, F003, F804, and FOOS waste is
considered a solvent-water mixture
(wastewatet). For the purposes of
today's rule, the Agency is defining an
aqueous solvent waste as any F001,
F002, F003, F004. and F005 solvent waste
that is primarily water and contains
either (1] less than 1.0 percent total
organic carbon or (2} less than LO
percent total solvents (defined as the
arithmetic summation of the individual
solvent concentrations for those
constituents for which all of those waste
codes are listed in 40 CFR 261 Appendix
VII, as determined by GC or GC/MS
methods in accordance with the
appropirate standard methods for those
constitutents and waste type). The
Agency still believes that the total
organic carbon analysis provides an
inexpensive screening technique for
identifying some F001 through FOOS
wastes as solvent-water mixtures.
However, those facilities that have
wastes that exceed a total organic
carbon content of 1.0 percent can elect
to utilize the more rigorous
measurement of less than 1.0 percent
total solvent concentration. This choice
of methods is intended for use as a
screening procedure only to identify
those F001, F002, F003, F004, and FOOS
solvent wastes that are to be designated
as a solvent-water mixture. For the
purposes of today's rule, the Agency
does not intend this definition to be
used to classify a wastewater as a
hazardous solvent waste. However, this
does not preclude the Agency from
modifying or clarifying this definition in
the future.
In a similar manner, the Agency
believes that the 1.0 percent total
solvent concentration can be extended
to define the solvent wastes that are
primarily inorganic sludges or soils. The
Agency recognizes that there is no
standard method for the analysis of total
organic carbon in inorganic solids and
thus, is establishing the use of the
analysis for the individual solvent
constituents in inorganic sludges and
soils for the determination of 1.0 percent
total solvents. For the purposes of
today's rule, the Agency therefore, is
defining solvent-inorganic sludge
mixtures and solvent-contaminated soil
as any F001, F002. F003. F004, and/or
FOOS solvent waste which is primarily
inorganic and contains no greater than
1.0 percent total organic carbon or no
greater than 1.0 percent total solvents
(defined as the arithmetic summation of
the individual solvent conceatratiea* for
those constituents for which ati of these
waste codes are listed in 40 CFR 261
Appendix VII, as determined by. GC ar
GC/MS methods in accordance with the
appropriate standard methods for those
constituents and waste type). The
Agency believes that this is consistent
with congressional intent to ban high
concentration wastes, whenever
capacity shortfalls are demonstrated to
exist.
All other F001, F002. F003, F004. and/
or FOOS solvent wastes by nature of
these definitions exceed either 1.0
percent total solvent concentration or
exceed 1.0 percent total organic carbon
and are, therefore, not considered to be
solvent-water mixtures, solvent-
inorganic sludges mixtures, or solvent-
contaminated soils.
E. Unused Capacity of Solvent
Treatment and Recycling Facilities
EPA estimated that solvent wastes
restricted from land disposal as a result
of today's final rule will be. directed to
incineration and wastewater treatment
methods that can achieve the treatment
standards. Some solvent wastes will
also be directed to recycling methods,
including distillation and blending as
fuel. In this unit, EPA estimates the
unused capacity that is currently
available to treat or recycle solvent
wastes.
As explained in Unit V., private
treatment, recycling, and disposal
capacity will be considered in two
circumstances: (1) If a private owner or
operator plans to accept restricted
waste commercially on or before the
effective date of the restrictions; or (2)
when a private owner or operator has
excess capacity. At this time, EPA does
not have complete information on the
extent to which these circumstances will
occur. The Agency plans to conduct a
treatment, storage, and disposal facility
(TSDF) survey in the near future which
it hopes will provide comprehensive
data on the availability of private
capacity to manage hazardous wastes
that are prohibited from land disposal.
However, for the purposes of this
rulemaking, the determinations of the
capacity to treat and recycle solvent
wastes will be based on unused
capacity at facilities that are or will be
offering commercial services by
November 1986.
1. Capacity for Wastewater Treatment
BOAT wastewater treatment methods
for solvent-water mixtures are biological
degradation, steam stripping, and
carbon adsorption. In addition, other
technologies, such as resin adsorption.
-------
40614 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 19g6 / Rules and Regulations
although not BDAT, may be capable of
meeting the treatment standards for
some wastes. All of the treatment
methods are referred to as tank
treatment under the RCRA TSDF
regulations.
For the proposed rule, the OSW RIA
Mail Survey was EPA's only source of
information concerning the unused
capacity at tank treatment facilities.
However, the RIA Mail Survey was not
designed to evaluate capacity of specific
tank treatment systems. It requested
information on total tank treatment
capacity, but did not request
information for specific tank treatment
systems. Thus, within the time
constraints for the proposed rule, the
Agency was unable to determine
available capacity for each treatment
system. Accordingly, to prepare the
proposed rule, the Agency estimated the
total unused treatment tank capacity at
commercial facilities that managed
solvents. This unused capacity was
estimated to be 112 million gallons. In
the proposed rule. EPA stated that these
commercial facilities managed other
hazardous wastes, and that the Agency
could not determine the portion of the
112 million gallons of unused treatment
capacity that was available to treat
solvent wastes.
EPA, however, recently has completed
a comprehensive analysis of additional
data from the RIA data base for these
commercial facilities and has identified
the specific types of tank treatment. This
new analysis of the RIA Mail Survey
data indicates that very little of the tank
system capacity at the survey facilities
was designed for treatment of solvent
wastes. Because of the very limited data
on treatment capacity for solvents in the
RIA Mail Survey data base, EPA
decided to use the 1968 National
Screening Survey, which contains data
on all facilities, to identify facilities that
manage solvents. These facilities were
contacted in the August 1986
'Telephone Verification Survey of
Commercial Facilities That Manage
Solvents" (51FR 31786). Thi» new data
base reveals that there is one extremely
large commercial faculty that offers
biological treatment for solvents, at an
available capacity of about 2 billion
gallons/yr. In addition, one commercial
facility that offers steam stripping for
solvents, and two commercial facilities
offer carbon adsorption for solvents.
These four facilities represent the entire
capacity available for wastewater
treatment for solvents.
2. Capacity for Incineration
For the proposed rule, EPA estimated
that unused commercial incineration
capacity is less than 25.6 million gallons
per year. This calculation was based on
the maximum design capacity of
operational commercial incinerators and
a utilization rate of 80 percent (Ref. 2).
Some commenters stated that
incineration capacity was limited to a
very few commercial facilities, and that
available capacity would not be
adequate for the restricted solvent
wastes. In response to these concerns,
EPA used the results of the 1988
National Screening Survey to verify the
commercial status of incinerator
facilities and reevaluate the capacity at
commercial facilities. Of the 14
commercial incinerators included in the
incinerator capacity analysis for the
proposed rule, three no longer offer
commercial incinerator services.
However, one other facility now offers
commercial incinerator services. In
addition, four of these facilities plan to
have a new commercial incinerator
operating in 1987, and another company
plans to complete a large new
incinerator facility in 1987. None of the
facilities indicated that they planned to
close in 1987. Based on the new data,
EPA concludes that there are currently
12 commercial incinerator facilities, and
that the number of commercial
incinerator facilities will remain fairly
constant or increase over the next two
years. Even if an existing commercial
incinerator facility closes, EPA believes,
based on the pattern of construction
indicated by the data, that it is
reasonable to assume that another
facility will begin operation of a new
incinerator.
In addition to verifying the status of
the commercial incinerator facilities,
EPA obtained some additional data on
design capacity and utilization. Using
the available data for each facility, EPA
estimates that the available incineration
capacity at these facilities io
approximately 28 million gallons per
year. This estimate is slightly more than
the estimate used for the proposed rule.
When information was not available on
the utilization rate, the calculation was
based on a utilization rate of 80%.
Because there will be an increased
demand for incineration capacity for
CERCLA wastes that are not covered by
this rule (i.e., wastes other than F001-
F005), not all of this 28 million gallons
per year capacity will be available for
the restricted solvent wastes. Data from
site analyses conducted by EPA show
that the increased demand for off-site
commercial incineration of non-solvent
CERCLA wastes that will require
capacity is 5.4 million gallons per year.
Therefore, the available incineration
capacity for the restricted solvent
wastes is 22.6 million gallons per year.
3. Capacity for Fuel Substitution
Commenters expressed concern that
in the proposal rule, EPA did not include
capacity estimates for fuel substitution.
A commenter stated that fuel
substitution is a potentially very large
source of alternative capacity and
should be included in the capacity
estimates for the final rule. EPA
recognizes the importance of fuel
substitution but did not have a sufficient
data base to develop estimates for the
proposed rule. Since the proposal, EPA
has developed a new data base from the
1986 National Screening Survey. This
information was included hi the Notice
of Availability on September 5,1986.
The new data base shows that at least
20 hazardous waste management
facilities use hazardous waste as fuel.
The available capacity for fuel
substitution at these facilities is
approximately 24 million gallons.
Because many facilities that are not
regulated hazardous waste management
facilities recycle hazardous waste as
fuel, the available capacity for fuel:
substitution is greater than 24 million
gallons. -
4. Capacity for Distillation t
In the proposed rule, EPA estimated
that the unused capacity for distillation
is 225 million gallons per year. Several
commenters questioned the applicability
of some distillation systems to the
restricted solvent wates. EPA recognizes
that not all waste may be acceptable for
all systems. However, the additional
distillation capacity needed for the
restricted solvent wastes is only 4
percent of the available capacity.
Therefore, EPA assumes that it is
reasonable to expect that there is
adequate distillation capacity for the
restricted solvents.
F. Determination of the Effective Date
Comparison of the data developed in
Sections D and E above results in the
demand and capacity estimates in the
following table:
ESTIMATES OF DEMAND AND AVAILABLE
CAPACITY
TrMtiTMnt or ftecovwy
Technology
WnimMr ...... ...„„„ „._.
Fu«* Substitution _
OWMitton
UnuMd
Capacity
(Millions of
Gallons Pir
Your)
2.103.0
226
14.0
22&0
333
(Total)
2481.0
18.8
Analysis of the demand and capacity
shows that available wastewater
treatment and incineration capacity for
solvent wastes will be exhausted by this
-------
Federal Register /
Vol. 51. No. 216 /Friday, November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulation,
regulation but capacity for fuel
substitution and distillation will remain.
As explained previously,-the-capacity
required for small quantity generator
wastes cannot be determined precisely.
therefore, the Agency has distributed
the capacity demand for these wastes
between incineration, distillation and
fuel substitution based on the relative
demand projected for those •
technologies. EPA has assigned the
entire capacity demand for CERCLA
response action and RCRA corrective
action wastes to incineration because
this technology is currently projected to
be the alternative technology used
during the next year for the majority of
these wastes. As a result of this
analysis, EPA has clearly identified the
basis for extension of the effective date
for at least some wastes-requiring
incineration and wastewater treatment.
In order to address the shortage of
incineration capacity, EPA is granting a
two year national variance to CERCLA
response action and RCRA corrective
action wastes (20.2 million gal/year),
solvent-containing sludges and solids
(21.7 million gal/year) and small
quantity generator wastes (4.4 million
gal/year) requiring incineration. This
combination of variances should
provide full utilization of available
incineration capacity. The demand for
wastewater treatment capacity cannot
be similarly segregated because of
EPA's limited data base. Therefore. EPA
will grant a variance to all solvent
wastewaters because of the significant
capacity deficiency identified.
VI. Treatment Standards for Dioxin-
Containing Wastes
A. Introduction
Today's final rule for dioxins adopts
most of the provisions of the proposed
rule and outlines EPA's response to
major comments received on the
proposal.
Under today's rule, wastes identified
by the hazardous waste codes F020,
F021, F022. F023. F026, F027, and F028
must be treated to a level below 1 ppb in
the waste extract for each of the
following specific categories of CDDs
and CDFs '':
1' The following acronyms and definitions are
used: PCDDs—all isomers of all chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins. PCDFs—all isomers of all
chlorinated dibenzofurans. CDDs—and CDF«—
isomers of tetra-, penta-, and hexachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxins and -dibenzofurans. respectively. TCDDs
and TCDFs—all isomers of the tetracnlorodibenzc-
p-dioxins and -dibenzofurans. respectively. TCDD
and TCDF—the respective 2.3.7,8-isomers. The
prefixes Tr. T. Pe. and Hx denote the tri-, tetra-.
penta-. and hexachlorodioxin and -dibenzofuran
congeners, respectively.
HxCDD—hexachlorbdibenzo-p-dioxins
HxCDP—hexachlorodibenzofurans
PeCDD—pentachiorodibenzc-p-dioxins
PeCDF—pentachlorodibenzofurans
TCDD—tetrachlorodibenzeno-p-dioxins
TCDF— tetrachlorodibenzofurans
One ppb is the routinely achievable
detection limit using method 8280 of
SW-846 >* (40 CFR 261 Appendix X).
These listed wastes also must be
treated below the detection limits for
2.4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4.6-
trichlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-
tetrachlorophenol, and
pentachlorophenol. The detection limits
for these constituents are 50.50,100, and
10 ppb, respectively in the waste
extracts using method 3510/8270
identified in the SW-846.
Wastes that meet the applicable
treatment standards may be disposed in
a RCRA Subtitle C land disposal facility
which has been fully permitted and has
an approved waste management plan, in
accordance with the dioxin-listing rule
(50 FR1978). Dioxin-containing wastes
at or exceeding the detection limit for
these constituents of concern in the
waste extracts using the TCLP must be
treated in accordance with the
requirements specified in the dioxin-
listing rule, specifically incineration (40
CFR 264.343 and 40 CFR 265.352) or
thermal treatment (40 CFR 265.383) to
six 9s destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE), or tank treatment (40
CFR 264.200) (if such treatment can
achieve concentrations of CDDs. CDFs
and certain chlorophenols to below
detection in the extracts from the
treatment residuals).
EPA is also granting the maximum
two-year variance to the effective date
of the land disposal restrictions for
dioxin-containing wastes because of a
finding that there is a lack of capacity to
treat and dispose of these wastes. Thus,
the effective date of this final rule is
November 8,1988. These wastes are
subject to all special management
requirements specified in the dioxin-
listing rule and the minimum
technological requirements of section
3004(o).
In the proposed rule, the Agency did
not set treatment standards for EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F028 (residuals
resulting from incineration or thermal
treatment of soil contaminated with
12 In test method 8260. the proposed
quantification level for dioxin in water is 10 ppt
However, due to the interferences inherent in
leachate samples and the variability of waste
matrices, the Agency considers that generally,
dioxin wastes subject to today's rule will have a
detection limit of 1 ppb. It should be noted that
because the treatment standard for dioxins is set at
"no detection" it is important to calibrate to the
levels specified in 8280.
F020. F021, F022, F023, F028, and F027). It
was stated in the proposal that F028 is a
treatment residual from incineration.or
thermal treatment of dioxin-containiny
soil to six 9s DRE. Because incineration
is the best technology identified to treat
dioxin-containing wastes, the Agency
concluded, that in most cases, the F028
waste would meet the treatment
standard. The Agency recognizes that
there may be instances in which this is
not the case. Accordingly, EPA now
believes that it erred in concluding that
all F028 wastes would meet the
designated treatment standard of no
detection. Instead, it is appropriate to
require that F028 wastes, like other
dioxin-containing wastes, be tested to
determine whether detectable levels of
specific categories of CDDs and CDFs
and certain chlorophenols are present in
the extracts from the waste or treatment
residuals. The final rule has been
modified to reflect this change.
B. Summary of Regulations Affecting
Land Disposal of Dioxin-Containing
Wastes
•r
In the dioxin-listing rule. EEA also
specified additional management
standards relating to land disposal of
.these wastes. Specifically, the-Agency
prohibited the management of the listed
dioxin-containing wastes at interim
status land disposal facilities. There are
exceptions for interim status surface
impoundments holding wastewater
treatment sludges that are created in the
impoundments as part of the plant's
wastewater treatment system and
interim status waste piles that meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 264.250(c)).
The dioxin-listing rule also establishes
special management standards for
dioxin-containing wastes in permitted
land disposal facilities intending to
manage these wastes. These facilities
are required to submit a waste
management plan to address the
additional design and operating
measures over and above those in Part
264 which the facility intends to adopt to
prevent migration of the waste. The plan
is to be submitted by the owner or
operator of the disposal facility as part
of the Part 264 permit application (see 50
FR 1979 for additional information).
The Agency believes that such a
waste management plan will help
provide assurance that these wastes are
properly managed in a land disposal
situation. It should be noted, however,
that under today's rule, these
requirements apply only to the land
disposal of dioxin-containing wastes
that meet the treatment standard. Also,
these standards do not supersede the
minimum technology requirements
-------
T
40616 Federal Ragjgiar / Vel. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. M86 / Jbiles and Regulations
Impoiad by section 3004(o). All the
prohibitions established under the
dloxin-Hsting rule remain in effect even
if the wastes meet the treatment
standard.
C. Analysis of Treatment Technologies
forDioxin-Cantaining Wastes and
Determination of BOAT
1. Applicable Treatment Technologies
The dioxin-listing rule establishes
standards for incineration and certain
thermal treatment It states that
incinerators burning the listed CDD/
CDF-containing wastes must achieve a
destruction and removal efficiency of
six 9s, in addition to the other standards
contained in 40 CFR 284.343 and 265.352.
In the dioxin-listing rule, the Agency
acknowledged that there are presently a
number of emerging thermal treatment
technologies that may ba applicable for
the treatment of dioxin-containing
wastes in order to reader them
nonhazardous (or at least, less
hazardous). However, in the absence of
performance standards, such treatment
units would not be allowed, and mis
would stifle and discourage the
development of new treatment
alternative* for these very toxic wastes.
Accordingly, the Agency re vised the
dioxin-listmg rule to allow for interim
status thermal treatment units to treat
the dioxin-containing wastes if it has
been certified that the units meet the
applicable performance standards in 40
CFR 234.383 (including six 9s DR£ fen-
principal organic hazardous constituents
(POHCs)).
The diaxin-Ksting rule also requires
special management practices for the
treatment and storage of dioxin-
containing wastes in tanks. Secondary
containment will be required as-a permit
condition for all tanks that treat or store
CDD- and CDF-containing wastes.
Specifically, the dioxin-listing rule
requires the owners/operators of tank
facilities storing or treating CDD- and
CDF-containing wastes to provide EPA
with the following information in its
permit application specifying: the
precise design of the secondary
containment system and its
accompanying leak detection method;
the choice of construction material and
specifications; and whether additional
run-on or precipitation controls are
needed to preserve the system's
integrity. These technical requirements
are specified in 40 CFR 27O16(g) and
must be addressed by each individual
facility in its RCRA permit application.
This information will be evaluated by
the EPA before a permit is issued.
As was stated in the proposal, the
Agency is aware of much research . .
currently, being conducted to develop
and evaluate treatment technologic*
applicable to dioxin-containing wastes.
In the proposal, the Agency presented a
list of treatment technologies that were
in one of three stages of development or
consideration. Recently available
information and data have allowed the
Agency to revise thie list. Additional
information on the technologies under
evaluation for the treatment of these
wastes is available in the background
docket for today's rule.
The Agency will continue to gather
data and information on theae and other
emerging technologies in order to
evaluate their future potential as
applicable technologies for the
treatment of dioxin-containing wastes.
As stated in today's rule however, any
technology for the treatment of dioxin-
containing waste must be done in
accordance with the dioxin-listing rule.
Many of the technologies being
analyzed are thermal treatments, or can
be conducted in tanks, including
infrared heating and chemical
detoxification.
2. Comparative Risk Assessment
Determinations for Dioxia-Containma
Waste
In support of today's rule, the Agency
conducted a more detailed comparative
risk analysis on soils contaminated with
2,3.7,8-TCDD. still bottoms
contaminated with dioxins and toluene.
and unused formulations of
pentachlorophenol contaminated with
dioxins. A detailed characterization of
each waste stream is available in the
regulatory impact analysis for dioxin-
containing waste (Ref. 9).
The analysis of the comparative risks
of land disposal and incineration to six
9s DRE indicates mat both technologies
petentiatty result in insignificant risks to
haman health. Land disposal presents
very tew risks provided that run-off or
wind dispersal of contaminated
particles is prevented, and dioxin-
containing wastes are not co-disposed
with other materials that may mobilize
the dioxins {e.g., solvents). Regulations
previously established (50 FR 1979)
governing the management of dioxin-
containing wastes are likely to prevent
such releases. Similarly, incineration to
six 9s DRE is likely to destroy all of the
constitutents of concern in these wastes
and is also not predicted to present
significant risks.
It is possible that, in some cases,
incineration may result in greater risks
than land disposal. This could occur if
incinerator scrubber waters containing
undetectable levels of dioxins were
discharged untreated to surface waters.
However. EPA believes this is unlikely
because facilities incinerating dioxin-
containing wastes will likely be required
under the Ctean Water Act to treat the
scrubber water prior to discharge, and
because treatment of scrubber water by
carbon absorption should be effective in
preventing releases of dioxin
contaminants.
Provided that the discharge of
untreated scrubber water is prohibited.
restricting land disposal of
contaminated soils will likely result in
increases in total population risks and
decreases in risk to the most exposed
individuals (MEI). Under the same
conditions (i.e.. incineration to six 9s
DRE and prohibitions on untreated
scrubber water discharge), restricting
the land disposal of still bottoms may
result in an increase in total population
risks, but would significantly reduce the
maximum MEI risk. For unused
formulations of pentachlorophenol. both
the total population and health risk
would be significantly reduced by
incineration at six 9s DRE.
It should be noted that the greatest
risks to human health resulting from the
land disposal restriction are likely to be
caused by changes in the extent of
transportation and handling of dioxin-
containing wastes. The comparative risk
analysis shows that risks from
transportation and handling of dioxin-
containing wastes are typically much
greater than the risk posed from land
disposal or incineration. The Agency
however, is not able to predict whether
transportation distances and the extent
of handling will increase or decrease as
a result of this rule.
Because the risk assessment does not
indicate that incineration is clearly more
risky than direct land disposal, the
Agency is classifying incineration at six
9s DRE as available for the purpose of
establishing the treatment standard for
dioxin-containing waste.
3. Demonstrated Technologies and
Determination of BOAT
The only sufficiently demonstrated
technology for the treatment of dioxin-
containing wastes is incineration. Data
from the field demonstration of EPA's
Mobile Incineration System (MIS) on
F020, F022, F023, F026, and F027 wastes
at the Denney Farm site in McDowell,
Missouri indicate that an incineration
unit operating at six 9s DRE is capable
of treating dioxin-coataining wastes and
the constituents of concern subject to
this rule to non-detectable levels.
Although the field demonstration at
Denney Farm did not include the
burning of F021 wastes, the Agency
believes that the existing data from the
MIS field demonstration and other
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1988 / Rules and Regulations
40617
available data show that similar non-
detectable levels of CDDs, CDFs and
pentachlorophenol would occur as the
result of incineration at six 9s ORE. As
stated in the proposed rule, six 9s ORE
for dioxin-containing waste is
determined using a POHC with a lower
heat of combustion than the CDDs and
CDFs contained in the waste. The more
difficult a waste is to incinerate, the
lower its heat of combustion.
Conversely, a constituent with a high
heat of combustion is easier to
incinerate. In the case of the F021 waste,
the Agency believes that six 9s ORE can
be achieved for the CDDs and CDFs in
these wastes, since F021 wastes and
CDDs and CDFs have similar degrees of
incinerability (heats of combustion).
The Agency has also determined that
incinerators operating in accordance
with the performance standards
specified in 40 CFR 761.70 for PCS
wastes, namely six 9s destruction, also
meet the demonstrated component of
the BOAT standard. For more
information on this determination, the
reader is referred to the preamble
discussion in the proposed rule (51 FR
1730-1735).
Incineration to six 9s DRE achieves
lower concentrations of CDDS, CDFs
and certain chlorophenols in the
treatment residuals than incineration to
four 9s DRE (current standard for all
RCRA hazardous waste except dioxin-
containing wastes). The efficiency of
incineration has been demonstrated by
the successful dioxin burn at six 9s DRE
in the EPA MIS at the Denney Farm Site
in McDowell, Missouri and the
incineration of PCB wastes at six 9s
destruction at a number of facilities.
Data indicate that residuals resulting
from the incineration of CDDs and CDFs
at six 9s DRE contain these toxicants at
concentrations about five to seven
orders of magnitude less than those in
the starting material. For example, solid
residues resulting from the incineration
at six 9s DRE of dioxin wastes
containing 10 ppm TCDD may be
expected to contain less than .1 ppb
TCDD. Additional data from the
incineration of dioxin-containing wastes
at six 9s DRE show no detectable levels
of CDDs/CDFs or the chlorophenols in
the residuals. Most of the analysis was
conducted in accordance with the
methods specified in SW-846 (method
8280). (40 CFR 261, Appendix X)
Additional data indicate that
incinerators operating as six 9s DRE
achieved extremely low concentrations
of CDDs. CDFs, and PCBs in the
treatment residuals, in most cases, far
below those levels measured with
standard analytical techniques. Detailed
information on the determination of
BOAT is available in the preamble
discussion in the proposed rule.
D. Determination of Alternative
Capacity and Effective Dates
1. Required Alternative Treatment
Capacity for Dioxin-Containing Wastes
Approximately 14.7 million pounds
(6,650 metric tons) of dioxin-containing
wastes are presently covered by the
dipxin-listing rule. (Ref. 9). These wastes
are primarily associated with the past
production and manufacturing use of tri-
and tetrachlorophenol and current
manufacturing uses of
pentachlorophenol. The Agency believes
that the quantity of dioxin-containing
wastes currently generated and subject
to today's land disposal restriction rule
amounts to 3 million pounds annually
(1,350 metric tons). For the purposes of
this rulemaking, the Agency estimates
that approximately 1 billion pounds
(500,000 metric tons) is dioxin-
contaminated soil. This assessment is
taken from an estimate that 1.1 billion
pounds of dioxin-contaminated soil
exist in the State of Missouri. See the
background docket for additional
information. The Agency is continuing to
evaluate the universe of these wastes.
As better information becomes
available, the Agency will revise its
estimates accordingly. Additional
information on the quantity estimates of
dioxin-containing wastes subject to the
land disposal restriction can be found in
the regulatory impact analysis for this
rule.
2. Treatment Disposal, and Recovery
Capacity Currently Available
Under the dioxin-listing rule, facilities
which intend to treat or dispose of
dioxin-containing waste must do so in
accordance with the special
management standard specified in the
rule {50 FR 1978). Currently, Agency
information on the activities of
generators and treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities indicate that there is
no available disposal or recovery
capacity for dioxin-containing wastes.
In addition, there are no Agency
approved incinerators or other thermal
treatment units to treat dioxin-
containing wastes. Although several
petitions have been received by the
Agency, no incineration or thermal
treatment units have been certified/
permitted as required in the dioxin-
listing rule.
Owners/operators of incinerators
approved to burn PCB's pursuant to the
provisions of the Toxic Substances
Control Act, may wish to apply for
certification. As pointed out earlier, PCB
incinerators are a logical choice to burn
these wastes because they are required
to meet the same performance standard
(six 9s DRE) required under the dioxin-
listing rule. There are currently three
commercial incinerators approved under
TSCA to burn PCBs. In addition to these
units, several other incinerators under
development may be available
(contingent on certification) for treating
CDD- and dioxin-containing wastes.
However, the Agency has no indication
whether or when any of these or any
other facility will be able to treat dioxin-
containing wastes.
The Agency has full confidence in the
safeguards provided by the required
management standards. EPA is
committed to move rapidly to assure
that approved capacity is available to
properly manage the listed dioxin-
containing wastes. Agency efforts in this
area include identifying facilities that
can properly manage dioxin-containing
wastes, and encouraging owners and
operators to apply for the necessary
Federal, State, and local permits. The
EPA Regional offices will worf; closely
with these facilities to expedite their
permit applications. -.
VH. State Authority ,
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006, 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 although
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility. The
standards and requirements for
authorization are found in 40 CFR Part
271.
Before the November 8,1984. RCRA
amendments, a State with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the State was authorized
to permit. When new, more stringent
Federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the State was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames. New Federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized State until the State adopted
the requirements as State law.
In contrast under section 3006(g) (42
U.S.C. 6926(g)), new requirements and
prohibitions imposed under RCRA take
effect in authorized States at the same
time that they take effect in
-------
40438 Fad.ral Kagktgj / Vd. 51, No. 21B / Friday. Nerember 7, M8« / Ririg. «id RegaJatieo,
nonauthorized State*.,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
30. While States must still adopt the
newly enacted RCJRA provisions as
State law to retain final authorization,
these provisions are effective in
authorized States in the interim.
Today's rule is promulgated pursuant
to sections 3004 (d) through (k), and (m).
of RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924). Therefore, it is
being added to Table 1 in 40 CFR
271.10). which identifies the Federal
program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to the newly
enacted RCRA provisions and take
effect in all States, regardless of their
authorization status. States may apply
for either interim of final authorization
for the provisions hi Table 1. as
discussed in the following section. Table
2 in 40 CFR 271.1(fl is being modified
also to indicate that this rule is a self-
implementmg provision of the RCRA
amendments.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
As noted above. EPA will implement
today's rule in authorized States until
their programs are modified to adopt
these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the rule is
promulgated pursuant to the RCRA
amendments, a State submitting a
program modification may apply to
receive either interim or final
authorization under section 3606fg)(2) or
3006{b), respectively, on the basis of
requirements that are substantially
equivalent or equivalent to EPA's. The
procedure* and schedule for State
program modifications for either interim
or final authorization are described hi 40
CFR 271.21. It should be noted that the
interim authorization will expire on
January 1.1993 (see 40 CFR 271.24(c)).
40 CFR 271.21(e){2) requires that
States that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes, and most
subsequently submit the modification to
EPA for approval. The deadline for State
program modifications for today's final
rule is July 1,1989. if regulatory changes
are necessary, or July 1.1990, If
statutory changes are necessary. These
deadlines can be extended in
exceptional cases (see 40 CFR
271,21(e](3)). Once EPA approves the
modification, the State requirements
become Subtitle C RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may have requirements
similar to those in today's rule. These
Stale regulations have not been
assessed against the Federal regulations
being promulgated today to determine
whether they meet the teats for
authorization. Thus, a State U not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved.
Of course, States with existing
standards may continue to administer
and enforce their standards as a matter
of State law. In implementing the
Federal program EPA will work with
States under agreements to minimize
duplication of efforts. In many cases,
EPA will be able to defer to the States in
their efforts to implement their
programs, rather than take separate
actions under Federal authority.
States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations may be approved without
including equivalent standards.
However, once authorized, a State must
modify its program to include standards
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's within the time periods discussed
above.
C. State Implementation
There are three unique aspects of
today's rule which affect State
implementation and impact State
actions on the regulated community:
1. Under Part 268, Subpart C, EPA to
promulating land disposal restrictions
for all generators and disposers of
certain types of hazardous waste. In
order to retain authorization. States
must adopt the regulations under this
Subpart since State requirements can be
no less stringent than Federal
requirements.
2. Also under Part 288, EPA may grant
a national variance from tire effective
date of land disposal prohibitions for up
to 2 years if it is found that mere is
insufficient alternative capacity to land
disposal. Under S 2Bas, case-by-case
extensions of up to 1 year (renewable
for an additional year) may be granted
for specific applicants lacking adequate
capacity.
The Administrator of EPA is solely
responsible for granting variances to the
effective date because these
determinations must be made on a
national basis. In addition, it is clear
that section 3004(h)(3) intend* for the
Administrator to grant case-by-case
extensions after consulting the affected
States, on the basis of national concerns
which only the Administrator can
evaluate. Therefore, States cannot be
authorized for this aspect of the
program.
3. EPA may grant petitions of specific
duration to allow land disposal of
certain hazardous waste where it can be
demonstrated that there will be no
migration of hazardous constituent* for
as long as the waste remains hazardous.
States wfatefa;h*ve the authority to
impose prolabitrons may be authorized
under section 3006 to grant petitions for
exemptions from bans. Decisions on
she-specific petitions do not require the
national perspective required to prohibit
waste or grant extensions. In
accordance with section 3004$), EPA
will publish notice of the State's final
decision on petitions ia the Federal
Register.
One oommenter argued that EPA
should publish all petitions submitted by
authorized States, as well as publish
final decisions. EPA does not believe
that section 3004(i) mandates this result.
In order to be authorized to administer
the petition process, a State will have to
adopt notice and comment requirements
equivalent to those in today's rules.
Publication of the final decision in the
Federal Register will satisfy the need to
inform the general public by informing
the public of which facilities are allowed
to receire prohibited waste, andfey
informing other applicants as to the
types of petitions mat have been:'.
accepted. ~
States are free to impose their own
disposal prohibitions if such actions are
more stringent or broader in scope than
Federal programs {RCRA section 3009
and 4ft GFR 271.10)}. Where States
impose bans which contravene an EPA
action, such as granting a case-by-case
extension or petition, the more stringent
State prohibitions governs and EPA's
action is without meaning in the State.
VEU. Effects of the Land Disposal
Restrictions Program on Other
Rnvirnomantnl
A. Discharges Regulated Under the
deaa Water Act
Compliance with land disposal
restriction requirements does not relieve
facility owners of the obligation to
comply with all other Federal, State, and
local environmental requirements,
including the requirements of the Clean
Water Act Under the Clean Water Act.
facility owners must comply with all
applicable pretreatment requirements
(for discharges to a publicly owned
treatment works) and all requirements
of an NPDES permit (for discharges to
surface water).
The Agency recognizes that
generators and treaters of hazardous
wastes may choose to dispose of
restricted wastes using non-RCRA
disposal options.
Two disposal options regulated under
the Clean Water Act are direct
discharge to surface waters and indirect
-------
discharge to publicly owned sewage
treatment works (POTWs). Decisions to
discharge restricted solvent wastes
using these options will depend upon a
number of factors including the physical
form of the waste, the degree of
pretreatment required prior to discharge,
State and local regulations, and the cost
of disposal. The Agency conducted an
analysis to determine the impact of the
land disposal restrictions on these
alternative disposal methods (Ref. 10).
The analysis focused primarily on the
discharge of solvent wastes to POTWs
because the Agency lacked data to
analyze the impacts from spent solvent
wastes discharged directly to receiving
waters. However, inadequate data on
these above mentioned factors
precluded the Agency from conducting a
quantitative assessment of the potential
effect of the land disposal restrictions
on increased demand for disposal to
POTW's.
The results of the analysis indicated
that the quantity of F001-F005 solvents
discharged to POTWs could potentially
increase as much as five times, although
it is likely that the actual increase will
be much less. The analysis also
demonstrated that the discharge of
solvent constituents to POTWs will
probably result in some exposure to
humans. However, the risks to public
nealth and the environment from these
discharges could not be determined.
B. Discharges Regulated Under the
Marine Protection. Research, and
Sanctuaries Act
Two options regulated under the
Marine Protection. Research, and
Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) (33 U.S.C.
1401 et seq.) are ocean dumping and
ocean-based incineration. EPA is in the
process of revising the MPRSA
regulations. If the Agency were to relax
the current regulations, there could be
increased demand for ocean-based
waste management due to the impact of
the land disposal restrictions. If, for
example, the regulations were revised to
allow the issuance of permits to
applicants whose wastes fail to comply
with one or more of the MPRSA
environmental criteria but who
successfully demonstrate a need for the
permit, the demand for ocean disposal
could increase substantially.
The Agency conducted an analysis of
the potential shift in demand for ocean
disposal (ocean dumping or ocean-based
incineration) reiultsng from the
restrictions on land disposal of solvent,
dioxin, and California list wastes. The
results are described in "Assessment of
Impacts of Land Disposal Restrictions
on Ocean Dumping and Ocean
Incineration of Solvents, Dioxins, and
California Ust Wastes" (Ref. 12). This
assessment is based on a methodology
to score and rank waste streams for
relative acceptability for ocean disposal,
supplemented with an analysis of cost
factors and capacity constraints.
The scoring/ranking methodology is
based on technical requirements (e.g.,
, physical form and heating value) and
MPRSA environmental criteria (e.g.,
constituent concentrations, toxicity,
solubility, density, and persistence of
the waste) associated with ocean
disposal of hazardous waste. The
capacity analysis assumes that those
wastes least acceptable for ocean
disposal will be treated or disposed of
by land-based methods. The cost
analysis assumes that additional land-
based treatment capacity would be built
to treat waste streams for which the
costs of land-based treatment would be
less than the costs of ocean disposal
(including on land transportation to a
port located on the East Coast).
The results of the cost/capacity
analysis indicates that, as a result of the
land disposal restrictions,
approximately 9.2 million gallons per
year of solvent wastes and 1.2 million
gallons per year of dioxin wastes
potentially could create demand for
ocean dumping and ocean-based
incineration. Such demands result from
capacity short-falls of land-based
incineration and the relatively lower
cost of ocean dumping and ocean-based
incineration, taking into account the
costs of transportation on land. These
results estimate the demand that may be
created if the ocean dumping regulations
are revised to allow the issuance of
permits for wastes that do not comply
with MPRSA environmental criteria,
because the analysis did not take into
account technical requirements or
environmental criteria.
The Agency expanded the cost/
capacity analysis to eliminate those
wastes that do not meet technical
requirements or MPRSA criteria. The
results of that analysis indicated that
none of the solvent and dioxin waste
streams identified as likely to create
potential demand for ocean disposal in
the cost/capacity analysis would be
acceptable for ocean dumping, based on
existing ocean dumping regulations.
Conversely, all the waste streams
identified by the cost/capacity analysis
would be acceptable for ocean-based
incineration, based on technical
requirements and the proposed ocean
incineration regulations.
C. Air Emissions Regulated Under the
Clean Water Act
Many of the technologies capable of
achieving the treatment standard for a
restricted waste may result in cross-
media transfer of hazardous
constituents into the air. Examples
would be air-stripping of volatile
organics from wastewater and
incineration of metal-bearing spent
solvents. Unless air controls are added,
these technologies may result in transfer
of organics and metals, respectively, to
the atmosphere.
The Agency has undertaken several
efforts to address the potential problem,
as discussed in the comparative risk
assessment section. The Agency has
initiated a program to address metal
emissions from incinerators. EPA also
has initiated two programs under
section 3004(n) to address air emissions
from other sources. The first program
will address leaks from equipment, such
as pumps, valves, and vents from units
processing concentrated organics waste
streams. Several units identified as
BOAT in this rulemaking, batch
distillation, thin film evaporation,
fractionation, and incineration, would
process waste streams with greater than
ten percent organics and would be
covered by this rulemaking. Tie Agency
expects to propose these standards in
November 1988. The second program
under section 3004(n) will address all
remaining sources of air emissions, such
as residual air emissions from land
disposal units and non-land disposal
sources (e.g., tanks and waste transfer
and handling). These standards are
scheduled to be proposed in November
1987, and promulgated in November
1988.
IX. Implementation of the Part 288 Land
Disposal Restrictions Program
As a result of the regulations being
promulgated today under Part 268,
several options will be available to the
generator or owner/operator of a
treatment, storage, and disposal facility
for the management of restricted
hazardous wastes. In order to provide
direction to those who manage
restricted hazardous wastes, the
following decision-making sequences
are offered for determining appropriate
waste management procedures. This
unit provides references to applicable 40
CFR Parts 284 and 265 requirements as
well as Part 268 requirements for
implementation of the various waste
management options. The Agency
expects to produce an expanded version
of this section as guidance to the
regulated community.
All of the sequences in the generator's
decision-making process must
commence with a determination as to
whether the hazardous waste is listed in
Part 268 Subpart C. If the hazardous
-------
T
Fadstri Bagi»Ur / Vol 51. No. 216 / Friday. Ncrember 7. 1988 / Rules
^^^—^SI^^^^^S^^SS^^^SSS^^^^^^^^^^^fia^^ff^f^^^^^^^^^^^^B^i^BBiB^tufRBHtuti^^tnButi^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m
waste is not a restricted waste, it is not
subject to land disposal restriction*
under Part 288. It most nevertheless, be
managed in accordance Pacts 284 and
285.
Sequence 1: Waste Characterization
Sequence 1 in the generator's
decision-making process commences
with a determination of the appropriate
treattbility group and corresponding
Part 268 Subpart D treatment standard
(§ §268.41.288.42, or 268.43). The Agency
is requiring thai applicable Part 286
Subpart D treatment standards for a
restricted waste be determined at the
point of generation. To require
otherwise would allow the generator to
dilute waste in order to circumvent an
effective date or otherwise alter the
applicable treatment standard. The Part
288 Subpart D treatment standards are
expressed either as nerfonnaaoe
standards in the waste extract in
§ 26&41.£* required treatment methods
in S 288.42, or as concentretiomm the
waste in f 288.43. After the generator
establishes the applicable Part 268
Subpart D treatment standard, the next
step in the sequence is te-datennine th*
effective date of the applicable
treatment standard. EPA has the
discretionary authority to delay the
effective dates of the Part 288 treat
standards on the basis of available
national treatment capacity.
Determinations as to the adequacy of
treatment capacity for restricted wastes
are based on the quantity of restricted
wastes generated and the available
capacity of alternative treatment,
recovery, and disposal technologies. For
those wastes where EPA determines
that alternative capacity ia adequate,
the treatment standards will take effect
immediately upon promulgation. When
the Part 288 Subpart D treatment
standards are expressed as
concentrations in the waste extract
(§ 288.41), the need for treatment
depends upon the nature and
concentration of the hazardous
constituents. This will be determined
either through analysis of constituents in
the waste extract specified in i 288.7,
using the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (Appendix I to Part
288) or through knowledge of the
hazardous constituents in the waste
extract based on the materials and the
manufacturing processes generating the
waste. Where the Part 288 Subpart D
treatment standards are specified as a
required method (i 28842). it is not
necessary for the generator to determine
the concentration of the hazardous
constituents hi the waste or waste
extract When the Part 288 Subpart D
concentrations in the waste f S 288.43),
the need for treatment ia determined
either through analysis of -the hazardous
constituents in the waste, as specified in
9 288.7 or through knowledge of the
hazardous constituents hi the waste
based on the mateyiafa and the
mnnnfanfiirir^g p^vwoftypf osnBHttiag the
waste.
-------
jteggteiv/ Vol. si. No. 216 / Friday,
Sequence 2: Wastes That Naturally Meat
,. laaa , Rute. .„,
Subput D Tnatmrnt Sluntorf
c
Generator of Restricted Waste
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA)
Co to
Sequence 8
Does the
Waste Meet the
Part 268 Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Co to
Sequence 3,
Sequence 5.
Sequence 6.
Sequence 8.or
Sequence .10
Land Disposal Subtitle C
| r r- * 1 . ,
Deep Well
Injection
Surface
Impoundment
Landfill
i
Wasie Pile
*
Land Treatment
1
Subpart X
Sequence 2 in the generator's
decision-making process commences
with the determination that the
concentration of hazardous constituents
in the waste is lower than the applicable
Part 268 Subpart D treatment standard.
Therefore, the waste is exempt from the
statutory prohibition on land disposal.
The generator must submit a notice
(§ 268.7(a)(2)(i)) and include: (1) EPA
Hazardous Waste Number; (2) the
applicable treatment standard; (3) the
manifest number associated with the
shipment of waste; and (4) waste
analysis data, where available. The
generator must also submit a
certification statement to the land
disposal facility as required under
§ 288.7(a)(2)(ii). The land disposal
facility must verify the records
submitted by the generator in
accordance with the facility's waste
analysis plan. A generator that also
operates an on-site land disposal facility
must put the same information (except
for the manifest number) as would be in
the notice (5 268.7(a){2)(i)) in the
operating record of the land disposal
facility.
Muma cooe MM-M-M
-------
40622
Fedesal Bagiaier / VoL 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1988 / Rules and Regulations
Sequence 3: Treatment of Restricted Wawtea
c
Generator of Restricted Waste
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA)
Does the
Waste Meet the
Part 268 Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Co to
Sequence 9 1
jYes
I Treatment 1
On-Site
Treatment
Notice
of Applicable
Treatment
Standard
Part 268
Subpart D
Prior to
Shipment of
Waste
*
Off-Site
Treatment
*
i
Test According to
Waste Analysis
Plan
Waste
Characterization -
Through Knowledge
of Treatment Process
Does the
Waste Meet the
Part 268 Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Co to
Sequence 7. or
Sequence 8
(Treatment 1
Certification t
+
|
Co to
Sequence 8
Land Disposal Subtitle C
MM^—^— M _
1 1 i
Deep Well
Injection
Surface
Impoundment
Landfill
1 1
Waste Pile
Land Treatment
I
Subpart X
coot «**o-*o-c
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulation
Sequence 3 in the generator's
decision-making process commences
with one of the following
determinations: (1) The concentration of
hazardous constituents in the waste
extract exceeds the applicable § 268.41
treatment standard; (2) the waste must
be treated in accordance with the
treatment method required under
§ 268.42: or (3) the concentration of
hazardous constituents in the waste
exceeds the applicable § 268.43
treatment standard. In each case.
continued placement of the restricted
waste in land disposal units as of the
applicable effective date specified in
Part 268 Subpart C is prohibited.
Generators may store restricted
wastes on site in containers and tanks
according to the provisions in section
268.50 prior to treatment. This storage is
solely for the purpose of the
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as is necessary to
facilitate proper, recovery, treatment, or
disposal.
The generator must treat the restricted
waste in either an on-site or off-site
treatment facility with interim status or
a RCRA permit that is allowed to accept
the restricted waste (as specified in 40
CFR Part 270).
-An off-site treatment facility must
obtain a notice from the generator
specifying the EPA Hazardous Waste
Number, the applicable treatment
standard, and the manifest number
associated with the shipment of waste
§ 268.7(a){l)). This notice must be placed
in the operating record of the treatment
facility along with a copy of the
manifest. Generators who are also
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities
must place the same information in the
operating record of the facility, although
a formal notice and manifest are not
required. The testing and recordkeeping
requirements promulgated in today's
rule do not relieve the generator of his
responsibilities under 40 CFR 262.20 to
designate a facility on the manifest
which is permitted to accept the waste
for off-site management.
The determination that the treatment
residue meets the applicable § 268.41
treatment standard can be made through
knowledge of the hazardous -
constituents in the waste extract based
on the processes used in the treatment
of the waste or by analyzing the
treatment residuals according to the
waste analysis plan using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (Part
268. Appendix I). The determination that
the treatment residue meets the
applicable § 268.43 performance
standard can be made through
knowledge of the hazardous
constituents in the waste based on the
processes used in the treatment of the
water or by analyzing the treatment
residuals according to the waste
analysis plan. In either case, if the
concentration of hazardous constituents
in the treatment residual extract
exceeds § 268.41 treatment performance
standards, or the concentration of
hazardous constituents in the residual
exceeds § 268.43 treatment standards.
additional treatment must be performed
before land disposal is permitted.
Generators, transporters, handlers.
storage facilities, or treatment facilities
may not dilute restricted wastes as a
substitute for adequate treatment to
meet |§ 268.41 or 268.43 treatment
standards. Such actions will be
considered a violation of the dilution
prohibition. In particular, wastes
meeting Part 268 Subpart D treatment
standards must not be mixed with
wastes that do not meet such standards
in order to achieve the treatment
standard for the mixture (5 268.3). EPA
does not intend to disrupt or alter the
normal and customary practices of
40623
properly operated treatment facilities.
Treatment facilities can mix compatible
wastes in order to treat at capacity
levels. However, the concentration of a
hazardous constituent in the treatment
residual must not exceed the
concentration of the most stringent
applicable §§ 268.41 or 268.43 treatment
standard for any given constituent.
When shipping the treatment residue
to an interim status or RCRA permitted
land disposal facility, the treatment
facility must certify (as specified in
S 268.7(b)(2)) that the treatment residue
meets the applicable treatment
standards in §§ 268.41, or 268.43, or has
been treated using the required method
in § 268.42 and, therefore, is no longer a
restricted waste. The treater must also
send a notice to the land disposal
facility and include the EPA Hazardous
Waste Number, the applicable treatment
standard, the manifest number
associated with the shipment of waste.
and waste analysis data from treatment
residues where available as specified in
§ 268.7(b)(l). *.
If the treatment residuals meet the
delisting criteria, the generator or
treatment facility may petitioifcthe
Agency for a site-specific deliating
- pursuant to the provisions in 40 CFR
260.22. Delisted residuals can be
managed in subtitle D facilities.
In some cases, the generator or
treatment facility may conclude that it is
technically infeasible to meet the
55 268.41 or 268.43 treatment
performance standards established for
the waste. If a waste cannot meet the
applicable treatment standards, the
generator may petition EPA for a
treatability variance under § 268.44 (See
Sequence 7: Variance From a Treatment
Standard, for a detailed discussion.
MUWQ COOC MM-W-U
-------
Generator of Restricted Waste
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA)
Does the
Waste Meet
the Part 268
Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
s the
Treatment
Standard Effective
Immediate!
Go to
Sequence 2, or
Sequence 8
Delay Effective
Date Up to 2
Years
Notice
§ Land Disposal Subtitle C |
Co to
Sequence 3,
Sequence 5,
Sequence 6,
Sequence 7,
Sequence 8, or
^equence 10 -^
1
Deep Well
Injection
1 11 1 ' 1
Surface
Impoundment
Landfill
Waste Pile
Land Treatment
Subpart X
i
f
r
BILUNO CODE UW-SO-C
-------
Sequence 4 in the generator's
decision-making process commences for
those wastes where the Agency has
made the determination that capacity is
not adequate on a nationwide basis. The
Agency will exercise the discretion
granted to it under Section 3004(h)(2)
and authorize a nationwide variance of
up to two years from the statutory
effective date. The purpose of granting a
national variance is to provide time for
development of additional treatment.
recovery or disposal capacity. Those
wastes that EPA determines are eligible
for nationwide variances are specified
in Part 268 Subpart C.
During the national variance, the
generator must send a notice (as
specified in § 268.7(a)(3)J to the land
disposal facility indicating that EPA has
granted an extension of time in which to
comply with the applicable Part 268
Subpart D treatment standard. At the
end of the national variance, the Part
268 Subpart D treatment standards takes
effect and the generator must follow any
of the following sequences: Sequence 3:
Treatment of a Restricted Waste,
Sequence 5: Case-by-Case Extensions,
Sequence 6: No Migration Petition,
Sequence 8: Delisting, or Sequence 10:
Change Production Process. Recycle or
Don't Produce Waste.
MLUNO CODE «MO-M-M
-------
Generator of Restricted Waste
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA)
Does the
Waste Meet the
Part 268 Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Co to
Sequence 2 or
Sequence 8
Case-by-Case
Extention
Up to 2 Years
[
Land Disposal Subtitle C
J_
Go to
Sequence 3,
Sequence 6,
Sequence 8, or
.Sequence 10
I
M
DILUNO CODE MWMO-C
-------
Federal
/ VoL 51. No. ae /
Sequence 5 in the generator's
decision-making process commences
with a determination that the restricted
waste does not comply with the
applicable §§ 288.41 or 268.43 treatment
standards or that the waste must be
treated in accordance with the
treatment method required under
§ 268.42. Continued placement of the
restricted waste in land disposal units
as of the applicable effective date, as
specified in Part 268 Subpart C, is
prohibited. The generator may submit an
application to EPA, as specified in
§ 268.5, for an extension of time in
which to comply with the Part 268
Subpart D treatment standards by
demonstrating binding contractual
commitments to construct or otherwise
obtain access to alternative treatment,
recovery or disposal capacity' and that
such capacity is not available by the
date that the Subpart D treatment
standards take effect due to
circumstances beyond his control. Case-
by-case extensions may be granted by
EPA for two 1-year periods. The
extension does not become effective
until the notice of approval appears in
the Federal Register as specified in
§ 268.5(e). The generator must forward a
notice, as specified in § 268.7(a)(3).
Sequence 8: No Migration Petition
stating that the waste is exempt from
the land disposal restrictions to the
Subtitle C land disposal facility
receiving the restricted waste.
If the generator is denied a case-by-
case extension, the next step in this
sequence is the consideration of the
following waste management options:
the generator must successfully find
available treatment capacity (Sequence
3), submit a no migration petition
(Sequence 6), submit a delisting petition
(Sequence 8), change his production
processes, or recycle so that restricted
wastes are no longer generated
(Sequence 10).
Generator of Restricted Waste
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA)
No Migration^i2_
.Petition.
Yes
Co to
Sequence 3,
Sequence 5,
Sequence 7.
Sequence 8, or
Sequence 10
Notice
r 1 r- — * -— : — .
Deep Well
Injection
Surface
Impoundment
t
Landfill
1
Waste Pile
I
Land Treatment
1
Subpart X
-------
4062a__Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 /Friday. November 7, 1966 / Rules and Regulations
Sequence 6 of the generator's
decision-making process commences
with a determination that the waste
does not meet the 51288.41 of 288.43
treatment standards or that the waste
must b« treated by the method required
in § 268.42 Wastes that do not comply
with applicable §§ 288.41 or 268.43
treatment standards or are not treated
by the method required in § 268.42 will
be prohibited from continued placement
in land disposal units as of the
applicable effective date, unless the
generator in conjunction with a
Treatment. Storage, and Disposal
Facility (TSDF) or a TSDF submits a no
migration petition. The petition as
specified in § 268.6 must demonstrate
that there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents from the
continued land disposal of particular
restricted hazardous wastes at a specific
land disposal unit for as long as the
waste remains hazardous. The land
disposal facility must have either
interim status or a RCRA permit, as .
required in 40 CFR Part 270, to manage
the waste. The no migration petition will
be a difficult demonstration, but the
Agency has identified the following
three scenarios that may satisfy the
requirements of the statutory standard
of "no migration": (1) A situation where
environmental parameters are such that
no detectable migration of hazardous
constituents would occur from the
disposal unit; (2) a situation where an
active process is taking place rendering
the waste non-hazardous; or (3) a
situation where hazardous waste is
being stored temporarily in a waste pile
where engineered controls are sufficient
to prevent migration in the short term.
Although the Agency is not providing
guidance on the no migration petition at
this time, it is, however, offering the
opportunity for preapplication meetings
as assistance in preparing a no
migration petition. As a result of such a
meeting both the Agency and the
petitioner will gain a better
understanding of what must be included
in the petition and the probability of
developing a successful petition. An
approved petition allows the land
disposal of specific restricted wastes at
a specific site. A facility must observe
approval in the Federal Register
(S 268.6(g)) before it can land dispose a
restricted waste. The generator must
forward a notice as specified in
§ 268.7(a)(3) staring that the waste is
exempt from the land disposal
restrictions to the Subtitle C facility
receiving the restricted waste.
Where a no migration petition is not
granted, the generator may follow
courses of action in accordance with the
folio wing, sequences; Sequence 3:
Treatment of a Restricted Waste,
Sequence 5: Case-By-Case Extensions,
Sequence 7: Variance From a Treatment
Standard, Sequence 8: Delisting. or
Sequence 10: Change Production
Process. Recycle, or Don't Produce the
Waste.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 51. No. 218 / Friday, November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations 40629
Sequence 7: Variance From a Treatment Standard
Generator of Restricted .Waste
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA)
Identify Applicable
Part 268 Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Go to
Sequence 4
Can the
Waste Meet the
Applicable Part 268
Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Go to
Sequence 3
Variance
from the Part 268
Subpart D
Treatment
tan'dard
Go to
Sequence 3,
Sequence 6,
Sequence 8, or
Sequence 10
Is
Treatment
Standard Effective
Immediately
Go to
Sequence 4
Go to
Sequence 3
Sequence 7 of the generator's
decision-making process begins when a
generator determines that he cannot
treat the waste to the Part 268 Subpart O
treatment standard as specified in
§§ 268.41, 268.42, or 268.48. The
generator may submit a petition for a
variance from the treatment standard as
specified under § 268.44. The Agency
envisions that wastes may be subject to
a treatability variance in cases where a
waste is not treatable to the level or by
the method specified in the treatment
standard. This may occur when a waste
is significantly different from the wastes
considered in establishing the treatment
standard either because the waste
matrix is complex and more difficult to
treat or the waste contains higher
concentrations of the hazardous
constituents. The information as
specified in §§ 268.44 must be included
in the petition for a variance from a Part
268 Subpart D treatment standard.
When the Agency grants a variance
from a treatment standard, it must
subsequently make a national capacity
determination regarding the availability
of appropriate treatment capacity for
that waste. For those wastes where EPA
determines that capacity for the
appropriate treatment technology is
adequate, the performance standard set
as a result of the variance from the
treatment standard will take effect
immediately upon promulgation.
Otherwise, the Agency will grant a
national capacity variance (Sequence 4)
of up to two years during which time the
continued placement of untreated waste
in land disposal facilities regulated
under Subtitle C of RCRA will be
allowed.
Where a variance from a treatment
standard is not granted, the waste may
be managed in accordance with
Sequence 3: Treatment of Restricted
Wastes, Sequence 5: Case-By-Case -
Extension, Sequence 6: No Migration
Petition, Sequence 8: Delisting, and
Sequence 10: Change Production
Process, Recycle, or Don't Produce the
Waste.
-------
4Q6M___FederdRng«te_/VoL si. No. 216 / Eriday, November 7. 1966 / Rule* and Regulations
Sequence ft Dollsting
T
v 4
Counter ot RttUicUd WMU
(Indudtot Cwnom Action ind CEXCLA)
Sequence 8 commences with the
generator's determination that the waste
is restricted (40 CER Part 288 Subpart C).
Upon evaluation of the available waste
management options, and possibly after
treatment (including treatment not
meeting the treatment standards of
§§ 238.41-268.43) the generator may
decide to submit a petition to EPA for a
site-specific delisting, pursuant to the
provisions in 40 CFR 260.22. Delisted
wastes are no longer considered
hazardous and may be disposed in a
Subtitle D facility.
The generator may choose to submit a
delisting petition to the Agency after the
restricted waste has been treated to the
Part 268 Subpart O treatment standard
as well as after the denial of any of the
exceptions to achieving the Part 268
Supart D treatment standard.
-------
Sequence ft Surface Impoundment Exemption
Generator of Restricted Waste
(Including Corrective Action and CERCLA)
Is the
aste Amenable
to Treatment in
a Surface
Impoundment
Go to
Sequence 3
Does the
Surface
Impoundment Meet
the Minimum
Technology
equirements
Co to
Sequence 3
Identify Applicable
Part 268 Subpart O
Treatment
Standard
Co to
Sequence 7
i
Test to Determine if
the Waste Meets
the Applicable
§§ 268.41 or 268.43
*
I
Treat Using the
Method Specified
in § 268.42
1
BILUNO COOC (MO-40-
Does the
Waste Meet the
Part 268 Subpart D
Treatment
Standard
Co to
Sequence3, or
Sequence 8
-------
40632
Federal Renter / Vd. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7, 1988 / Rules and Regulation
Sequence 9 in the generator's
decision-making process commences
with a determination by the generator
that the restricted waste does not
comply with the applicable Part 268
Subpart D treatment standard and will
be prohibited from continued placement
in land disposal units as of the
applicable effective date. The generator
may treat in an interim status or RCRA
permitted surface impoundment meeting
the minimum technology requirements in
accordance with 40 CFR 264.221(c) and
285.221(a) and that is in compliance with
40 CFR Part 264 or 265 Subpart F as
applicable (i.e., it has been constructed
with two or more liners, and a leachate
collection system, and is in compliance
with ground water monitoring
requirements). On an annual basis, the
facility must identify the treatability
group and Part 268 Subpart D treatment
standard applicable to the contents of
the surface impoundment. If the
applicable Part 268 Subpart D treatment
standard is specified in f 268.42. the
contents of the surface impoundment
must be treated using the required
method.
A request for a variance from the
treatment standards, (as specified in
I 268.44). set under Part 268 Subpart D
may be submitted if in the identification
of an applicable Part 268 Subpart D
treatability group the response is
negative.
The need for treatment depends on
the concentration of the hazardous
constituents in the waste extract as
specified in § 268.41 or on the
concentration of the hazardous
constituents in the waste itself as
specified in § 268.43. Therefore, the
facility must analyze the contents of the
surface impoundment annually in
accordance with $ 288.4(a}(2).
Impoundment residues that do not meet
the applicable Part 268 Subpart D
treatment standards (§§ 268.41 or 268.43)
must be removed and managed as a
restricted waste, and cannot be further
treated in a surface impoundment. The
options available for management of the
restricted waste are as discussed in
Sequence 3: Treatment of Restricted
Wastes. Sequence 6: No Migration
Petition, and Sequence 8: Delisting.
Surface impoundment residues that
meet the applicable Part 268 Subpart D
treatment standard are exempt from the
statutory prohibitions on land disposal
The residue may remain in the
impoundment or may be otherwise land
disposed in a Subtitle C facility. If the
residue remains in the surface
impoundment, certification that the
hazardous waste complies with the
treatment standard must be put in the
operating record of the land disposal
unit. Residues that are removed and
land disposed off-site must be
accompanied with the notice and
certification as specified in S 268.7(a){2).
Sequence 10: Change Production
Process, Recycle or Don't Produce the
Waste
Generator of Restricted Waste
Sequence 10 of the generator's
decision-making process represents an
opportunity that always presents itself
to any generator of hazardous wastes:
the decision to change production
processes or to recycle wastes so that
restricted hazardous wastes are no
longer produced. Waste minimization is
strongly encouraged.
X. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Order 12291 requires EPA
to assess the effect of contemplated
Agency actions during the development
of regulations. Such an assessment
consists of a quantification of the
potential benefits and costs of the rule.
as well as a description of any
beneficial or adverse effects that cannot
be quantified in monetary terms.
In addition. Executive Order 12291
requires that regulatory agencies
prepare an analysis of the regulatory
impact of major rules. Major rules are
defined as those likely to result in:
1. An annual cost to the economy of
$100 million or more; or
2. A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers or individual industries:
or
3. Significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or
international trade.
The Agency has performed an
analysis of the rule to assess the
economic effect of associated
compliance costs. Based on this
analysis, EPA has determined that
restricting the land disposal of solvent
and dioxin wastes will constitute a
major rule as defined by Executive
Order 12291. because the total
annualized cost of this rule is $152.4
million. In consequence, EPA has
prepared a regulatory impact analysis of
this rule.
The remainder of Unit X describes the
economic analysis performed by EPA in
support of today's final rule.
1. Cost and Economic Impact
Methodology
EPA has assessed the cost and
potential economic effects of today's
rule and of the major regulatory
alternatives. For its analysis of solvent
wastes, EPA has examined two
alternatives to today's final rule. The
first alternative is to codify the statutory
prohibition on land disposal of affected
wastes. This approach would prohibit
the land disposal of all solvent vwstes
at any concentration. The secondt
approach is to use risk-based softening
levels in the development of treateent
standards. Costs and benefits ofboth
these alternatives are described in more
detail in the regulatory impact analysis
of restricting solvents from land
disposal.
For dioxin wastes, no less stringent
alternative could be examined, because
the dioxin listing requires incineration to
six 9s DRE or the application of a
thermal technology of equivalent
performance.
The methodology for establishing total
costs and impacts involves three steps.
First. EPA estimates the population of
facilities and waste management
practices which will be affected. Next.
total social costs of the regulation are
derived by adding costs tor individual
facilities. Finally, economic impacts on
affected facilities are assessed.
a. Affected population and practices.
The affected population is the total
number of hazardous waste treatment,
storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs)
and generators land disposing of
affected wastes either directly at the
generation site or indirectly through the
purchase of commercial land disposal
services. This group's waste
management practices are assessed to
identify costs of managing wastes and
incremental cost increases attributable
to today's rule.
The number of facilities that land
dispose of affected wastes was
determined using the EPA's 1981 RIA
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
•*
Mail Survey.13 Waste quantities and
management practices for facilities
responding to the Mail Survey are
scaled up to represent the national
population by means, of weighting
factors developed for the Survey. EPA
estimates that 74 facilities comprise the
total national population of commercial
and noncommercial facilities land
disposing of affected wastes on-site.
EPA estimates that generators sending
more than 1.000 kilograms per month of
waste off-site for management add an
additional 5.511 plants. Generators of
less than 1,000 kilograms per month
were not included in the 1981 Survey
because they were considered exempt at
that time.
Because the 1984 RCRA amendments
direct EPA to lower the exemption for
small quantity generators (SQGs) from
1.000 to 100 kilograms per month by
March 31,1986, SQGs generating
between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of
waste per month for off-site disposal are
also included in the affected population.
The Agency estimates that SQGs add
14,400 plants to the affected population.
Plant and waste specific data on this
group are derived from EPA's Small
Quantity Generator Survey.
Current management practices for
these groups include the cost of
compliance with regulations which have
taken effect since 1981. In particular,
EPA adjusted waste management
practices as reported in 1981 to reflect
compliance with the provisions of 40
CFR Part 284 of RCRA. In making this
adjustment, the Agency assumes
facilities elect the least costly legal
methods of compliance.
b. Development of costs. Once waste
quantity, type and method of treatment •
are known for the affected population.
EPA estimates costs of compliance for
individual facilities. The Agency
developed facility-specific costs in two
components, which are weighted and
then summed to estimate total national
costs of the rule. The first component of
the total compliance cost is incurred
annually for operation and maintenance
(O&M) of alternative modes of waste
treatment and disposal. The second
component of the compliance cost is a
capital cost, which is an initial outlay
incurred for construction and
la EPA conducted the RIA Mail Survey of
hazardous waste generators and TSDFs to
determine waste management practices in 1981. The
survey included both generators of hazardous
wastes and facilities treating, storing, or disposing
of wastes. Facilities that handled less than 1000
kilograms of waste per month were not regulated in
1961 and thus, are not included in the data. For
more information see the "National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment.
Storage and Disposal Facilities Regulated under
RCRA in 1981." (April 1984).
depreciable assets. Capital costs are
restated as annual values using a capital
recovery factor based on a real cost of
capital of 7 percent. These annualized
costs are then added to yearly O&M
costs to derive an annual equivalent
cost. This is EPA's estimate of the
impact of the regulation on annual firm
cashflow.
c. Economic Impact Analysis. (I) Non-
Commercial TSDFs and SQGs.
Economic impacts on non-commercial
facilities and SQGs are assessed in
several steps. First, a general screening
analysis compares facility-specific
incremental costs to financial
information about firms, disaggregated
by Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) and number of employees per
facility. This comparison generates two
ratios, which are used to identify
facilities likely to experience adverse
economic effects. The first is a ratio of
individual facility compliance costs to
costs of production. A change exceeding
five percent is considered to imply a
substantial adverse economic effect on a
facility. The second is a "coverage"
ratio, relating cash from operations to
cost of compliance. For this ratio, a
value of less than 20 is considered to
represent a significant adverse impact.
Once facilities experiencing adverse
impacts are identified using the two
screening ratios, more detailed1 financial
analysis is performed to verify the
results and focus more closely on
affected firms. For this subset of
facilities, the coverage ratio is adjusted
to allow a portion of costs to be passed
through. Economic effects on facilities
are examined assuming product price
increases of one and five percent are
possible. Those facilities for which the
coverage ratio is less than two are
considered likely to close.
(2) Commercial TSDFs. Commercial
TSDFs are defined here as those
facilities which accept fees in exchange
for managing wastes generated
elsewhere. For this group of facilities,
there exists no Census SIC from which
to draw financial information. Two SICs
which we might use as proxies, 4953 and
4959, do not distinguish between
financial data for hazardous waste
treatment firms and for firms managing
municipal wastes. Consequently, our
analysis of economic effects on
commercial facilities is qualitative.
(3) Generators of large quantities of
wastes. EPA's analysis of the effects of
this rule on generating plants disposing
of large quantities of affected wastes
off-site assumes that commercial
facilities can entirely pass on to them
the costs of compliance with this
regulation in the form of higher prices
for waste management services.
Because of data limitations in the Mail
Survey, EPA has not developed plant-
specific waste characterization,
treatment methods, and compliance
costs for generators, as it has fop TSDFs.
Our analysis of the economic effects of
the rule on this group uses Survey data
to develop model plants generating
average, maximum and minimum waste
quantities. This allows EPA to assess
the range of possible effects on
generating plants.
2. Costs and Economic Impacts
a. Total costs and economic impacts
for solvent wastes. Total annualized
compliance costs for facilities currently
land disposing of solvent wastes are
$147 million. Commercial TSDFs
account for 62 percent of this total,
while non-commercial TSDFs account
for the balance. Although SQGs
constitute 72 percent of the total
population of TSDFs and generators of
solvent waste, they account for only 12
percent of the total costs. These costs
are not adjusted for the effect jf
taxation, which is merely a trqpsfer
from one sector of the economy to
another. Costs are stated in 18JB5 dollars.
Economic effects have been%ssessed
for both non-commercial and •£
commercial facilities. Non-commercial
facilities are those which do not accept
fees in exchange for management and
disposal of wastes generated by other
plants. Among the 48 non-commercial
facilities, twelve appear likely to be
significantly affected because of
compliance costs imposed by this rule.
Based on further analysis, three of these
twelve facilities seem likely to close.
Employment effects associated with
these potential closures amount to 224
jobs lost.
Among commercial facilities (i.e..
those which manage the wastes of other
firms-for a fee) direct effects were
impossible to assess due to the lack of
any appropriate Standard Industrial
Classification code (SIC) from which to
draw Census financial data. Therefore.
EPA's analysis has assumed that
commercial facilities will be able to
pass the increased costs of regulatory
compliance on to their customers in the
form of higher prices. The cost of
compliance with today's rule is thus
assumed to fall on consumers of
commercial hazardous waste
management services, and a qualitative
assessment of economic effects on
commercial facilities is performed.
We estimate that 26 commercial
facilities will incur incremental costs as
a result of today's final rule. Forty
percent of these commercial facilities
-------
40634 Federal Regfeter / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
T
offer a range of hazardous waste
management services, including land-
bnsed disposal, storage and treatment^
For these facilities, the increased
demand this rule will create for more
hlghly-price treatment services may
actually increase firm financial viability.
For the 27 percent of commercial
facilities which offer solely land-based
management of restricted wastes, on the
other hand, the increased emphasis on
treatment prior to land disposal may
reduce demand for these services. It was
not possible to characterize the
remaining 33 percent of commercial
facilities based on services offered.
Based on RIA Mail Survey data, the
five industrial sectors which send the
majority of the solvent waste to each
commercial facility have been identified.
Actual plants generating these wastes
cannot be identified using Mail Survey
data. Therefore. EPA examines
economic effects on generating plants
using model plants generating minimum.
maximum and average quantities for
each sector identified in the RIA Mail
Survey. Ratios of the compliance costs
to costs of production, and gross margin
to compliance costs are examined for
each of the five sectors which sends
affected waste to each of these 26
facilities. This procedure is intended to
bound the range of economic effects
likely to occur among generating plants.
Economic effects presented in this unit
are based on average waste quantities.
This analysis identifies 98 industrial
sectors, representing 5.511 plants.
generating solvent waste for off-site
commercial management. Of these 5.511
plants. 1,004 may experience significant
economic impacts. Among the most
adversely affected plants are
manufacturers of fabricated metals
products (SIC 34). This sector includes
718 significantly affected facilities.
Other affected sectors include SIC 33,
primary metals products, in which 167
plants may close, and SIC 28, the
chemical industry, in which 42 plants
may close. Based on further analysis. 79
of these facilities appear likely to close.
Job loss associated with these closures
amounts to 5.240 jobs in the plating and
polishing industry and 187 in the
industrial inorganic chemicals industry.
Total annualized costs for the 14,400
small quantity generators of solvent
wastes are SI8 million. Based on the
estimated cost for off-site incineration.
maximum incremental compliance
charges for any individual SQG will not
exceed £13.200 annually. Economic
ratios were examined for all SQGs in
each sector identified in the EPA survey
as generating solvent wastes. Based on
this examination, EPA identified 975
facilities which may be significantly
affected by compliance costs of this
rule. On closer examination, no SQGs
appeared likely to close as a result of
costs imposed by this rule.
b. Total costs and economic impacts
for dioxin wastes. Total annualized
compliance costs for the approximately
47 non-soil sources of dioxin wastes are
$3.2 million. Costs for managing that
portion of the estimated 1.1 billion
pounds of existing dioxin-contaminated
soil for which this regulation will require
BOAT treatment are $2.2 million. A
preliminary study of dioxin-
contaminated soils suggests that only 5
percent of the total quantity will require
incineration, and the costs reflect this
finding. Ninety-five percent of these
soils. EPA estimates, will not be subject
to restrictions on land disposal because
they will meet the treatment standard.
Economic effects appear most
significant for plants in SIC 2869 as a
result of the restriction of dioxin wastes.
This sector manufactures industrial
organic chemicals, with major products
such as solvents, noncyclic organics,
and polyhydric alcohols. One plant may
close as a result of restrictions in this
group. Other affected SIC sectors
include 2879, in which one plant may
close. SIC 2879 includes plants
manufacturing pesticides and
agricultural chemicals for household and
farm use.
3. Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of the
Restrictions Rule
a. Benefits and cost-effectiveness of
restricting land disposal of solvent-
containing wastes. The Agency
performed a benefits analysis that
assessed the incremental reductions in
human health effects taking into account
net changes in risk resulting from the
use of alternative solvent waste
management practices. Based on this
analysis of relative risks, it was
determined that substantial reductions
in both average and maximum health
risks are possible when alternative
technologies to land disposing solvent
wastes are used. Incineration and
distillation of halogenated (F001 and
F002) solvent wastes result in
substantial reductions in human health
risk when compared to disposal of such
wastes in land disposal units.
Incineration reduces average risks by a
minimum of four orders of magnitude
from the levels for landfills, a factor that
is similarly reflected by the reductions
in risk to the most exposed individual
(MEI). Risk reductions for halogenated
solvent wastes disposed in surface
impoundments are also substantial. For
the non-halogenated wastes, although
risk levels were substantially reduced.
the reduction in human health risk were
less significant, since initial levels were
often below the Acceptable Daily Intake
(ADI).
Benefits attributable to the
restrictions on solvent wastes have also
been assessed by the Agency in another
regulatory impact analysis prepared in
support of the overall land disposal
restrictions program (see "Draft
Regulatory Analysis of Proposal
Restrictions on Land Disposal of
Hazardous Wastes" in the RCRA docket
entitled LDR-2). Relevant data on the
restricted F001-F005 wastes provided in
this analysis may be summed to obtain
a total incremental benefit (number of
cases of cancer or cancer-equivalence
avoided) of 116 cases avoided or
annualized benefits for solvents equal to
1.66 cases avoided. Division of the total
annualized cost of the solvents land
disposal restrictions, $147 million, by the
annualized cases avoided, 1.66,
determines that the cost of the
regulation is $88.7 million per cancer
case avoided.
The benefits in both RIA documents
discussed above may be underestimated
in this analysis because the estimates
are baaed solely on the adverse Buman
health effects resulting from exposure to
the solvent constituents in these wastes.
Other benefit considerations.
specifically environmental benefits,
risks from minimization of liner
degradation, and risks attributable to
mobilization of other toxic constituents
land disposed with solvents, were not
evaluated. Since the benefits analysis is
based only on the toxicity of the
solvents themselves, the benefits of the
land disposal restrictions for spent
solvent wastes may be significantly
underestimated.
b. Benefits and cost-effectiveness of
restricting land disposal of diox in-
containing wastes. The assessment of
risk associated with today's rule
depends to a significant degree on
assumptions regarding baseline disposal
practices and on the population exposed
to releases from land disposal. These
assumptions and their effect on the
benefit estimates are discussed in detail
in the supporting RIA (Ref. 9).
Based on the assumptions regarding
incineration performances and baseline
practices that effectively minimize risks,
it appears that reductions in expected
health effects would be insignificant for
many of the affected dioxin wastes.
Baseline MEI risks for some dioxin
wastes were high and would be reduced
significantly by incineration. The
benefits of the rule depend strongly on
whether discharge of untreated scrubber
water (with undetectable levels of
-------
Federal Register / Vol.
No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules aad
dioxi'nj from incinerators are likely to
occur and whether spills and run-off
from landfill or incineration facilities are
likely to result in contamination of
surface waters. Such surface water
contamination, however, is not expected
to occur. Although the rule may not
reduce expected levels of health effects
for many types of dioxin wastes, it may
reduce the uncertainty about potential
risks associated with the current
regulatory status for dioxins.
Quantification of the incremental
benefits for restricting land disposal of
dioxin wastes results in a calculated
annualized dioxin benefit value of zero
cases avoided, though as noted above,
this risk estimate is very dependent on
assumptions about population exposed
and treatment of scrubber waters from
incinerators (of which there are
currently none), and may significantly
underestimate actual risk reductions.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., whenever an
agency is required to publish a 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
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e.,
small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions).
This analysis is unnecessary, however,
if the Administrator certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic
effect on a substantial number of small
entities.
EPA has examined the rule's potential
effect on small business as required by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and has
concluded that this regulation will not
have a significant effect on a substantial •
number of small entities. As a result of
this finding. EPA has not prepared a
formal Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in
support of this rule. The following
discussion summarizes the methodology
used in the small business analysis and
the findings on which the conclusions
above are based. More detailed
information is available in the
documents assembled in the record
prepared in support of this rulemaking.
1. Economic Impact on Small Businesses
EPA evaluated the economic effect of
today's rule on small businesses, which
are defined as those facilities employing
fewer than 50 persons. Because of data
limitations, this small business analysis
excludes generators of large quantities
of affected wastes. The universe of
small businesses that were examined in
the analysis here includes two groups:
all TSDFs employing fewer than 50
people, and all SQGs which are also
small businesses. Eleven TSDFs are
small businesses. None of these exceed
threshold values on the cost of
production ratio. Twenty-five percent
(twelve out of 48) of all non-commercial
facilities are expected, to experience
adverse economic effects.
Of the total of 14,400 small quantity
generators examined in this analysis.
the vast majority (10,395 or 72 percent)
are also small businesses. A total of 58
SQGs (or .6 percent of small businesses
SQGs) exceeded threshold values on the
cost of production ratio. For the
population of small businesses as a
whole, less than one percent are likely
to be affected.
The small business analysis
performed for sources of dioxin wastes
revealed that no plants employing fewer
than 50 persons experience significant
economic effects as a result of costs
imposed by this regulation.
2. Certification of Finding That No
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Is
Required
This rule was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review, as required by Executive Order
12291. EPA performed an analysis.
described above, to determine whether
this rule would impose significant costs
on small entities (see U.S. EPA, 1985).
Results of the analysis indicate that this
rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Accordingly, I hereby certify that this
regulation will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, this regulation does
not require a Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis.
C. Review of Supporting Documents and
Response to Public Comment
1. Review of Supporting Documents
The primary source of information on
current land disposal practices and
industries affected by restrictions on
solvent waste is EPA's 1981 National
Survey of Hazardous Waste Generators
and Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities (referred to in this preamble as
the "RIA Mail Survey"). Waste stream
characterization data and engineering
costs of waste management are based
on the Mail Survey and on reports by
the Mitre Corporation "Composition of
Hazardous Waste Streams Currently
Incinerated." (April 1983). and U.S. EPA
"The RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis Model,"
(March 1984). The survey, of Small
Quantity Generators has been the major
source of data on this group. EPA's
Office of Research and Development
developed estimates of the type and
quantity of wastes containing dioxins
and meeting the listing definitions for
these wastes.
For financial and value of shipment
information for the general screening
analysis, 1982 Census data was used,
adjusted by 1983 Annual Census of
Manufactures data. Producer price
indices were also used to restate 1983
dollars in 1985 terms.
2. Response to Comments
Several commenters contend that EPA
has grossly understated the total costs
of this rule because the Agency failed to
consider product substitution. In
particular, commenters were concerned
that some producers of certain inputs to
other end products may suffer as
downstream manufacturers switch to
inputs which generate less hazardous
waste.
EPA disagrees with the commenters'
statement that the total cost of the rule
is understated. In fact, because EPA's
analysis does not allow for longer term
market adjustments such as product
substitution, it overstates total costs.
The switch to products and Aputs which
generate less hazardous waafe will
undoubtedly cause short-ten*
dislocation and economic hatdship, both
to the suppliers of highly polluting inputs
and to the manufacturers forced by
higher waste treatment costs to switch
to higher cost inputs.
Other commenters argue that the
Agency has not sufficiently balanced
cost and risk in designing regulations
restricting land disposal. EPA believes
that its consideration of costs and
benefits has been comprehensive and
consistent with Executive Order 12291.
One commenter stated the EPA's
assessment that land disposal
restrictions on solvent wastes did not
constitute a major rule was incorrect.
EPA agrees with the commenter. Based
on the Agency's reassessment of
treatment costs, EPA now considers this
final rule to be- major by the criteria
given in Executive Order 12291.
Another commenter expressed
concern that restricted wastes will
compete with non-restrictive wastes for
alternative capacity. Given the cost
differential between direct land
disposal which EPA is prescribing for
regulated waste, and treatment through
incineration or other treatment
technology, it is likely that restricted
wastes will use what limited
incineration capacity exists.
The commenter correctly points out
that the increased demand for waste
treatment services may have the effect
of driving up the price of these services,
thus making it uneconomic for non-
-------
40036 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
restricted wastes to be treated in BOAT
treatments. EPA also believes it likely
that alternative capacity will be
rationed through the medium of price.
and that producers of non-restricted
wastes may find the new price
prohibitive. This effect of establishing
treatment priorities is expected to
prevent the use of limited incineration
capacity on non-restricted wastes which
do not present the environmental
dangers associated with restricted
wastes.
Finally, some commenters objected
that EPA did not consider economic
achievability in setting treatment
standards. Economic achievability is not
a consideration for rulemaking under
RCRA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., requires that the
information collection requirements of
proposed and final rules be submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for approval. OMB has approved
the information collection requirements
contained in this rule and assigned the
OMB Control Number 2050-0062
This rule modifies another information
collection requirement that has been
approved by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act and given the number
2050-0012. The appropriate changes to
these requirements have been approved
by OMB.
XI. References
Background Documents
(I) U.S. EPA. "Background Document for
Solvent*, to Support Land Disposal
Restrictions. Vol. I." U.S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC 1988.
(2) U.S. EPA. "Background Document for
Solvents, to Support Land Disposal
Restrictions. Vol. H." U.S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC. 1986.
(3) U.S. EPA. "Background Document for
Toxlclty Characteristic Leaching Procedure:
Final TCLP Response to Technical and
Procedural Comments Pursuant to the Final
Land Disposal Restrictions Rule for Solvents
«nd Dioxins." U.S. EPA. OSW. Washington.
DC. 1988.
(4) U.S. EPA. "BOAT Background
Document for F001-F005 Spent Solvents."
US. EPA. OSW. Washington. DC 1986.
(5) U.S. EPA. "Comparative Risk Case
Study for Metal-Bearing Solvent Wastes."
U.S. EPA. OSW. Washington^DC. 1988.
(8) U.S. EPA. "Thermal Treatment
Background Information, to Support Land
Disposal Restrictions." U.S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC. 1986.
Guidance Documents
(7] U.S. EPA. "Interim Status Surface
Impoundments Retrofitting Variances
Guidance Document." U.S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC. EPA/530-SW-66-017.1986.
(8) U.S. EPA. "Waste Analysis Plant. A
Guidance Manual." U.S. EPA, OSW.
Washington. DC 1984.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
(9) U.S. EPA. "Regulatory Analysis of
Restrictions on Land Disposal of Certain
Dioxin-Containing Wastes." U.S. EPA. OSW
Washington. DC 1986.
(10) U.S. EPA. "Regulatory Analysis of
Restrictions on Land Disposal of Certain
Solvent Wastes." U.S. EPA. OSW.
Washington. DC, 1986.
Other References
(11) Acurex Corp. "Characterization of
Hazardous Waste Incineration Residuals."
U.S. EPA. Contract No. 68-03-3241.1986.
(12) ICF, Inc. "Assessment of Impacts of
LDR on Ocean Disposal of Solvents. Dioxins.
and California List Wastes." U.S. EPA. OSW,
EPA Contract No. 68-01-7259,1986.
(13) ICF. Inc. "Scoping Analysis for RCRA
Section 300S(j)(ll)." U.S. EPA. OSW, EPA
Contract No. 68-01-6621,1985.
(14) Industrial Economics. "Regulatory
Analysis of Waste-As-Fuei Technical
Standards." Prepared for U.S. EPA, OSW.
Washington. DC 1986.
(15) Mitre Corp. "Incineration and Cement
Kiln Capacity for Hazardous Waste
Treatment." U.S. EPA. OSW. Washington.
DC, 1986.
(16) NATO Committee. "NATO-CCMS
Pilot Study on Disposal of Hazardous
Wastes." Annex V.. NATO Committee on the
Challenges of Modern Society, Brussels,
Belgium. 1981.
(17) Radian Corp. "Follow-Up Survey of
Selected Facilities." U.S. EPA. Washington.
DC. 1986.
(18) Reed, R.J. North American Combustion
Handbook. 1978.
(19) U.S. EPA. "Analysis of the Quantity of
Waste from CERCLA Actions." Raw Data.
U.S. EPA. OERR. Washington. DC 1988.
(20) U.S. EPA. "Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing Point Source Category." U.S.
EPA. OW, Washington. DC, EPA/440-1-83/
084. pp. 120-130.1983.
(21) U.S. EPA. "Telephone Verification
Survey of Commercial Facilities That Manage
Solvents." Compiled by Pope-Reid Assoc.
and Radian Corp.. U.S. EPA. OSW,
Washington. DC. 1966.
(22) U.S. EPA. "RCRA Method 8280 for the
Analysis of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-/*-
Dioxins and Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans."
U.S. EPA. OSW, Washington, DC September
15.1986.
(23) Friedman. Paul (U.S. EPA. Office of
Solid Waste). Memorandum entitled
"Detection Limit of 6280 in TCLP Leachate."
September 26.1986.
(24) U.S. EPA. "Background Document for
Proposed Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure." U.S. EPA. OSW. Washington.
DC. March 10,1986.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 260,261.
262, 264,265,268,270, and 271
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information. Environmental protection.
Hazardous materials, Hazardous
materials transportation. Hazardous
waste. Imports, Indian lands. Insurance,
Intergovernmental relations. Labeling,
Packaging and containers. Penalties,
Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures. Surety
bonds. Waste treatment and disposal.
Water pollution control, Water supply.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.
For reasons set out in the preamble.
Chapter I of Title 40 is amended as
follows:
PART 260— HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
I. In Part 260:
1. The authority citation for Part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1008. 2002(a), 3001 through
3007, 3010, 3014. 3015, 3017, 3018, and 3019,
Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a),
6921 through 6927, 6930, 6934, 6935, 6837, 6938,
and 6939). *
§§ 260.1,260.2, 260.3,260.10,2602$
[Amended] 3
2. By inserting in the first sentence
"and 268" after the phrase "Partsi260
through 265" in the following places:
a. 40 CFR 260.1 (a) and (b)(l) through
(4).
b. 40 CFR 260.2(a).
c. 40 CFR 260.3 introductory text.
d. 40 CFR 260.10 introductory text.
e. 40 CFR 260.20(a).
§260.2 [Amended]
3. In 5 260.2. paragraph (b) is amended
by inserting "and 268" after the phrase
"Parts 260 through 286".
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
n. In Part 261:
1. The authority citation for Part 261
continues to read 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(a), 6921, and 6922).
§§ 261.1, 281.4,261.20,261.30 [Amended]
2. By adding the Part number "268,"
after the phrase "Parts 262 through 265"
in the following places:
a. 40 CFR 281.1(a) introductory text;
b. 40 CFR 261.4(c);
c. 40 CFR 261.20(b); and
d. 40 CFR 261.30(c).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
§261.1 [Amended]
3. In § 281.1, paragraph (a)(l) is .
amended by inserting ", 268" after the
phrase "Parts 282 through 286".
§261.4 [Amended]
4. By removing from paragraph (d)(l)
introductory text of 5 261.4 the Part
number "267" and inserting the Part
number "268" in its place.
§ 261.S [Amended]
5. In § 261.5 paragraphs (b), (c), (e)
introductory text, and (f)(2) are amended
by inserting ", 268," after the phrase
"Parts 262 through 266".
6. In § 261.5 paragraph (g}(2) is
amended by inserting ", 268," after the
phrase "Parts 263 through 266".
§261.6 [Amended]
7. In § 261.6 paragraph (a)(3)
introductory text is amended by
inserting Part number "268," after the
phrase "Part 262 through 266 or Parts".
8. By revising paragraph (c)(l) of
§ 261.6 to read as follows:
§ 261.6 Requirements for recyclable
materials.
******
(c)(l) Owners or operators of facilities
that store recyclable materials before
they are recycled are regulated under all
applicable provisions of Subparts A
through L of Parts 264 and 265. and
under Parts 124, 266, 268, and 270 of this
Chapter and the notification
requirements under section 3010 of
RCRA, except as provided in paragraph
(a) of this section. (The recycling
process itself is exempt from regulation.)
§261.7 [Amended]
9. In § 261.7 paragraphs (a) (l)(ii) and
(2)(ii) are amended by adding the Part
number "268," after the phrase "Parts
261 through 265, or Part".
PART 262—STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO GENERATORS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
HI. In Part 262:
1. The authority citation for Part 282
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006,2002,3001,3002, 3003,
3004, 3005, and 3017 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. as
amended (42 U.S.C. 8906, 6912, 8922 through
6925, and 6937).
Subpart A—General
2. In § 262.11, paragraph (d) is added
to read as follows:
§ 262.11 Hazardous waste determination.
[d) If the waste is determined to be
hazardous, the generator must refer to
Parts 264, 265, 268 of this chapter for
possible exclusions or restrictions
pertaining to management of his specific
waste. V.
PART 263—STANDARDS APPLICABLE
TO TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
IV. In Part 263:
1. The authority citation for Part 263 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 2002(a), 3002, 3003. 3004
and 3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1978 and aa amended by the
Quiet Communities Act of 1978, (42 U.S.C.
6912a. 6922, 6923, 6924, 6925).
Subpart A—General
§263.12 [Amended]
2. By inserting ", 268" after the phrase
"Parts 270, 264. and 265".
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
V. In Part 264:
1. The authority citation for Part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006, 2002, 3004. and 3005
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,
6924, and 6925).
Subpart B-^5eneral Facility Standards
2. In § 264.13, by revising paragraphs
(a)(l) and (b]{6) and adding paragraph
(b)(7) to read as follows:
§ 264.13 General waste analysis.
(a)(l) Before an owner or operator
treats, stores, or disposes of any
hazardous waste, he must obtain a
detailed chemical and physical analysis
of a representative sample of the waste.
At a minimum, this analysis must
contain all the information which must
be known to treat, store, or dispose of
the waste in accordance with the
requirements of this part of Part 268 of
this chapter or with the conditions of a
permit issaed under Part 270 and Part
124 of this chapter.
*****
(b) * * *
(6) Where applicable, the methods
which will be used to meet the
additional waste analysis requirements
for specific waste management methods
as specified in §§ 264.17. 264.314, 264.341
and 268.7 of this chapter.
(7) For surface impoundments
exempted from land disposal
restrictions under § 268.4(a), the
procedures and schedules for:
(i) The sampling of impoundment
contents;
(ii) The analysis of test data; and,
(iii) The annual removal of residue
which does not meet the standards of
Part 268 Subpart D of this chapter.
Subpart E—Manifest System,
Recordkeeping, and Reporting
3. In § 264.73, by revising paragraph
(b)(3) and adding paragraphs (b)(10J
through (b)(14J to read as follows:
§264.73 Operating record.
*****
(b) * * *
(3) Records and results of waste
analyses performed as specified in
§§ 264.13. 264.17, 264.314, 264,341,
268.4(a). and 268.7 of this chapter.
*****
[10) Records of the quantities (and
date of placement) for each shipment of
hazardous waste placed in find disposal
units under an extension to fie effective
date of any land disposal restriction
granted pursuant to § 268.5 gr a petition
pursuant to § 268.8, and the notice
required by a generator under
§ 268.7(a){3);
(11) For an off-site treatment facility, a
copy of the notice required by a
generator under § 268.7(a)(l);
(12) For an oh-site treatment facility..
the information contained in the notice
required by a generator under
I 268.7(a)(l), except for the manifest
number;
(13) For an off-site land disposal
facility, a copy of the notice and
certification required by the owner or
operator of a treatment facility under
§ 288.7(b) (1) and (2). or a copy of the
notice and certification required by the
generator under J 268.7(a)(2), whichever
is applicable; and
(14) For an on-site land disposal
facility, the information contained in the
notice required undeer 5 268.7(a)(2),
except for the manifest number, or the
information contained in the notice
required by a treater under § 268.7(b)(l),
except for the manifest number,
whichever is applicable.
(Approved by Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0012)
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT STORAGE AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
VI. In Part 265:
-------
40638
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulation
1. The authority citation for Part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006. 2002(a), 3004. 3005
and 3015 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.(a). 6924. 6925. and 6935).
Subpart B—General Facility Standards
2. In § 265.13. paragraphs (a)(l) and
(b)(6) are revised and paragraph (b}(7) is
added to read as follows:
§ 265.13 Central wast* analysis,
(a)(l) Before an owner or operator
treats, stores, or disposes of any
hazardous waste, he must obtain a
detailed chemical and physical analysis
of a representative sample of the waste.
At a minimum, this analysis must
contain all the information which must
be known to treat, store, or dispose of
the waste in accordance with the
requirements of this part and Part 268 of
this chapter.
* * • « *
(b) • * •
(6) Where applicable, the methods
which will be used to meet the
additional waste analysis requirements
for specific waste management methods
as specified in §§ 265.193. 265.225.
205.252, 265.273. 285.314, 265.341, 265.375.
265.402 and 268.7 of this chapter.
(7) For surface impoundments
exempted from land disposal
restrictions under 5 268.4(a) of this
chapter, the procedures and schedule
for:
(i) The sampling of impoundment
contents;
(it) The analysis of test data: and.
(Hi) The annual removal of residue
which does not meet the standards of
Pdrt 268 Subpart D of this chapter.
Subpart E—Manifest System,
Recordkeeplng, and Reporting
3. In § 265.73, by revising paragraph
(b)(3) and adding paragraphs (b)(8)
through (b)(12) to read as follows:
§ 265.73 Operating recordt
* * • • t
(b) ' • '
(3) Records and results of waste
analysis and trial tests performed as
specified in §§ 265.13,265.193.265.225.
265.252. 265.273. 265.314. 265.341, 265.375.
265.402. 268.4{a) and 268.7 of this
chapter,
*****
(8) Records of the quantities (and date
of placement) for each shipment of
hazardous waste placed in land disposal
units under an extension to the effective
date of any land disposal restriction
granted pursuant to § 268.5, or a petition
pursuant to § 268.6 and the notice
required by a generator under
I 268.7(a)(3).
(9) For an off-site treatment facility,
the notice required by a generator under
§ 288.7(a)(l):
(10) For an on-site treatment facility
the information contained in the notice
required by a generator under
§ 268.7(a)(l), except for the manifest
number.
(11) For an off-site land disposal
facility, the notice and certification
required by the owner or operator of a
treatment facility under § 268.7(b) or the
certification required by the generator
under § 268.7(a)(2), whichever is
applicable;
(12) For an on-site land disposal
facility, the information contained in the
notice required by a generator under
§ 268.7(a)(2), except for the manifest
number, or the information contained in
the notice required by the treatment
facility under § 268.7{b)(2). except for
the manifest number, whichever is
applicable.
{Approved by Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0012)
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
VII. In Part 268:
1. The authority citation for Part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006. 2002(a). 3001, and
3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1978. as amended (42 U.S.C.
6905, 6912{a), 6921. and 6924).
2. By adding Subparts A, C. D, and E
to Part 268 to read as follows:
Subpart A—General
268.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
268.2 Definitions applicable to this part.
268.3 Dilution prohibited as a substitute for
treatment.
268.4 Treatment surface impoundment
exemption.
268.5 Procedures for case-by-case
extensions to an effective date.
268.6 Petitions to allow land disposal of a
waste prohibited under Subpart C of Part
268.
268.7 Waste analysis.
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land Disposal
268.30 Waste specific prohibitions—Solvent
wastes.
268.31 Waste specific prohibitions—Dioxin-
containing wastes.
Subpart D—Treatment Standard*
268.40 Applicability of treatment standards.
268.41 Treatment standardo expressed as
concentrations in waste extract
268.42 Treatment standardo expressed as
specified technologies.
268.43 Treatment standards expressed as
waste concentrations. [Reserved)
268.44 Variance from a treatment standard.
Subpart E-ProMbttlons on Storage
268.50 Prohibitions on storage of restricted
wastes.
Appendix I to Part 288—Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP)
Appendix II to Part 268—Treatment
Standards (As Concentrations in the
Treatment Residual Extract)
Subpart A—General
§ 26«.1 PurpOM, scop* and applicability.
(a) This part identifies hazardous
wastes that are restricted from land
disposal and defines those limited
circumstances under which an
otherwise prohibited waste may
continue to be land disposed.
(b) Except as specifically provided
otherwise in this part or Part 261 of this
chapter, the requirements of this part
apply to persons who generate or
transport hazardous waste and owners
and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal?
facilities. |
(c) Prohibited wastes may continue to
be land disposed as follows: *
(1) Persons have been granted'an
extension from the effective date-of a
prohibition pursuant to § 268.5. with
respect to those wastes covered by the
extension;
(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; or
(3) Until November 8,1988. land
disposal of contaminated soil or debris
resulting from a response action taken
under section 104 or 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 or a corrective action
required under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
(4) Small quantity generators of less
than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste
per month, as defined in § 261.5 of this
chapter.
§ 268.2 Definitions applicable to Nils part
(a) When used in this part the
following terms have the meanings given
below:
"Hazardous constituent or
constituents" means those constituents
listed in Appendix VIII to Part 261 of
this chapter.
"Land disposal" means placement in
or on the land and includes, but is not
limited to, placement in a landfill.
surface impoundment, waste pile,
injection well, land treatment facility.
-------
_Fgdegl Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
salt dome formation, salt bed formation,
underground mine or cave, concrete
vault or bunker intended for disposal
purposes, and placement in or on the
land by means of open detonation and
open burning where the residues
continue to exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste. The
term "land disposal" does not
encompass ocean disposal.
(b) All other terms have the meanings
given under §§260.10, 261.2, 281.3, or
270.2 of this chapter.
§ 268.3 Dilution prohibited a* * substitute
for treatment
No generator, transporter, handler, or
owner or operator of a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility shall in any
way dilute a restricted waste or the
residual from treatment of a restricted
waste as a substitute for adequate
treatment to achieve compliance with
Subpart D of this part.
§268.4 Treatment Mirfae* impoundment
exemption.
(a) The requirements of this part do
not apply to persons treating hazardous
wastes in a surface impoundment or
series of impoundments provided that:
(1) Treatment of such wastes occurs in
the impoundment;
(2) The residues of the treatment are
analyzed, as specified in § 268.7, to
determine if they meet the applicable
treatment standards in § 268.41. The
sampling method, specified in the waste
analysis plan under § 264.13 or § 265.13,
must be designed such that
representative samples of the sludge
and the supernatant are tested
separately rather than mixed to form
homogeneous samples. The treatment
residues (including any liquid waste)
that do not meet the treatment
standards promulgated under Subpart O
of this part, or are not delisted under
§ 260.22 of this chapter, must be
removed at least annually. These
residues may not be placed in any other
surface impoundment for subsequent
management. If the volume of liquid
flowing through the impoundment or
series of impoundments annually is
greater than the volume of the
impoundment or impoundments, this
flow-through constitutes removal of the
supernatant for the purpose of this
requirement. The procedures and
schedule for the sampling of
impoundment contents, the analysis of
test data, and the annual removal of
residue which does not meet the Subpart
D treatment standards must be specified
in the facility's waste analysis plan as
required under §§264.13 or 265.13 of this
chapter;
(3) The impoundment must meet the
design requirements of § 264.221 (c) or
§ 265.221(a) of this chapter, regardless
that the unit may not be new, expanded,
or a replacement, and be
-------
40640
Federal Regiter/VoLsi, No. 216 / Friday, November 7. 1966 / Rulea and Regulations
T
the effective date. The Administrator
may review this extension for up to 1
additional year upon the request of the
applicant if the demonstration required
in paragraph (a) of this section can still
be made. 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 on a petition will be
published in the Federal Register.
(f) Any person granted an extension
under this section must immediately
notify the Administrator as soon as he
has knowledge of any change in the
conditions certified to in the application.
(g) Any person granted an extension
under this section shall submit written
progress reports at intervals designated
by the Administrator. Such reports must
describe the overall progress made
toward constructing or otherwise
providing alternative treatment,
recovery or disposal capacity; must
identify any event which may cause or
has caused a delay in the development
of the capacity; and must summarize the
steps taken to mitigate the delay. The
Administrator can revoke the extension
at any time if the applicant does not
demonstrate a good-faith effort to meet
the schedule for completion, if the
Agency denies or revokes any required
permit, if conditions certified in the
application change, or for any violation
of this chapter.
(h) Whenever the Administrator
establishes an extension to an effective
date under this section, during the
period for which such extension is in
effect:
(1) The storage restrictions under
§ 268.50(a)(l) do not apply; and
(2) Such hazardous waste may be
disposed of at a facility only if each new
landfill or surface impoundment unit,
each replacement of an existing landfill
or surface impoundment unit, and each
lateral expansion of an existing landfill
or surface impoundment unit at the
facility is in compliance with the
following requirements:
(i) The landfill, if the interim status, is
in compliance with the requirements of
Subpart F of Part 265 and § 265.301 (a),
(c), and (d) of this chapter or,
(ii) The landfill, if permitted, is
compliance with the requirements of
Subpart F of Part 264 and § 264.301 (c).
(d) and (e) of this chapter
(iii) The surface impoundment, if in
interim status, is in compliance with the
requirements of Subpart F of Part 265
and § 265.221 (a), (c), and (d) of this
chapter regardless that the unit is not
new, expanded or a replacement; or,
(iv) The surface impoundment, if
permitted, is in compliance with the
requirements of Subpart F of Part 264
and § 264.221 (c), (d) and (e) of this
chapter.
(j) Pending a decision on the
application the applicant is required to
comply with all restrictions on land
disposal under this part once the
effective date for the waste has been
reached.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0062)
§268.6 Petition* to allow land disposal of
a waste prohibited wider Subpart C of Part
288.
(a) Any person seeking an exemption
from a prohibition under Subpart C of
this part for the disposal of a restricted
hazardous waste in a particular unit or
units must submit a petition to the
Administrator demonstrating, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, that
there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or
injection zone for as long as the wastes
remain hazardous. The demonstration
must include the following components:
(1) An identification of the specific
waste and the Specific unit for which the
demonstration will be made;
(2) A waste analysis to describe fully
the chemical and physical
characteristics of the subject waste;
• (3} A comprehensive characterization
of the disposal unit site including an
analysis of background air, soil, and
water quality.
(b) The demonstration referred to in
paragraph (a) of this section must meet
the following criteria:
(1) All waste and environmental
sampling, test, and analysis data must
be accurate and reproducible to the
extent that state-of-the-art techniques
allow;
(2) All sampling, testing, and
estimation techniques for chemical and
physical properties of the waste and ail
environmental parameters must have
been approved by the Administrator;
(3) Simulation models must be
calibrated for the specific waste and site
conditions, and verified for accuracy by
comparison with actual measurements;
(4) A quality assurance and quality
control plan that addresses ail aspects
of the demonstration must be approved
by the Administrator; and.
(5) An analysis must be performed to
identify and quantify any aspects of the
demonstration that contribute
significantly to uncertainty. This
analysis must include an evaluation of
the consequences of predictable future
events, including, but not limited to,
earthquakes, floods, severe storm
events, droughts, or other natural
phenomena.
(c) Each petition must be submitted to
the Administrator.
(d) Each petition must include the
following statement signed by the
petitioner or an authorized
representative:
I certify under penalty of law that I have
personally examined and an familiar with the
information submitted in this petition and all
attached documents, and that, based on my
inquiry of those individuals immediately
responsible for obtaining the information. I
believe that submitted information is true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment. «
(e) After receiving a petition, \S/e
Administrator may request any 4
additional information that reasonably
may be required to evaluate the -.•
demonstration.
(f) If approved, the petition will apply
to land disposal of the specific restricted
waste at the individual disposal unit
described in the demonstration and will
not apply to any other restricted waste
at that disposal unit, or to that specific
restricted waste at any other disposal
unit.
(g) The Administrator will give public
notice in the Federal Register of the
intent to approve or deny a petition and
provide an opportunity for public
comment. The final decision on a
petition will be published in the Federal
Register.
(h) The term of a petition granted
under this section shall be no longer
than the term of the RCRA permit if the
disposal unit is operating under a RCRA
permit or up to a maximum of 10 years
from the date of approval provided
under paragraph (g) of this section if the
unit is operating under interim status. In
either case, the term of the granted
petition shall expire upon the
termination or denial of a RCRA permit,
or upon the termination of interim status
or when the volume limit of waste to be
land disposed during the term of petition
is reached.
(i) Prior the Administrator's decision.
the applicant is required to comply with
all restrictions on land disposal under
this part once the effective date for the
waste has been reached.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulation.
(j) The petition granted by the
Administrator does not reliveve the
petitioner of his responsibilities in the
management of hazardous waste under
40 CFR Part 260 through Part 271.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0062)
§ 26S.7 Waste analysis.
(a) The generator must test his waste
or an extract developed using the tost
method described in Appendix I of this
part, or using knowledge of the waste to
determine if the waste is restricted from
land disposal under this part.
(1) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part and the waste requires treatment
prior to land disposal, for each shipment
of waste the generator must notify the
treatment facility in writing of the
appropriate treatment standard set forth
in Subpart D of this part. The notice
must include the following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standard;
(iii) The manifest number associnted
with the shipment of waste; and
(iv) Waste analysis data, where
available.
- (2) If a generator determines that he is
managing a restricted waste under this
part, and determines that the waste can
be land disposed without further
treatment, for each shipment of waste
he must submit, to the land disposal
facility, a notice and a certification
stating that the waste meets applicable
treatment standards.
(i) The notice must include the
following information:
(A) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(B) The corresponding treatment
standard;
(C) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste;
(D) Waste analysis data, where
available.
(ii) The certification must be signed by
an authorized representative and must
state the following:
I certify under penalty of law that 1
personally have examined and am familiar
with the waste through analysis and testing
or through knowledge of the waste to support
this certification that the waste complies with
the treatment standards specified in 40 CFR
Part 286 Subpart D. I beleive that the
information 1 submitted is true, accurate and
complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including the possibility of a
fine and imprisonment.
(3) If a generator's waste is subject to
a case-by-case extension under § 268.5,
a petition under { 268.6. or a nationwide
variance under Subpart C, he must
forward a notice to the land disposal
facility receiving his waste, stating that
the waste is exempt from the land
disposal restrictions.
(b) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in;the.waste extrqct(§ ,268.41), the
owner or operator of the treatment
facility must test the treatment residues
according to the waste analysis plan
under §§ 264.13 or 265.13. or an extract
development using the test method
described in Appendix I of this part to
assure that the treatment residues
extract meet the applicable treatment
standards.
(10) A notice must be sent to the land
disposal facility which includes the
following information:
(i) EPA Hazardous Waste Number;
(ii) The corresponding treatment
standard:
(iii) The manifest number associated
with the shipment of waste; and
(iv) Waste analysis data, where
available.
(2) The treatment facility must submit
.1 certification for 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 to
the performance standards specificed in
Subpart D.
(i) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as concentrations
in the waste extract or in the waste
{§§ 268.41 or 268.43), the certification
must be signed by an authorized
representative and must state the
following:
I certify under penalty of law that 1 have
personally examined and am familiar with
the treatment technology and operation of the
treatment process used to support this
certification and that, based on my inquiry of
those individuals immediately responsible for
obtaining this information. I believe that the
treatment process has been operated and
maintained properly so as to achieve the
performance levels specified in 40 CFR Part
268 Subpart D without dilution of the
prohibited waste. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting a false
certification, including thp possibility of fine
and imprisonment.
(ii) For wastes with treatment
standards expressed as technologies
(I 268.42), the certification must be
signed by an authorized representative
and must state the following:
I certify under penalty of law that the
waste has been treated in actoidance with
the requirements of 40 CFR 268.42.1 am
aware that there are signficant penalties for
submitting a false certification, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment.
(c) The owner or operator of any land
disposal facility accepting any waste
subject to restrictions under this part
must have records of the notice and
certification specified in either pargraph
(a) or (b) of this section and obtain
waste analysis data through testing of
the waste to determine that the wastes
are in compliance with the applicable
treatment standards in § 268.41. "
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under control number 2050-0062)
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land
Disposal
§ 268.30 Waste specific prohibitions-
Solvent wastes.
(a) Effective November 8,1986. the
spent solvent wastes specified in 40 CFR
261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste Nos
F001, F002, F003, F004. and F005, are
prohibited from land disposal (except in
an injection well) unless one or more of
the following conditions apply:
(1) The generator of the solvent waste
is a small quantity generator of 100-1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per
month; or
(2) The solvent waste is generated
from any response action taljsn under
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation ana Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or anjrcorrective
action taken under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), except where the waste is
contaminated soil or debris not subject
to the provisions of this chapter until
November 8,1988; or
(3) The solvent waste is a solvent-
water mixture, solvent-containing
sludge, or solvent-contaminated soil
(non-CERCLA or RCRA corrective
action) containing less than 1 percent
total F001-F005 solvent constituents
listed in Table CCWE of § 268.41 of this
part.
(b) Effective November 8,1988. the
F001-F005 solvent wastes listed in
paragraphs (a) (1), (2), and (3) of this
section are prohibited from land
disposal. Between November 8,1986,
and November 8.1988, wastes included
in paragraphs (a) (1), (2), and (3) of this
section may be disposed of in a landfill
or surface impoundment only if the
facility is in compliance with the
requirements specified in § 268.5(h)(2).
(c) The requirements of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section do not apply if:
(1) The wastes are treated to meet the
standards of Subpart D of this part: or
(2) The wastes are disposed at a
facility that has been granted a petition
under § 268.8; or
(3) An extension has been granted
under § 268.5.
-------
40642 Federal Register / Vo'. 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
§268.31 Waste specific prohibition
Dtoxin—containing waates.
(a) Effective November 8,1988 the
dioxin-containing wastes specified in 40
CFR 261.31 as EPA Hazardous Waste
Nos. F020. F021. F023; F028, F027, and
F028. are prohibited from land disposal.
(b) The requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section do not apply if:
(1) The wastes are treated to meet the
standards of Subpart D of this part: or.
(2) The wastes are disposed at a
facility that has been granted a petition
under § 288.6: or
(3) An extension has been granted
under § 268.5.
(c) Between November 8,1986. and
November 8.1988, wastes included in
paragraph (a) of this section may be
disposed of in a landfill or surface
impoundment only if the facility is in
compliance with the requirements
specified in 5 268.5(h)(2).
Subpart D—Treatment Standards
§ 268.40 Applicability of treatment
standards.
A restricted waste identified in this
subpart may be land disposed without
further treatment only if an extract of
the waste or of the treatment residual of
the waste developed using the test
method of Appendix I of this part does
not exceed the value shown in Table
CCWE of § 268.41 for any hazardous
constituent listed in Table CCWE for
that waste. A restricted waste for which
a treatment technology is specified
under § 268.42(a) may be land disposed
after it is treated using that specified
technology or an equivalent treatment
method approved by the Administrator
under the procedures set forth in
§ 208.42(b).
§ 268.41 Treatment Standards expressed
as concentration* In waste extract
(a) Table CCWE identifies the
restricted wastes and the concentrations
of their associated hazardous
constituents which may not be exceeded
by the extract of a waste treatment
residual developed using the test
method in Appendix I of this part for the
allowable land disposal of such waste.
(Appendix II of this part provides
Agency guidance on treatment methods
that have been shown to achieve the
Table CCWE levels for the respective
wastes. Appendix II is not a regulatory
requirement but is provided to assist
generators and owners/operators in
their selection of appropriate treatment
methods.}
ABLE CCWE—CONSTITUENT IN WASTE
EXTRACT
F001— FOOi spent solvents
Acetone...
n-Butyl alcohol
Cartoon daullide _
Carbon tetrachlonda
Chlorobenzena
Cresofc (and eretyitc acid)
Cyclohexanone „ .
1,2-dichlOfobenzene
Ethyl acetate
EthyJe benzene
Elhyl ether
Isooutanol
Methane)
Methylene chlonde
Methyiena chloride (from the prior-
maceutjcaJ industry
Methyl etfiyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone.. ..
Pynoine _
Tetrachloroetnylena „
Toluene
1 . 1 . ! -TncMoreetfiene
1 .2.2-Tnchloro- 1 ,2.2-tnfluroetnane....
Tnchloroethylene _ „
Tnchlorofluorameitww _
Xytene _ _ „
Concentration (In mg/l)
Wastewatera
containing
spent
solvent*
0.05
5.0
1.05
,05
.15
2.82
.125
.65
.05
.05
.05
5.0
.25
.20
12.7
0.05
0.05
0.66
1.12
0.079
1.12
- 1.05
1.05
0.062
0.05
0.05
Another
spent
solvent
watte*
0.58
5.0
4,81
.96
.05
.75
.75
.125
.75
.053
.75
5.0
.75
.96
.96
0.75
0.33
0.125
0.33
0.05
0.33
0.41
0.96
0.091
0.96
0.15
F020-F023 and F028-F028 cBoxhl containing
wute*
HxCOO— A) Hexachkmdfeenzo-p-dioiari*
HxCOF— All Hexachlorodajenzofurani _
PeCOD— AM Pemachlofoaibenio-p-dioxin»
PeCDF— All PentacMoroditwuoforafti
2,4.5-Tnchlorophenol
2.4,6-Tnchlorophenot
2.3.4.6-TetracMorophenol
Pentachkxophenol _ _...
Concentra-
don
< PPb
< PPb
< PPb
< PPb
< PPb
< 1 PPb
< 0.05 ppm
(b) When wastes with differing
treatment standards for a constituent of
concern are combined for purposes of
treatment, the treatment residue must
meet the lowest treatment standard for
the constituent of concern.
§268.42 Treatment standards expressed
as specified technologies.
(a) The following wastes must be
treated using the identified technology
or technologies, or an equivalent method
approved by the Administrator.
(1) [Reserved]
(b) Any person may submit an
application to the Administrator
demonstrating that an alternative
treatment method can achieve a level of
performance equivalent to that achieved
by methods specified in paragraph (a) of
this section. The applicant must submit
information demonstrating that his
treatment method will not present an
unreasonable risk to human health or
the environment On the basis of such
information and any other available
information, the Administrator may
approve the use of the alternative
treatment method if he finds that the
alternative treatment method provides a
level of performance equivalent to that
achieved by methods specified in
paragraph (a) of this section. Any
approval must be stated in writing and
may contain such provisions and
conditions as the Administrator deems
appropriate. The person to whom such
certification is issued must comply with
all limitations contained in such
determination.
§ 268.43 Treatment standards expressed
as waste concentrations. [Reserved]
§ 268.44 Variance from a treatment
standard.
(a) Where the treatment standard is
expressed as a concentration in a waste
or waste extract and a waste cannot be
treated to the specified level, or where
the treatment technology is not
appropriate to the waste, the generator
or treatment facility may petition the
Administrator for a variance from the
treatment standard. The petitioner must
demonstrate that because the physical
or chemical properties of the waste
differs significantly from wastes
analyzed in developing the treatment
standard, the waste cannot be treated to
specified levels or by the specified
methods. :
(b) Each petition must be submitted in
accordance with the procedures ifi
S 260.20.
(c) After receiving a petition for
variance from a treatment standard, the
Administrator may request any
additional information or samples which
he may require to evaluate the petition.
Additional copies of the complete
petition may be requested as needed to
send to affected states and Regional
Offices.
(e) The Administrator will give public
notice in the Federal Register of the
intent to approve or deny a petition and
provide an opportunity for public
comment. The final decision on a
variance from a treatment standard will
be published in the Federal Register.
(f) A generator, treatment facility, or
disposal facility that is managing a
waste covered by a variance from the
treatment standards must comply with
the waste analysis requirements for
restricted wastes found under § 268.7.
(g) During the petition review process,
the applicant is required to comply with
all restrictions on land disposal under
this part once the effective date for the
waste has been reached.
Subpart E^-Prohibitlons on Storage
§ 268.50 Prohibitions on storage of
restricted wastes.
(a) Except as provided for in
paragraph (b) of this section, the storage
-------
. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / RuJes and Regulations
40643
of hazardous wastes restricted from
land disposal under Subpart C of this
Part is prohibited, unless the following
conditions are met:
(1) A generator stores such wastes on-
site solely for the purpose of the
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or
disposal and the generator complies
with the requirements in § 262.34 of this
chapter. (A generator who is in
existence on the effective date of a
regulation under this part and who must
store hazardous wastes for longer than
90 days due to the regulations under this
Part becomes an owner/operator of a
storage facility and must obtain a RCRA
permit. Such a facility may qualify for
interim status upon compliance with the
regulations governing interim status
under 40 CFR 270.70).
(2) An owner operator of a hazardous
waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facility stores such wastes solely for the
purpose of the accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous waste as
necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment, or disposal provided that
each container or tank is clearly marked
to identify its contents and the cate it
entered storage.
(3) A transporter may store
manifested shipments of such wastes at
a transfer facility for 10 days or less.
(b) An owner/operator of a treatment,
storage or disposal facility may store
such wastes for up to one year unless
the Agency can demonstrate that such
storage was not solely for the purpose of
accumulation of such quantities of
hazardous waste as are necessary to
facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or
disposal.
(c) A owner/operator of a treatment,
storage or disposal facility may store
such wastes beyond one year; however,
the owner/operator bears the burden of
proving that such storage was solely for
the purpose of accumulation of such
quantities of hazardous waste as are
necessary to facilitate proper recovery,
treatment, or disposal.
(d) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of
this section does not apply to die wastes
which are the subject of an approved
petition under § 268.6 or an approved
case-by-case extension under § 268.5.
(e) The prohibition in paragraph (a) of
this section does uot apply to hazardous
wastes that meet the treatment
standards specified under §§ 288.41,
288.42 and 268.43 or the treatment
standards specified under the variance
in § 268.44.
Appendix I to Part 268—Toxidty
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP)
1.0 SCOPE AND APPLICATION
1.1 The TCLP is designed to determine the
mobility of both organic arid inorganic
contaminants present in liquid, solid, and
multiphasic wastes.
1.2 If a total analysis of the waste
demonstrates that individual contaminants
are not present in the waste, or that they are
present but at such low concentrations that
the appropriate regulatory thresholds could
not possibly be exceeded, the TCLP need not
be run.
2.0 SUMMARY OF METHOD (see Figure 1)
2.1 For liquid wastes (i.e.. those
containing insignificant solid material), the
waste, after filtration through a 0.6- to 0.8-um
glass fiber filter, is defined as the TCLP
extract.
2.2 For wastes comprised of solids or for
wastes containing significant amounts of
solid material, the particle-size of the waste
is reduced (if necessary), the liquid phase, if
any, is separated from the solid phase and
stored for later analysis. The solid phase is
extracted with an amount of extraction fluid
equal to 20 times the weight of the solid
phase. The extraction fluid employed is a
function of the alkalinity of the solid phase of
the waste. A special extractor vessel is used
wnen testing for volatiles (See Table 1).
Following extraction, the liquid extract is
separated from the solid phase by 0.6- to 0.8-
um glass fiber filter filtration.
2.3 If compatible (i.e., multiple phases will
not form on combination), the Initial liquid
phase of the waste is added to the liquid
extract and these liquids are analyzed
together. If incompatible, the liquids are
analyzed separately and the reiuiu are
mathematically .combined to yield • volume*
weighted average concentration.
3.0 INTERFERENCES
3.1. Potential interferences that may be
• encountered during analysis an discussed in
the individual analytical methods.
4.0 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS
4.1 Agitation apparatus: An acceptable
agitation apparatus is one which is capable
of rotating the extraction vessel in an end-
over-end fashion (See Figure 2) at 30 ± 2
rpm. Suitable devices known to EPA are
identified in Table 2.
4.2 Extraction Vessel:
4.2.1 Zero-Headapace Extraction Vessel
(ZHE). This device is for use only when the
waste is being tested for the mobility of
volatile constituents (see Table 1). The ZHE
is an extraction vessel that allows for liquid/
solid separation within the device, and which
effectively precludes headspace (as depicted
in Figure 3). This type of vessel allows for
initial liquid/solid separation, extraction, and
final extract filtration without having to open
the vessel (see Step 4.3.1). These vessels shall
have an internal volume of 500 to 600 mL and
be equipped to accommodate a 90-mm filter.
Suitable ZHE devices known to EPA are
identified in Table 3. These devices contain
viton O-rings which should be replaced
frequently.
For the ZHE to be acceptable for use. the
piston within the ZHE should be able to be
moved with approximately 15 psi or less. If it
takes more pressure to move the piston, the
O-rings in the device thould be replaced. If
this does not solve the problem, the ZHE is
unacceptable for TCLP analyses and the
manufacturer should be contacted.
The ZHE should be checked after every
extraction. If the device contains a built-in
pressure gauge, pressurize the device to 50
psi, allow it to st> d unattended for 1 hour,
and recheck the pleasure. If the dev -e does
not have a built-in presfie gauge, pressur'-e
the device to 50 psi, sub. .e.ae it in water
check for the presence of air bubbles
escaping from any of the fittings. If Hn.»sure
if lost check all fittings and inspect and
replace O-rings. if necessary. Retest the
device. If leakage problems cannot be solved.
the manufacturer should be contacted.
4.2.2 When the waste is being evaluated
for other than volatile contaminants, an
extraction vessel that does not preclude
headspace (e.g., a 2-iiter bottle) is used.
Suitable extraction vessels include bottles
made from various materials, depending on
the contaminants to be analyzed and the
nature of the waste (see Step 4.3.3. It is
recommended that borosilicate gSss bottles
be used over other types of glassjaspecially
when inorganics are of concern. Hjastic
bottles may be used only if inorganics are to
be investigated. Bottles are available from a
number of laboratory suppliers. When this
type of extraction vessel is used, the filtration
device discussed in Step 4.3.2 is used for
initial liquid/solid separation and final
extract filtration.
4.2.3 Some ZHEs use gas pressure to
actuate the ZHE piston, while others use
mechanical pmiure (see Table 3). Whereas
the volatile* procedure (see Section 9.0)
refer* to poonds-per-square inch (psi), for the
mechanically actuated piston, the pressure
applied is measured in tcrque-inch-pounds.
Refer to the manufacturer's instructions as to
the proper conversion.
4.3 Filtration Devices: It is recommended
that all nitrations be performed in a hood.
4.3.1 Zero-Headspace Extractor Vessel
{see Figure 3): When the waste it being
evaluated for volatiles, the zero-headspace
extraction vessel is used for filtration. The
device shall be capable of supporting and
keeping in place the glass fiber filter, and be
able to withstand the pressure needed to
accomplish separation (50 psi).
Note.—When it is suspected that the glass
fiber filter has been ruptured, an in-line glass
fiber filter may be used to filter the material
within the ZHE.
4.3.2 Filter Holder: When the waste is
being evaluated for other than volatile
compounds, a filter holder capable of
supporting a glass fiber filter and able to
withstand the pressure needed to accomplish
separation is used. Suitable filter holders
range from simple vacuum units to relatively
complex systems capable of exerting
pressures of up to 50 psi or more. The type of
filter holder used depends on the properties
of the material to be filtered (see Step 4.3.3)
-------
40644 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
These devices shall have a minimum internal
volume of 300 mL and be equipped to
accommodate a minimum filter size of 47 mm
(Filler holders having an internal capacity of
1.5 L or greater and equipped to
accommodate a 142 mm diameter filter are
recommended). Vaccum filtration is only
recommended for wastes with low solids
content (<10«) and for highly granular
(liquid-containing) wastes. All other types of
wastes should be filtered using positive
pressure filtration. Filter holders known to
EPA to be suitable for use are shown in Table
4.
4.3.3 Materials of Construction:
Extraction vessels and filtration devices shall
be made of inert materials which will not
leach or absorb waste components. Glass.
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). or type 316
stainless steel equipment may be used when
evaluating the mobility of both organic and
inorganic components. Devices made of high-
density polyethylene (HOPE), polypropylene.
or polyvinyl chloride may be used only when
evaluating the mobility of metals. Borosilicate
glass bottles are recommended for use over
other types of glass bottles, especially when
inorganics are constituents of concern.
4.4 Filters: Filters shall be made of
bprosilicate glass fiber, shall contain no
binder materials, and shall have an effective
pore size of 0.6- to 0.8-um. or equivalent.
Filters known to EPA to meet these
specifications are identified in Table 5. Pre-
filtcrs must not be used. When evaluating the
mobility of metals, filters shall be acid-
washed prior to use by rinsing with 1.0 N
nitric acid followed by three consecutive
rinses with deionized distilled water (a
minimum of 1-L per rinse is recommended).
Class fiber filters are fragile and should be
handled with care.
4.S pH meters: Any of the commonly
available pH meters are acceptable.
4.8 ZHE extract collection devices:
TEDLAR* bags or glass, stainless steel or
PTFE gas tight syringes are used to collect the
initial liquid phase and the final extract of the
waste when using the ZHE device. The
devices listed are recommended for use
under the following conditions.
4.6.1 If a waste contains an aqueous
liquid phase or if a waste does not contain a
significant amount of non-aqueous liquid (i.e..
<1% of total waste), the TEDLAR* bag
should be used to collect and combine the
initial liquid and solid extract The syringe is
not recommended in these cases.
4.8.2 If a waste contains a significant
amount of non-aqueous initial liquid phase
(i.e.. >1% of total waste), the syringe or the
TEDLAR* bag may be used for both the
initial solid/liquid separation and the final
extract filtration. However, analysts should
use one or the other, not both.
4.6.3 If the waste contains no initial liquid
phase (is 100% solid) or has no significant
solid phase (Is IOCS liquid), either the
TEDLAR* bag or the syringe may be used. If
the syringe is used, discard the first 5 mL of
liquid expressed from the device. The
remaining aliquots are used for analysis.
4.7 ZHE extraction fluid transfer devices:
Any device capable of transferring the
extraction fluid into the ZHE without
changing the nature of the extraction fluid is
acceptable (e.g., a constant displacement
pump, a gas tight syringe, pressure filtration
unit (See Step 4.3.2). or another ZHE device).
4.8 Laboratory balance: Any laboratory
balance accurate to within ±0.01 grams may
be used (all weight measurements are to be
within ±0.1 grams).
5.0 REAGENTS
S.I Reagent water Reagent water is
defined as water in which an interferent is
not observed at or above the method
detection limit of the analyte(s) of interest.
For non-volatile extractions. ASTM Type II
water, or equivalent meets the definition of
reagent water. For volatile extractions, it is
recommended that reagent water be
generated by any of the following methods.
Reagent water should be monitored
periodically for impurities.
5.1.1 Reagent water for volatile
extractions may be generated by passing tap
water through a carbon filter bed containing
about 500 grams of activated carbon (Calgon
Corp.. Filtrasorb-SOO or equivalent).
5.1.2 A water purification system
(Millipore Super-Q or equivalent) may also be
used to generate reagent water for volatile
extractions.
5.1.3 Reagent water for volatile
extractions may also be prepared by boiling
water for 15 minutes. Subsequently, while
maintaining the water temperature at 90±
5'C, bubble a contaminant-free inert gas (e.g..
nitrogen] through the water for 1 hour. While
still hot, transfer the water to a narrow-
mouth screw-cap bottle under zero-
headspace and seal with s Teflon-lined
septum and cap.
5.2 1.0 N Hydrochloric acid (HC1) made
from ACS reagent grade.
5.3 1.0 N Nitric acid (HNO,) made from
ACS reagent grade.
5.4 1.0 N Sodium hydroxide (NaOH) made
from ACS reagent grade.
5.5 Glacial acetic acid (HOAc) ACS
reagent grade.
5.6 Extraction fluid:
5.6.1 Extraction fluid #1: This fluid is
• made by adding 5.7 mL glacial HOAc to 500
mL of the appropriate water (see Step 5.1),
adding 64.3 mL of 1.0 N NaOH. and diluting to
a volume of 1 liter. When correctly prepared,
the pH of this fluid will be 4.93 ± 0.05.
5.6.2 Extraction fluid #2: This fluid is
made by diluting 5.7 mL glacial HOAc with
ASTM Type II water (see Step 5.1) to a
volume of 1 liter. When correctly prepared.
the pH of this fluid will be 2.88 ± 0.05.
Note.—It is suggested that these extraction
fluids be monitored-frequently for impurities.
The pH should be checked prior to use to
ensure that these fluids are made up
accurately.
5.7 Analytical standards shall be prepared
according to the appropriate analytical
method.
6.0 SAMPLE COLLECTION.
PRESERVATION. AND HANDLING
6.1 All samples shall be collected using
an appropriate sampling plan.
6.2 At least two separate representative
samples of a waste should be collected. If
volatile organics are of concern, a third
sample should be collected. The first sample
is used in several preliminary TCLP
evaluations (e.g.. to determine the percent
solids of the waste: to determine if the waste
contains insignificant solids (i.e.. the waste is
its own extract after filtration); to determine
if the solid portion of the waste requires
particle-size reduction; and to determine
which of the two extraction fluids are to be
used for the non-volatile TCLP extraction of
the waste). These preliminary evaluations are
identified in Section 7.0. The second and. if
required, third samples are extracted using
the TCLP non-volatile procedure (Section 8.0)
and volatile procedure (Section 9.0),
respectively.
6.3 Preservatives shall not be added to
samples.
8.4 Samples can be refrigerated unless
refrigeration results in irreversible physical
change to the waste (e.g., precipitation).
6.5 When the waste is to be evaluated for
volatile contaminants, care should be taken
to minimize the loss of volatiles. Samples
shall be taken and stored in a manner to
prevent the loss of volatile contaminants. If
possible, it is recommended that any
necessary particle-size reduction should be
conducted as the sample is being taken (See
Step 8.5).
8,6 TCLP extracts should be prepared for
analysis and analyzed as soon as possible
following extraction. If they need to be
stored, even for a short period of tjjpe.
storage shall be a 4° C, and sample^ for
volatiles analysis shall not be allotted to
come into contact with the atmospfiere (i.e..
no headspace). See Section 10.0 (QA
requirements) for acceptable sample and
extract holding times.
7.0 PRELIMINARY TCLP EVALUATIONS
The preliminary TCLP evaluations are
performed on a minimum 100 gram
representative sample of waste that will not
actually undergo TCLP extraction (designated
as the first sample in Step 6.2). These
evaluations include preliminary
determination of the percent solids of the
waste: determination of whether the waste
contains insignificant solids, and is therefore,
its own extract after filtration: determination
of whether the solid portion of the waste
requires particle-size reduction; and
determination of which of the two extraction
fluids are to be used for the non-volatile
TCLP extraction of the waste.
7.1 Preliminary determination of percent
solids: Percent solids is defined as that
fraction of a waste sample (as a percentage
of the total sample) from which no liquid may
be forced out by an applied pressure, as
described below.
7.1.1 If the waste will obviously yield no
free liquid when subjected to pressure
filtration (i.e., is 100% solids) proceed to Step
7.4.
7.1.2 If the sample is liquid or multiphasic,
liquid/solid separation to make a preliminar*
determination of percent solids is required
This involves the filtration device describe
in Step 4.3.2 and is outlined in Steps 7.1.3
through 7.1.9.
7.1.3 Pre-weigh the filter and the
container that will receive the filtrate.
7.1.4 Assemble the filter holder and fil1
lollowing the manufacturer s instruction
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
40645
Place the filter on the support screen and
secure.
7.1.5 Weigh out a representative
subsample of the waste (100 gram minimum}
and record the weight.
7.1.6 Allow slurries to stand to permit the
solid phase to settle. Wastes that settle
slowly may be centrifuged prior to filtration.
Centrifugation is to be used only as an aid to
filtration. If used, the liquid should be
decanted and filtered followed by filtration of
the solid portion of the waste through the
same filtration system.
7.1.7 Quantitatively transfer the waste
sample to the filter holder (liquid and solid
phases). If filtration of the waste at 4* C
reduces the amount of expressed liquid over
what would be expressed at room
temperature then allow the sample to warm
up to room temperature in the device before
filtering.
Note.—If waste material (>1% of original
sample weight) has obviously adhered to the
container used to transfer the sample to the
filtration apparatus, determine the weight of
this residue and subtract it from the sample
weight determined in Step 7.1.5 to determine
the weight of the waste sample that will be
filtered.
Gradually apply vacuum or gentle pressure
of 1-10 psi, until air or pressurizing gas moves
through the filter. If this point is not reached
under 10 psi, and if no additional liquid has
passed through the filter in any 2-minute
interval, slowly increase the pressure in 10-
psi increments to a maximum of 50 psi. After
each incremental increase of 10-psi, if the
pressurizing gas has not moved through the
filter, and if no additional liquid has passed
through the filter in any 2-minute interval,
proceed to the next 10-psi increment. When
the pressurizing gas begins to move through
the filter, or when liquid flow has ceased at
50 psi (i.e., filtration does not result in any
additional filtrate within any 2-minute
period), filtration is stopped.
Note.—Instantaneous application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter and •
may cause premature plugging.
7.1.8 The material in the filter holder is
defined as the solid phase of the waste, and
the filtrate is defined as the liquid phase.
Note.—Some wastes, such as oily wastes
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some material that appears to be a
liquid. But even after applying vacuum or
pressure filtration, as outlined in Step 7.1.7,
this material may not filter. If this is the case,
the material within the filtration device is
defined as a solid. The original filter is not to
be replaced with a fresh filter under any
circumstances. Only one filter is used.
7.1.9 Determine the weight of the liquid
phase by subtracting the weight of the filtrate
container (See Step 7.1.3) from the total
weight of the filtrate-filled container. The
weight of the solid phase of the waste sample
is determined by subtracting the weight of the
liquid phase from the weight of the total
waste sample, as determined in Step 7.1.5 or
7.1.7. Record the weight of the liquid and
solid phases. Calculate the percent solids as
follows:
Percent solids =
Weight of solid (Step 7.1.9)
Total weight of waste (Step 7.1.5 or 7.1.7)
X100
7.2 Determination of whether waste is
liquid or has insignificant amounts of solid
material: If the sample obviously has a
significant amount of solid material, the solid
phase must be subjected to extraction;
proceed to Step 7.3 to determine if the waste
requires particle-size reduction (and to
reduce particle-size, if necessary). Determine
whether the waste is liquid or has
insignificant amounts of solid material (which
need not undergo extraction) as follows:
7.2.1 Remove the solid phase and filter
from the filtration apparatus.
7.2.2 Dry the filter and solid phase at
100±20* C until two successive weighings
yield the same value within ±1%. Record
final weight.
Note.—Caution should be taken to insure
that the subject solid will not flash upon
heating. It is recommended that the drying
oven be vented to a hood or appropriate
device.
7.2.3 Calculate the percent dry solids as
follows:
Percent dry solids =
Weight of dry waste and filter-tared weight of filter
Initial weight of waste (Step 7.1.5 or 7.1.1)
xlOO
7.2.4 If the percent dry solids is less than
0.5%, consult Step 6.2 and proceed to Section
8.0 if non-volatiles in the waste are of
concern, and to Section 9.0 if volatiles are of
interest. In this case, the waste, after
filtration is defined as the TCLP extract. If the
percent dry solids is greater than or equal to
0.5%, and if the non-volatile TCLP is to be
performed, return to the beginning of this
Section (7.0) with a new representative waste
sample, so that it can be determined if
particle-size reduction is necessary (Step 7.3),
and so that the .appropriate extraction fluid
may be determined (Step 7.4) on a fresh
portion of the solid phase of the waste. If
only the volatile TCLP is to be performed, see
the Note in Step 7.4.
7.3 Determination of whether the wastes
requires particle-size reduction (particle-size
is reduced during this Step): Using the solid
portion of the waste, evaluate the solid for
particle-size. If the solid has a surface area
per gram of material equal to or greater than
3.1 cm *, or is smaller than 1 cm in its
narrowest dimension (e.g., is capable of
passing through a 9.5-mm (0.375-inch)
standard sieve), particle-size reduction is not
required (proceed to Step 7.4). If the surface
area is smaller or the particle-size larger than
described above, the solid portion of the
waste is prepared for extraction by crushing,
cutting, or grinding the waste to a surface
area or particle-size as described above.
Note.—Surface area requirements are
meant for filamentous (e.g., paper, cloth) and
similar waste materials. Actual measurement
of surface area is not required: nor is it
recommended.
7.4 Determination of appropriate
extraction fluid: If the solid content is greater
than or equal to 0.5% of the waste and if
TCLP extraction for non-volatile constituents
will take place (Section 8.0), determination of
the appropriate fluid (Step 5.6) to use for the
non-volatiles extraction is performed as
follows.
Note.—TCLP extraction for volfiile
constituents entails using only exf action
fluid #1 (Step 5.8.1). Therefore, if ^CLP
extraction for non-volatiles extraction is not.
required, proceed to section 9.0. *
7.4.1 Weigh out a small subsaftple of the
solid phase of the waste, reduce the solid (if
necessary) to a particle-size of approximately
1mm in diameter or less, and transfer 5.0
grams of the solid phase of the waste to a
500-mL beaker of Erlenmeyer flask.
7.4.2 Add 96.5 mL of reagent water
(ASTM Type II) to the beaker, cover with a
watchglass, and stir vigorously for 5 minutes
using a magnetic stirrer. Measure and record.
the pH. If the pH is <5.0, extraction fluid «1
is used. Proceed to Section 8.0.
7.4.3 If the pH from Step 7.4.2 is >5.0. add
3.5 mL 1.0 N HC1, slurry briefly, cover with a
watchglass, heat to 50 °C. and hold at 50 °C
for 10 minutes.
7.4.4 Let the solution cool to room
temperature and record the pH. If the pH is
<5.0, use extraction fluid «i. If the pH is
>5.0, use extraction fluid *2. Proceed to
Section 8.0.
7.5 The sample of waste used for
performance of this Section shall not be used
any further. Other samples of the waste (see
Step 8.2) should be employed for the Section
8.0 and 9.0 extractions.
8.0 PROCEDURE WHEN VOLATILES ARE
NOT INVOLVED
Although a minimum sample size of 100
grams (solid and liquid phases) is required, a
larger sample size may be more appropriate.
depending on the solids content of the waste
sample (percent solids, see Step 7.1), whether
the initial liquid phase of the waste will be
miscible with the aqueous extract of the
solid, and whether inorganics, semivolatile
organics, pesticides, and herbicides are all
analytes of concern. Enough solids should ;•
generated for extraction such that the volume
-------
40646 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
of TCLP extract will be sufficient to support
all of the analyses required If the amount of
extract generated by the performance of a
single TCLP extraction will not be sufficient
to perform all of the analyses to be
conducted, it is recommended that more than
one extraction be performed and that the
extracts from each extraction be combined
and then aliquoted for analysis.
8.1 If the waste will obviously yield no
liquid when subjected to pressure filtration
(i.e.. is 100% solid, see Step 7.1). weigh out a
representative subsample of the waste (100
gram minimum) and proceed to Step 8.9.
8,2 If the sample is liquid or multiphasic.
liquid/solid separation is required. This
involves the filtration device described in
Step 4.3,2 and is outlined in Steps 8.3 to 8.8.
8.3 Pre-weigh the container that will
receive the filtrate.
8.4 Assemble the filter holder and filter
following the manufacturer's instructions.
Ptace the filter on the support screen and
secure. Acid wash the filter if evaluating the
mobility of metals (See Step 4.4).
Noto.—Acid washed filters may be used for
ail non-volatile extractions even when metals
are not of concern.
8.5 Weigh out a representative subsample
of the waste (110 gram minimum) and record
the weight. If the waste was shown to contain
!% of the
original sample weight) has obviously
adhered to the container used to transfer the
sample to the filtration apparatus, determine
the weight of this residue and subtract it from
the sample weight determined in Step 8.5, to
determine the weight of the waste sample
that will be filtered.
Gradually apply vacuum or gentle pressure
of 1-10 psi. until air or pressurizing gas moves
through the filter. If this point is not reached
under 10 psi, and if no additional liquid has
passed through the filter in any 2-minute
interval, slowly increase the pressure in 10-
psi increments to maximum of 50 psi. After
each incremental increase of 10 psi. if the
pressurizing gas has not moved through the
filter, and if no additional liquid has passed
through the filter in any 2-minute interval.
proceed to the next 10-psi increment. When
the pressurizing gas begins to move through
the filter, or when the liquid flow has ceased
at 50 psi (i.e.. filtration does not result in any
additional filtrate within a 2-minute period),
filtration is stopped.
Note.—Instantaneous application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter and
may cause premature plugging.
8.8 The material in the filter holder is
defined as the solid phase of the waste, and
the filtrate is defined as the liquid phase.
Weigh the filtrate. The liquid phase may now
be either analyzed (see Step 8.13) or stored at
4 *C until time of analysis.
Note.—Some wastes, such as oily wastes
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some material that appears to be a
liquid. But even after applying vacuum or
pressure filtration, as outlined in Step 8.7, this
material may not filter. If this is the case, the
material within the filtration device defined
as a solid and is carried through the
extraction as a solid. The original filter is not
to be replaced with a fresh filter under any
circumstances. Only one the filter is used.
8.9 If the waste contains <0.5% dry solids
(see Step 7.2), proceed to Step 8.13. If the
waste contains >0.5% dry solids (see Step 7.1
or 7.2), and if particle-size reduction of the
solid was needed in Step 7.3, proceed to Step
8.10. If particle-size reduction was not -
required in Step 7.3, quantitatively transfer
the solid material into the extractor vessel.
including the filter used to separate :-he initial
liquid from the solid phase. Proceed to Step
8.11.
8.10 The solid portion of the waste is
prepared for extraction by crushing, cutting.
or grinding the waste to a surface area of
particle-size as described in Step 7.3. When
the surface area of particle-size has been
appropriately altered, quantitatively transfer
the solid material into the extractor vessel.
including the filter used to separate the initial
liquid from the solid phase.
Note.—Sieving of the waste through a sieve
that is not Teflon coated should not be done
due to avoid possible contamination of the
sample. Surface area requirements are meant
for filamentous (e.g., paper, cloth) and similar
waste materials. Actual measurement of
surface area is not recommended.
8.11 Determine the amount of extraction
fluid to add to the extractor vessel as follows:
Weight of extraction fluid =
20x% solids (Step 7.1) x weight of waste filtere*(Step
8.5 or 8.7) *
Slowly add this amount of appropriate
extraction fluid (see Step 7.4) to the extractor
vessel. Close the extractor bottle tightly (it is
recommended that Teflon tape be used to
ensure a tight seal), secure in rotary extractor
device, and rotate at 30±2 rpm for 18*2
hours. Ambient temperature (i.e., temperature
of room in which extraction is to take place)
shall be maintained at 22±3 *C during the
. extraction period.
Note.—As agitation continues, pressure
may build up within the extractor bottle for
some types of wastes (e.g., limed or calcium
carbonate containing waste may evolve
gases such as carbon dioxide). To relieve
excess pressure, the extractor bottle may be
periodically opened (e.g., after 15 minutes, 30
minutes, and 1 hour) and vented into a hood.
8.12 Following the 18±2 hour extraction,
the material in the extractor vessel is
separated into its component liquid and solid
phases by filtering through a new glass fiber
filter, as outlined in Step 8.7. For final
filtration of the TCLP extract, the glass fiber
filter may be changed, if necessary, to
facilitate filtration. Filter(s) shall be acid-
washed (see Step 4.4) if evaluating the
mobility of metals.
8.13 The TCLP extract is now prepared as
follows:
8.13.1 If the waste contained no initial
liquid phase, the filtered liquid material
obtained from Step 8.12 is defined as the
TCLP extract. Proceed to Step 8.14.
8.13.2 If compatible (e.g., multiple phases
will not result on combination), the filtered
liquid resulting from Step 8.12 is combined
with the initial liquid phase of the waste as
100
obtained in Step 8.7. This combined liquid is
defined as the TCLP extract. Proceed to Step
8.14.
8.13.3 If the initial liquid phase of the
waste, as obtained from Step 8.7, is not or
may not be compatible with the filtered liquid
resulting from Step 8.12. these liquids are not
combined. These liquids, collectively defined
as the TCLP extract, are analyzed separately.
and the results are combined mathematically.
Proceed to Step 8.14.
8.14 Following collection of the TCLP
xtract. it is recommended that the pH of the
xtract be recorded. The extract should be
immediately aliquoted for analysis and
properly preserved (metals aliquots must be
acidified with nitric acid to pH <2; all other
aliquots must be stored under refrigeration
(4 °C) until analyzed). The TCLP extract shall
be prepared and analyzed according to
appropriate analytical methods. TCLP
extracts to be analyzed for metals, other than
mercury, shall be acid digested. If the
individual phases are to be analyzed
separately, determine the volume of the
individual phases (to ±0.5%), conduct the
appropriate analyses, and combine the
results mathematically by using a simple
volume-weighted average:
Final Analyte
Concentration
fV.)(C.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1966 / Rules and Regulations 40647
where:
V. =The volume of the first phase (L).
Ci =The concentration of the contaminant of
concern in the first phase (mg/L).
Vj=The volume of the second phase (L).
Cz =The concentration of the contaminant of
concern in the second phase (mg/L).
8.15 The contaminant concentrations in
the TCLP extract are compared with the
thresholds identified in the appropriate
regulations. Refer to Section 10.0 for quality
assurance requirements.
9.0 PROCEDURE WHEN VOLATILES ARE
INVOLVED
The ZHE device is used to obtain TCLP
extracts for volatile analysis only. Extract
resulting from the use of the ZHE shall not be
used to evaluate the mobility of non-volatile
analytes fa.g., metals, pesticides, etc.).
The ZHE device has approximately a 500-
mL internal capacity. Although a minimum
sample size of 100 grams was required in the
Section 8.0 procedure, the ZHE can only
accommodate a maximum of 25 grams of
solid (defined as that fraction of a sample
from which no liquid (additional) may be
forced out by an applied pressure of 50 psi),
due to the need to add an amount of
extraction fluid equal to 20 times the weight
of the solid phase.
The ZHE is charged with sample only once
and the device is not opened until the final
extract (of the solid) has been collected.
Repeated filling of the ZHE of obtain 25
grams of solid is not permitted. The initial
filtrate should be weighed and then stored at
4 'C until either analyzed or recombined with
the final extract of the solid.
Although the following procedure allows
for particle-size reduction during the conduct
of the procedure, this could result in the loss
of volatile compounds. If possible (e.g..
particle-size may be reduced easily by
crumbling), particle-size reduction (See Step
9.2) should be conducted on the sample as it
is being taken. If necessary, particle-size
reduction may be conducted during the
procedure.
In carrying out the following steps, do not
allow the waste, the initial liquid phase, or
the extract to be exposed to the atmosphere
for any more time than is absolutely
necessary. Any manipulation of these
materials should be done when cold (4* C) to
minimize loss of volatiles.
9.1 Pre-weigh the (evacuated) container
which will receive the filtrate (See Step 4.6),
and set aside. If using a TEDLAR* bag. all
liquid must be expressed from the device,
whether it be for the initial or final liquid/
solid separation, and an aliquot taken from
the liquid in the bag, for analysis. The
containers listed in Step 4.8 are
recommended for use under the following
conditions.
9.1.1 If a waste contains an aqueous
liquid phase or if the waste does not contain
a significant amount of non-aqueous liquid
(i.e.. <1% of total waste), the TEDLAR* bag
should be used to collect and combine the
initial liquid and solid extract. The syringe is
not recommended in these cases.
9.1.2 If a waste contains a significant
amount of non-aqueous initial liquid phase
(i.e.. >1% of total waste), the syringe or the
TEDLAR" bajz may be used for both the
initial solid/liquid separation and the final
extract filtration. However, analysts should
use one or the other, not both.
9.1.3 If the,waste contains no initial liquid
phase (is 100?5 solid) or has no significant
solid phase (is100% liquid)/either the
TEDLAR* bag or the syringe may be used. If
the syringe is used, discard the first 5 mL
liquid expressed from the device. The
remaining aliquots are used for analysis.
9.2 Place the ZHE piston within the body
of the ZHE (it may be helpful first to moisten
the piston O-rings slightly with estraction
fluid). Adjust the piston within the ZHE body
to a height that will minimize the distance the
piston will have to move once the ZHE is
charged with sample (based upon sample size
requirements determined from Section 9.0,
Step 7.1 and/or 7.2). Secure the gas inlet/
outlet flange (bottom flange) onto the ZHE
body in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions. Secure the glass fiber filter
between the support screens and set aside.
Set liquid inlet/outlet flange (top flange)
aside.
9.3 If the waste is 100% solid (see Step
7.1), weigh out a representative subsample
(25 gram maximum) of the waste, record
weight, and proceed to Step 9.5.
9.4 If the waste was shown to contain
0.5% dry solids (Steps 7.1
and/or 7.2), use the percent solids
information obtained in Step 7.1 to determine
the optimum sample size to charge into the
ZHE. The appropriate sample size
recommended is as follows:
9.4.1 For wastes containing n.5% solids
(see Step 7.1), weigh out a representative 500
gram sample or waste and record the weight.
9.4.2 For wastes containing >5% solids
(see Step 7.1), the amount of waste to charge
into the ZHE is determined as follows:
Weight of
waste to charge
ZHE
25
% solids (Step
7.1)
X100
Weigh out a representative subsample of
the waste of the appropriate size and record
the weight.
9.5 If particle-size reduction of the solid
portion of the waste was required in Step 7.3,
proceed to Step 9.6. If particle-size reduction
was not required in Step 7.3. proceed to Step
9.7.
9.6 The waste is prepared for extraction
by crushing, cutting, or grinding the solid
portion of the waste to a surface area or
particle-size as described in Step 7.3. Wastes
and appropriate reduction equipment should
be refrigerated, if possible, to 4 "C prior to
particle-size reduction. The means used to
effect particle-size reduction must not
generate heat in and of itself. If reduction of
the solid phase of the waste is necessary.
exposure of the waste to the atmosphere
should be avoided to the extent possible.
Note.—Sieving of the waste is not
recommended due to the possibility (hat
volatiles may be lost. The use of an
appropriately graduated ruler is
recommended as an acceptable alternative.
Surface area requirements are meant for
filamentous (e.g., paper, cloth) and similar
waste materials. Actual measurement of
surface area is not recommended.
When the surface area or particle-size has
been appropriately altered, proceed to Step
9.7.
9.7 Waste slurries need not be allowed to
stand to permit the solid phase to settle.
Wastes that settle slowly shall not be
centrifuged prior to filtration.
9.8 Quantitatively transfer the entire
sample (liquid and solid phases) quickly to
the ZHE. Secure the filter and support
screens into the top flange of the device and
secure the top flange to the ZHE body in
accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions. Tighten all ZHE fittings and
place the device in the vertical position (gas
inlet/outlet flange on the bottom). Do not
attach the extraction collection device to the
top plate.
Note.—If waste material (>1% of original
sample weight) has obviously adhered to the
container used to transfer the sample to the
ZHE. determine the weight of thisjesidue
and subtract it from the sample w^ght
determined in Step 9.4. to determiws the
weight of the waste sample that vtt\ be
filtered. *
Attach a gas line to the gas inlet^outlet
valve (bottom flange) and, with the^liquid
inlet/outlet valve (top flange) open, begin
applying gentle pressure of 1-10 psi (or more
if necessary) to force all headspace (into a
hood) slowly out of the ZHE device. At the
first appearance of liquid from the liquid
inlet/outlet valve, quickly close the valve and
discontinue pressure, if filtration of the waste
at 4°C reduces the amount of expressed liquid
over what would be expressed at room
temperature, then allow the sample to warm
up to room temperature in the device before
filtering. If the waste is 100% solid (see Step
7.1), slowly increase the pressure to a
maximum of 50 psi to force most of the
headspace out of the device and proceed to
Step 9.12.
9.9 Attach the evacuated pre-Weighed
filtrate collection container to the liquid
inlet/outlet valve and open the valve. Begin
applying gentle pressure of 1-10 psi to force
the liquid phase into the filtrate collection
container. If no additional liquid has passed
through the filter in any 2-minute interval.
slowly increase the pressure in 10-psi
increments to a maximum of 50 psi. After
each incremental increase of 10 psi, if no
additional liquid has passed through the filter
in any 2-minute interval, proceed to the next
10-psi increment. When liquid flow has
ceased such that continued pressure filtration
at 50 psi does not result in any additional
filtrate within any 2-minute period, filtration
is stopped. Close the liquid inlet/outlet valve.
discontinue pressure to the piston, and
disconnect the filtrate collection container.
Note.—Instantaneous application of high
pressure can degrade the glass fiber filter and
may cause premature plugging.
-------
T
9,10 The material in the ZHE is defined as
i «*°i phase of the waste and 'he filtrate is
defined as the liquid phase.
Note.—Some wastes, such as oily wastes
and some paint wastes, will obviously
contain some material that appears to be a
liquid. But evun after applying pressure
nitrdtion. this material will not filter. If this is
She case, the material within the filtration
device is defined as a solid and is carried
!hroti«h the TCLP e^ traction as a solid.
If the original waste contained <0.5% dry
solids (see Step 7.2), this filtrate is defined as
the TCLP extract and is analyzed directly.
Proceed to Step 9.1 S.
9.11 The liquid phase may now be either
analyzed immediately (see Steps 9.13 through
9.15) or stored at 4 *C under minimal
headspace conditions until time of analysis.
The weight of extraction fluid «l to add to
the ZHE is determined as follows:
Weight of
extraction
fluid
20°8 solids (Step
7.1) x weight of waste
= filtered (Step 9.4 or 9.8)
9.12 The following steps detail how to
«idd the appropriate amount of extraction
fluid to the solid material within the ZHE and
agitdUon of the ZHE vessel. Extraction fluid
=1 is us«d in all cases (see Step 5.6).
9.12,1 With the ZHE in the vertical
piuilion. attach a line from the extraction
fluid reservior to the liquid inlet/outlet valve.
The line used shall contain fresh extraction
fluid and should be preflushed with fluid to
eliminate any air pockets in the line. Release
gus pressure on the ZHE piston (from the gas
inlisl/oullet v«dvej. open the liquid inlet/
outlul valve, and begin transferring extraction
fluid (by pumping or similar means) into the
ZHE. Continue pumping extraction fluid into
the ZHE until the appropriate amount of fluid
hus been introduced into the device.
9.12.2 After the extraction fluid has been
added, immediately close the liquid inlet/
outlet valve and disconnect the extraction
fluid line. Check the ZHE to ensure that all
vulvas are in 'heir closed positions.
Physically rotate the device in an end-over-
pnd fashion 2 or 3 times. Reposition the ZHE
in Ihe vertical position with the liquid inlet/
outlet valve on top. Put 5-10 psi behind the
piston (if necessary) and slowly open the
liquid Inlet/outlet valve to bleed out any
headspace (into a hood) that may have been
introduced due to the addition of extraction
fluid. This bleeding shall be done quickly and
shut] be stopped at the first appearance of
liquid from the valve. Re-pressurize the ZHE
with 5-10 psi and check all ZHE fitting! to
ensure that they are closed,
9.12,3 Place the ZHE in the rotary
extractor apparatus (if it is not already there)
*ind rotate the ZHE at 30±2 rpm for 18±2
hours. Ambient temperature (i.e.. temperature
of room in which extraction ia to occur) shall
he maintained at 22±3 *C during agitation.
9.13 Following the 18±2 hour agitation
period, check the pressure behind the ZHE
piston by quickly opening and closing the gas
inlet/outlet valve and noting the escape of
gus. If the pressure has not been maintained
(U1,. no gas release observed), the device is
leaking. Check the ZHE for leaking as
specified in Step 4.2.1. and redo the
ux traction with a new sample of waste. If the
pressure within the device has been
maintained, the material in the extractor
vessel it once again separated into its
component liquid and solid phases. If the
waste contained an initial liquid phase, the
100
liquid may be filtered directly into the same
filtrate collection container (i.e.. TEDLAR1
bag) holding the initial liquid phase of the
waste, unless doing so would create multiple
phases, or unless there is not enough volume
left within the filtrate collection container. A
separate filtrate collection container must be
used in these cases. Filter through the glass
fiber filter, using the ZHE device as discussed
in Step 9.9. All extract shall be filtered and
collected in the TEDLAR* bag is used, if the
extract is multiphasic, or if the waste
contained an initial liquid phase (see Steps
4.6 and 9.1).
Note.—An in-line glass fiber filter may be
used to filter the material within the ZHE
when it is suspected that the glass fiber filter
has been ruptured.
9.14 If the original waste contained no
initial liquid phase, the filtered liquid
material obtained from Step 9.13 is defined as
the TCLP extract. If the waste contained in
initial liquid phase, the filtered liquid
material obtained'from Step 9.13 and the
initial liquid phase (Step 9.9) are collectively
defined as the TCLP extract.
9.15 Following collection of the TCLP
extract, the extract should be immediately
aliquoted for analysis and stored with
minimal headspace at 4 °C until analyzed.
The TCLP extract will be prepared and
analyzed according to the appropriate
analytical methods. If the individual phases
are to be analyzed separately (i.e.. are not
miscible), determine the volume of the
individual phases (to ±0.5%), conduct the
appropriate analyses, and combine the
results mathematically by using a simple
volume-weighted average:
Final Analyte
Concentration
V,
where:
Vi =The volume of the first phases (I.).
Ci =The concentration of the contaminant of
concern in the first phase (mg/L).
V2=The volume of the second phase (I.).
Cj=The concentration of the contaminant of
concern in the second phase (mg'/L).
9.16 The contaminant concentrations in
the TCLP extract are compared with the
thresholds identified in the appropriate
regulations. Refer to Section 10.0 for qualify
assurance requirements.
10.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS
10.1 All data, including quality assurance
data, should be maintained and available for
reference or inspection.
10.2 A minimum of one blank (extraction
fluid *1) for every 10 extractions that have
been conducted in an extraction vessel shall
be employed as a check to determine if any
memory effects from the extraction
equipment are occurring.
10.3 For each analytical batch (up to
twenty samples), it is recommended that a
matrix spike be performed. Addition of
matrix spikes should occur once the TCLP
extract has been generated (i.e.. should not
occur prior to performance of the TCLP
procedure). The purpose of the matrix spike
is to monitor the adequacy of the analytical
methods used on the TCLP extract and for
determining if matrix interferences exist in
analyte detection.
10.4 Ail quality control measures
described in the appropriate analytical
methods shall be followed.
10.5 The method of standard addition
shall be employed for each analyte ifcl)
recovery of the compound from the ftu>
extract is not between 50 and 150"5. « 2) if
the concentration of the constituent Measured
in the extract is within 20S of the apjfropriate
regulatory threshold. If more than oner
extraction is being run on samples of the
same waste (up to twently samples), the
method of standard addition need be applied
only once and the percent recoveries applied
to the remainder of the extractions.
10.6 Samples must undergo TCLP
extraction within the following time period
after sample receipt: Volatiles. 14 days: Semi-
Volatiles, 40 days; Mercury, 28 days: and
other Metals. 180 days. Extraction of the solid
portion of the waste should be initiated as
soon as possible following initial solid/liquid
separation. TCLP extracts shall be analyzed
after generation and preservation within the
following periods: Volatiles, 14 days; Semi-
Volatiles, 40 days; Mercury, 28 days: and
other Metala, 180 days.
TABLE 1.—VOLATILE CONTAMINANTS '
Compound
I CAS No
Acetone „ „
n-B'jtyl alcohol _
Canon OouUxte
Carbon tetraehlonde
Chlorobenzene
Methylan* chloride....
Methyl elfiyl Ketone ,
Mathyl isobutyl ketone ,
Tetracnloroethylene _
Toluene
1.1.i-Trichloroemane
Tnchtoroethylene
Tnchlorofluorometnane ...
Xyiene
i
i
1
1
I
1
1
1
67-64-1
71-36-S
75-15-0
56-J3-5
106-90-7
75-09-2
78-93-3
103-1U-1
127-18-4
108-88-3
71-55-6
79-01-6
75-69-4
U30-20-T
1 Includes compounds identified in the Land Disposal Re-
strictions Rule. II any or all of these comoounds are ol
concern, the zero-neadscace extractor vessel snail be used
!f other (non-volatile) compounds are o* concern. :he con-
ventional bottle extractor shall be used
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday. November 7, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—SUITABLE ROTARY AGITATION
APPARATUS
TABLE 2.—SUITABLE ROTARY AGITATION
APPARATUS '—Continued
Company
Associated Design
and
Manufacturing
Company.
Lars Landa
Manfacturmg.
IRA Machine Shop
and Laboratory.
EPP.I Extractor....... .
REXNORO
Location •
Alexandria. VA
(703) 549-5998.
Whrtmore Lake, Ml
(313)448-4116.
Santurce, PR
(6091 752-4004.
Milwaukee Wl
(414) 643-2850.
Model
4-ve*se< device, 8-
vessel device
10-vessel device,
5-vesael device
16-vessel device
Company
Analytical Testing
and Consulting
: Services. Inc.
location
Wamngton, PA
(215) 343-4490.
Model'
4-vessel device
' Any device that rotates the extraction vessel in an end-
over-end fashion at 30-2 rpm is acceptable.
'Although this device is suitable, it is not commercially
made. It may also require retrofitting to accommodate ZHE
OOVTC6S.
TABLE 3.—SUITABLE ZERO-HEADSPACE EXTRACTOR VESSELS
Company
Associated Design £ Manufacturing Co.
Millipore Corp
Analytical Testing & Consulting Services. Inc
Location
Alexandria, VA, (703) 549-5999.
Bedford, MA, (BOO) 225-3384
Wamngton, PA, (215) 343-4490
Model No.
3740-ZH8. Gas Pressure Device.
SD1 P581 C5. Gas Pressure Device
TABLE 4.—SUITABLE FILTER HOLDERS '
Company
Nucfspore Corp
Micro Filtration Systems. .
Millipore Corp
Location
Pteosanton, CA (800)882-7711
Dublin. CA, (415) 828-6010
Bedford. MA. (800) 225-3384
Model
425910
410400
302400
YT30142HW
XX10047qj>
142 mm.
47 mm.
142 mm.
TABLE 5.— SUITABLE FILTER MEDIA •£
Company
Whatman Laboratory Product*. Inc.
Location " M
CKfton, NJ. (201) 773-5800 GF
Odel Po'1
F j 0.7
BILLING CODE 886O-5O-M
-------
4065§ Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7, 1986 / Rules and Regulations
WET WASTE SAMPLE
CONTAINS NO OR
INSIGNIFICANT
NON-FILTERABLE
SOLIDS
4"
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATION:
0.6- TO 0.8-um
GLASS FIBER
FILTRATION
LIQUID
TCLP EXTRACT-
REPRESENTATIVE
WASTE SAMPLE
DRY WASTE SAMPLE
DISCARD
SOLID
SOLID
REDUCE PARTICLE-SIZE
IF yi cm IN NARROWEST
DIMENSION OR SURFACE
AREA <3.1 cm2
TCLP EXTRACTION*
OF SOLID
ZERO-HEADSPACE EXTRACTOR
REQUIRED FOR VOLATILES
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATION:
0.6- TO 0.8-um
GLASS FIBER
FILTRATION
DISCARD
' SOLID
LIQUID
v_WET WASTE SAMPLE
CONTAINS
SIGNIFICANT
NON-FILTERABLE
SOLIDS
TCLP EXTRACT
i
ANALYTICAL
METHODS
LIQUID/SOLID
SEPARATION:
0.6- TO 0.8-um
GLASS FIBER
FILTRATION
LIQUID
*
*
j STORE AT 4*C
TCLP EXTRACT
extraction fluid employed is a function of the alkalinity of the solid
phase of the waste.
FIGURE 1: TCLP FLOWCHART
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 216 / Friday, November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
40651
Motor
(30 ^ 2 rpra)
Extraction Vess«l Holder
BILLING COOt SSSO-SO-C
Figure 2t Rotary Agitation
-------
40652 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
Liquid Inlet/Outlet Valve
•Filter-
Waste/Extraction Fluid
Piston
1 Top
I Flange
Body
VI TON
0-rings
Bottom
Flange
Pressurizing Gas Inlet/Outlet Valve
Figure 3; Zero-Headspace Extraction Vessel
-------
APPENDIX II TO PART 268—TREATMENT STANDARDS (As CONCENTRATIONS IN THE TREATMENT
RESIDUAL EXTRACT)
Wo* The
.ho*, are the bMi, of
*•
Constitutents at FOO1-FOO5 Spent
Solvent Waste*
Acetone
n-Sulyl Alcohol
Carbon disulfide
Carbon tetrachlonoe
Chlorobanzene
Cresols (crwylic acid)
Cyclohexanone
Ethyl acetate
Ethylbenzene
Eihyl ether
Isobutanol
Methanol
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Nitrobenzene
Pyndine
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1.1.1-Trichloroethane
1.1,2-Tnchlorc-1,2.2-tfrnuoroethan«
Tnchloroethylene
Tnchlorofluoromethane
Xylene
Waste Trw
Wastewater
0.05
5.00
1.05
0.05
0.15
2.82
0.125
0.65
O.OS
0.05
O.OS
5.00
0.25
0.20
0.05
0.05
0.66
1.12
0.079
1.12
t.OS
1.05
0.062
0.05
0.05
liability Groups For FCO1-FOO
Technology Saai* '
SS
SS
SS
a
B4AC
AC
SS
BAAC
SS
B
SS
SS
SS
B
SS
SS
SS&AC
34AC
3
34AC
SS
SS
B&AC
3.
AC
5 Spent Solvent W
Wastewater
Generated by
Pharmaceutical
Plant1
12.7
•
attea (mg/l)
Another*
0.59
5.00
4.81
0.96
O.OS
0.75
0.7S
0.125
0.75
0.053
0.75
5.00
0.75
0.96
0.33
0.33
0.05
0.41
0.15
SS=steam stripping
S = biological treatment
AC = activated carbon
acht9ved somewhat tower treatment vaf
vou
-------
40654 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 216 / Friday. November 7. 1986 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2.—SELF-IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF
THE HAZARDOUS AND Souo WASTE AMEND-
MENTS OF 1984
Federal
Ragaler
ref«fenc«
No. « 1988 tind 300*(»t . .
OnorMU of
ftotttf. puMct-
ixxii on tan}, 51
dwnns FR [insert
ana F001- Federal
F005 negater
solvent*. page
number}}
|FR Doc. 86-25224 Filed 11-6-86; 8:45 am)
BILLING CODE (5tO-SO-M
------- |