-------
          44722      Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 238 / Thursday, December 11, 1986  /  Proposed Rules
.
substantial present or potential hazard
to human health or the environment
when it is improperly treated, stored,
transported, disposed of or otherwise
managed."
  The EP toxicity values were based on
the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Standards (NIPDWS) (see 40 FR
59566). The NIPDWS, which must be met
by public drinking water systems, are
considered to be the levels at which
chronic exposure to drinking water
contaminants will not cause adverse
health effects. However, the Agency
does not have adequate data to
demonstrate that land disposal of the
California metals at concentrations
below the statutory levels poses a
degree of hazard that necessitates
accelerating the schedule for
consideration of wastes below the
statutory level.
  The EP levels were developed by
using a scenario that was based on the
co-disposal of the metal-bearing wastes
with municipal waste in a Subtitle D
facility. Since they are lower than the
statutory levels, they-are more
conservative than the statutory levels.
However, it is not dear that lowering
the levels to the EP levels is required to
protect human health and the
environment for a waste disposed of in
a Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal
facility.
  The Agency is soliciting comment and
data that would support lowering the
restriction levels for metals to the EP
levels or to concentrations other than
the EP levels for the California list
metals. The Agency has not promulgated
EP toxidty characteristic levels for
nickel and thallium. Since the Agency
has no data that would support lower
levels for these metals to any other
level, one approach-would be to adhere
to the statutory requirements. Another
approach would be to follow the
apparent rationale used by California
which, since no NIPDWS standards had
been developed, multipHeH the-Ambient
Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) for
nickel and thallium by a factor of 10,000.
Since the EP level* for the California list
metal* are 100 times less than the
statutory requirements, the Agency, in
.order to be consistent, would also
consider lowering the restriction: levels
for nickel and thallium to 1.34 and 1.30
mg/L respectively, if this approach were
to be adopted. The Agency solicits
comments or data that would support
this approach or that Would suggest a
different approach.
D. Corrosives

1. Characterization of Corrosive Wastes
  Congress mandated that liquid
hazardous waste having a pH less than
or equal to two be prohibited from land
disposal effective 32 months from the
date of enactment of the HSWA. The
EPA has identified the principal
corrosive hazardous waste as EPA
hazardous waste D002. D002 wastes are
hazardous by virtue of exhibiting the
characteristic of corrositivity. Corrosive
wastes are generated primarily by the
Chemical and Allied Products Industry
(SIC 28) and the Primary Metal and
Fabricated Metal Products Industries
(SICs 33 and 34). Additionally, many
corrosive wastes also contain other
California list constituents, such, as
metals and cyanides. An example of
such a corrosive waste is hydrofluoric
acid etch from the semiconductor
industry. Similarly, EPA hazardous
waste K011 was identified as a potential
California list waste for both its
potential acidic nature and the
occurrence of cyanide.
2. Effect of Corrosive!] on Liners
  Corrosive wastes are acutely toxic
and damaging to living tissue. However,
in addition to hazards associated with
toxicity, corrosive wastes also present
risks to human health and the
environment as a result of their
reactivity with other wastes and liner
materials. The Agency has conducted
studies to assess the impact of these
wastes may result in the formation of
reaction of acids with codisposed
wastes may result in the formaiton of
toxic and flammable gases and in the
solubilization of toxic substances from
the waste matrix Acidic wastes may
also degrade clay liners and contribute
to the mobility- of other hazardous
constituents, in the environment, but are
not generally incompatible with
synthetic liner materials, (refs: Goldman
and Tatsch, May 1985) (Ref. 13), While
these data are not pH-specific, they
indicate, nonetheless, that strong adds
are potentially hazardous or may
contribute to increased hazards from
other materials when land disposed.
3. Proposed Approach and Rationale for
the Statutory Level
  EPA is proposing to impose the
statutory level of leas than or equal to a
pH of two (2.0). This level is consistent
with EPA's current approach to defining
waste as hazardous based on the
characteristic of corrosivity, and in the
absence of data indicating that weaker
acids present a hazard to human health
and the environment when disposed of
in a Subtitle C facility, EPA is not
considering modifying the statutory
level at this time. The Agency is
requesting comment on pH-spedfic data
regarding the effects of corrosive wastes
on both clay and synthetic liners and
codisposed wastes.

4. Treatment Standards

  The Agency is proposing that
treatments which neutralize corrosive
wastes to above two (2.0) are
considered to be BDAT treatment for the
characteristic of corrosivity. Wastes so
treated will no longer be considered
California list wastes (in fact, wastes
with a pH of above two are not
considered characteristically hazardous,
and may be land disposed  in a Subtitle
D facility).
  The Agency requests comment on
whether this type of treatment should be
codified as a treatment-method
(§ 268.42), or performance-based .
standard (S 268.41).

E. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

1. RCRA section 3004(d)(2)(D)
Requirements

  Effective July 8,1987, RCRA section
3004(d)(2)(D) prohibits the  land disposal
of liquid hazardous wastes containing
polychlorinated biphenyls  at
concentrations greater than or equal to
SOppm.
  a. Definition of polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). For the California list
restrictions, the Agency is proposing to
define PCBs consistent with the
definition in 40 CFR 761.3. That
provision defines PCBs for purposes of
regulation under the Toxic Substances.
Control Act (TSCA) as "any chemical
substance that is limited to the biphenyl
molecule that has been chlorinated to
varying degrees or any combination of ..
substances which contain such
substance." In addition, inadvertently
generated PCBs are defined as "the total
PCBs calculated folio wing  division of
the quantity of monochlorinated
biphenyls by 50 and dichlorinated
biphenyls by 5." This, was inserted in the -
TSCA regulations in recognition that
monochlorinated biphenyls are less
toxic and persistent than dichlorinated
biphenyls, which are themselves less
toxic and persistent than
polychlorinated biphenyls  with greater
than two chlorines.
  In the absence of an alternative
definition of PCBs specified hi RCRA.
EPA believes that it is reasonable to
adopt the existing definition as stated in
the TSCA regulations. The-definition is
intended to account for differing degrees
of hazard assodated with different
compounds. Such a determination

-------
              Federal Renter / .Vol
  appear* to be consistent with the intent
  of Congress in section 3004{dJ to
  concentrate on wattes that are known
  to create substantial risk Moreover, the
  Agency believes that an alternative
  definition would add confusion to an
  already complex and overlapping
  framework for regulating PCBs. An
  alternative definition being considered
  would not employ the use of division
  factors for inadvertently generated
  PCBs. Under this definition, PCBs would
  be defined as "the biphenyl molecule
  that has been chlorinated to any
  degree." EPA does not believe that this
  interpretation is consistent with the
  intent of Congress.
    b. Hazardous waste requirement.
  Since PCBs are not listed as hazardous
  wastes under RCRA, PCB-containing
  wastes are only subject to the section
  3004(d)(2](D) prohibition if they are
  mixed with wastes which are listed as
 hazardous under 40 CFR Part 261 or
 exhibit one or more of the
 characteristics of hazardous waste
 identified in Part 261.
   For example, transformers often
 contain both PCBs and hazardous
 constituents listed at 40 CFR Part 261,
 Appendix VIE. However, if the waste
 containing these constituents is not a
 listed or characteristic hazardous waste,
 the section 3004(d)(2)CD) prohibition will
 not apply. For example, some
 transformers contain isomere of
 tetrachlorobenzene and
 trichlorobenzene. Although several of
 these isomers (e.g. 1.2,4,5-
 tetrachlorobenzene and 1,2,4-
 trichlorobenzene) are listed  as
 Appendix VTH hazardous constituents,
 EPA has not listed wastes containing
 these isomers as hazardous where the
 source of the waste is a spent dielectric
 fluid. Consequently, these PCB-
 containing spent dielectric fluids will be
 subject to the section 3004{d)(2)(D) land
 disposal prohibition only if they are
 mixed with a listed hazardous waste or
 if they exhibit a characteristic identified
 in Part 281.
  c. Proposed approach. The prohibition
 in section 3004{d)(2)(D>applietonIy to
 liquid hazardous waste*containing-   • -
 PCBs at concentrations greater thto or
 equatto5Oppm.EPAi»proposingto   -
 codify the 50 ppm prohibition specified
 in HSWA. This level is consistent with
 the comprehensive PGB regulations
 existing under the Toxic Substances
 Control Act (TSCA). and EPA does not
 have information to suggest that a
 different level is necessary.
 2. Existing Regulation of PCBs
  Regulations promulgated pursuant to
TSCA currently address the land
disposal of PCB wastes. The  TSCA
  requirements at 40 CFR Part 751 vary
  depending on the concentration of PCBs
  in the waste and % physical form in
  which the waste is disposed, i.e.,
  whether the waste is disposed in bulk
.  liquid form, as a containerized liquid, or
  as a non-liquid. Disposal of PCBs at
  concentrations below SO ppm are not
  regulated under TSCA unless they were
  created by diluting a higher
  concentration of PCB or are used in
  specified ways, i.e. as a sealant coating,
  dust control agent, pesticide carrier, or
  as a rust prevention agent on pipes..
  Uquid PCBs at concentrations greater
  than or equal to SO ppm but less than 500
  ppm may be incinerated or burned in a
  high efficiency boiler. This may also be
  land disposed pursuant to the TSCA
  regulations, but with certain limitations.
  some of which are summarized below.
  Liquid wastes containing PCBs at
  concentrations greater than or equal to
  500 ppm must be incinerated according
  to TSCA regulations or disposed of by
  any other approved alternate methods
  (40 CFR 761.60(e)) that can achieve a
  level of performance equivalent to the
  technical standards set in 40 CFR 761.70.
  Such wastes cannot be land disposed
  without prior treatment
  3. Relationship Between HSWA and
 Existing. Regulations
   Several provisions in HSWA impose
 restrictions on the land disposal of PCB
 wastes which are not contained in the
 existing TSCA or RCRA regulations. The
 TSCA regulations at 40 CFR 761.1(e}
 clearly state that where  there is an
 inconsistency between TSCA and RCRA
 standards, the more stringent
 regulations govern. In addition, the
 legislative history to an unrelated
 provision (H, R. Rep; No. 198, Part 1.98th
 Cong., 1st Sess. 56 {1983}) suggests that
 allowing the more stringent provisions
 to govern is also consistent with
 Congress'understanding of the
 regulatory scheme.
  a. Disposal of bulk liquids containing
 PCBs. Under 40 CFR 761.75(bK8)(ii). bulk
 liquids containing PCBs at
 concentrations below 500 ppm may be
 disposed in a TSCA approved landfill'   '

 stabilized to eliminate the presence of
 free liquids prior to final disposal. This k
 regulation is superseded  in part by •
 RCRA section 3804(G)(1) (codified at 40
 CFR 284.314 and 265.314) which
 prohibits the placement of bulk liquid
 hazardous-wastes in landfills even
 where absorbents have been added.
 Therefore, if the bulk liquids containing,
 PCBs are unhazardous waste or are
 mixed with a RCRA hazardous waste,
 the resulting liquid waste is prohibited  :
 from being placed in any landfill.
  regardless of the concentration of PCBs
  (even if below SO ppinjr unless the waste
  is rendered non-liquid by means other
  than the use of absorbents (e.g. chemical
  stabilization and certain types of
  solidification). However, if the
  concentration is greater than or equal to
  50 ppm, all types of land disposal are,
  prohibited under RCRA section
  3004(d)(2)(D).
   Even where the PCB-containing waste
  is not a RCRA hazardous waste,  section
  3004(c)(3)  of RCRA (which is codified at
  40 CFR 264.314 and 265.314) prohibits
  liquid wastes from being placed in a
  hazardous waste landfill that is
  regulated under RCRA unless the only
  reasonably available alternative  is
  placement in a landfill or surface
  impoundment which contains or may
  reasonably be anticipated to contain'
  hazardous waste and such disposal will
  not present a risk of contamination of
  any underground source of drinking
  water. However, because the TSCA
  regulations at 40 CFR 761.75(b)(8)(ii)
 require the elimination of free liquids
 from wastes containing greater than or
 equal to SO ppm PCBs prior to placement
 in a landfill, obtaining an exemption: • •
 under section 3004(c)(3) will not jelieves
 an owner or operator of the obligation to
 solidify such, wastes prior to landfilling.
   b. Disposal of containerized liquids
 containing PCBs. The TSCA regulations
 allow containerized liquids with less
 than 500 ppm PCBs to be disposed of in
 an approved landfill if each container is
 surrounded by an amount of inert
 sorbent material capable of absorbing
 all of the liquid contents of the
 container. RCRA section 3004{c)(2)
 directs EPA to promulgate regulations
 minimizing the disposal of containerized
 liquid hazardous wastes in landfills and
 to minimize the presence of free liquids
 in containerized hazardous waste  to be
 disposed of in landfills; Until such
 regulations are promulgated, existing
 RCRA regulations a*40 CFR284.314 and
 285.314 apply to the disposal of
 containerized liquid hazardous wastes.
 Those regulations require the waste to
 either be placed in very-small
 containers, such as an-ampule, or  •
 require any free standing liquid to  be
 eliminated through.solidification.
 mixture with absorbents, decantation, or
 other methods:   '-. '••'••• -  .
  Where the containerized liquid
 hazardous waste is mixed With PCBs
 and the PCBs are present hi'
 concentrations greater than or equal to
50 ppm, section 3004(d)(2)(DJ supersedes
 the existing RCRA regulations
mentioned above and all types of land
disposal are prohibited; If the
concentration of PCBs in the

-------
           44724       Federal Register / Vol.  51, No.  238 / Thursday, December 11. 1986 / Proposed Rules
s>
»•»'
1

I
containerized liquid hazardous waste is
below 50 ppin, the RCRA regulations for
disposal of liquid wastes at 40 CFR
264.314 and 265.314 apply. Where the
containerized liquid PCS waste is not
mixed with a RCRA hazardous waste,
the TSCA regulations requiring that
each container be surrounded by
absorbents apply to land" disposal in
TSCA approved landfills. RCRA section
3004{c)(3), however, prohibits the
disposal of such liquids in RCRA
hazardous waste landfills in most cases
despite the fact that PCBa are not
regulated as hazardous under RCRA and
are containerized in this instance.

4. Treatment Technologies (BOAT)
  EPA is proposing to establish
treatment standards for liquid
hazardous wastes containing greater
than or equal to 50 ppm PCBs. The
Agency has determined that thermal
treatment (he* treatment in incinerators
or high efficiency boilers) of PCBs
pursuant to the requirements set forth in
40 CFR 761.60 and 761.70 is generally the
best demonstrated available technology
for such wastes. As described in The
Solvent and Dioxin Final Rule (§ 268.42)
(51FR 40572. November 7.1988), the
Agency proposes to allow, Upon
approval by the Administrator, the use
of alternate methods that can achieve a
level of performance equivalent to the
high efficiency boiler standards at
§ 761.60 or the incinerator standards at
§ 761.70. See section IV.G for a further
discussion of PCB treatment
technologies.

5. Nationwide Variance From Statutory
Effective-Data ,  ,
  EPA has determined that then is
inadequate thermal treatment capacity
for the liquid hazardous wastes
containing PCBs subject to today's
proposed prohibitions,'therefore the
Agency is- proposing a 2-year,
nationwide variance1 from the'starutory
effective date. See U&t V for a further
discussion of capacity determinations.
F. Halogenated Organic Compounds
(HOCsJ              -

1. RCRA Section 3004(d)(2)(E)
Requirements
  Effective July 8,1987, RCRA
§ 3004(d)(2)(E) prohibits the land
disposal of hazardous wastes containing
halogenated organic compounds in total
concentration greater than or equal to
1,000 mg/kg.
  a. Definition af Halogenated Organic
Compounds (HOCs). HOC* am
compounds containing a carbon and a
halogen in the molecular formula.
Halogens include the five nonmetallic
elements in Group VHA of the periodic
table: Fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), bromine
(Br), iodine (I), and astatine (At). For
purposes of the RCRA section
3004(d)(2)(E) land disposal prohibition,
the Agency proposes that the definition
of HOC would require the compound to
contain a carbon-halogen bond. The
Agency believes that compounds
lacking such a bond, but that have a
halogen attached to an atom such as
nitrogen, which is subsequently bonded
to carbon (e.g., aniline hydrochloride) is
not a true organohaline compound. The
proposed carbon-halogen definition of
HOCs presents a potential problem in
that it would include a number of
polymerized compounds that are
generally considered non-hazardous
because of their relative immobility.
  However, EPA doen not believe that
Congress meant to include in the,
prohibition every possible HOC such as
polymers that, comprise solid plastics
and vinyls. Instead, EPA believes that
Congress was concerned with
constituents that are .mobile (e.g.,
liquids) and/or potentially hazardous to
human health and the environment
Therefore, the Agency is proposing to
limit the definition of HOCs included
under the section 3004(d)(2)(E)
prohibition to those HOCs which are
identified or listed as either hazardous
wastes under 40 CFR Part 261 or as
hazardous constituents under Part 261.
Appendix Vin. The prohibition
paragraph in section 3004(d)(l) supports
this approach in its explicit concern for
the migration of "hazardous
constituents" from the land disposal unit
or injection zone for as long as the
waste remains hazardous. The term
"hazardous constituent" it a term of art
referring to compounds listed in
Appendix VOL As previously stated, the
Agency is today proposing that organic
compounds containing a halogen atom
that is not bound directly to a carbon
atom (such as die organic salt aniline
hydrochloride} would not be included in
the universe of restricted halogenated
organic compounds. However, the
Agency solicits comment and data on
this proposal, and on a possible
alternative to that definition, which
would include compounds where the
chlorine is not directly attached to a
carbon atom, but attached to an atom
such as nitrogen or sulfur, which is
subsequently attached toa carbon atom.
  An alternative interpretation would
bring all hazardous waste* containing
HOCs under the section 3004{d)(2)(E)
prohibition regardleso of. whether the,
HOC was identified or listed as a.
hazardous-waste or hazardous
constituent This approach may be more
suitable to halogenated wastes that are
determined to b* liquids under die Paint
Filter Liquids Test (and therefore are
more likely to be mobile in die
environment), but this approach would
bring many innocuous non-liquid HOCs
(e.g., plastics) within the scope of the
California list prohibitions. The Agency
does not believe that Congress intended
to regulate theie HOCs, but solicits
comments on the definition of HOCs
covered under die section 3004(d)(2)(E)
land disposal prohibition.
  Unlike die other constituents specified
in the section 3O04(d) prohibitions,
HOCs are prohibited in either liquid or
non-liquid form. Because HOCs are the
only California list wastes for which
Congress specified both liquid and non-
liquid wastes for prohibition, die
Agency must identify a practical test
method for detecting HOCs and
determining the concentration of tiieae
constituents in non-liquid hazardous
waste. The Agency is proposing  to
require use of the Toxicity.
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) to generate die analyte for both
liquid and non-liquid hazardous wastes.
However, EPA is soliciting comment on
other methods for defining and  r  •.'
evaluating non-liquid Wastes fotHOCs.
  b. Hazardous waste requirement,
Wastes containing HOCs are only
subject to  the section 3004(d](2)(E)
prohibition if the waste is listed  as
hazardous under 40 CFR Part 261 or
exhibits one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste
identified in Part 281. However, the
waste listing or characteristic need not
be related to the HOC content of the
hazardous waste for it to be covered.
  c. 1,000 ing/Jig requirement, The
prohibition in section 3004(dK2HEJ
applies only to hazardous wastes
containing HOCs in total concentration
greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/kg.
Although EPAis proposing to codify the
1.000 mg/kg prohibition specified in
RCRA. d» Agency will be evaluating
each HOC regulated as hazardous under
Part 281 in accordance with the final
schedule for implementing land disposal
restrictions (SI FR 19300). At that time,
prohibitions oa land disposal and
treatment standard* will be established
to tiie extent necessary for individual
HOCs or groups of related HOCs.
2. Relationship to RCRA section
3004fdK2)(DJ Prohibition on PCBa
  RCRA section 3004{d)(2)fD} prohibits
the land disposal of liquid hazardous
wastes containing PCBs at •
concentrations greater man or equal to
50 ppm. EPA interprets-this provision as
placing an upper limit of 50 ppm  on the
concentration of PCBs that may be
''I

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 238 / Thursday/December 11, 1988 /  Proposed Rules     '' 44725
contained in a hazardous waste
containing HOCs which is land
disposed. The limitation of 50 ppm,
however, is only applicable to liquid
hazardous wastes containing PCBs,
therefore a non-liquid hazardous waste
containing PCBs at concentrations
above 50 ppm may be land disposed
without violating the section
3004(d)(2)(E) prohibition on HOCs as
long as the total concentration of HOCs
does not exceed 1,000 rag/kg. For
example, a non-liquid hazardous waste
containing 200 mg/kg (ppm) PCBs and
700 mg/kg (ppm) other HOCs can be
land disposed because the 50 ppm
prohibition does not apply to non-liquids
and because the 900 mg/kg total HOC
concentration does not exceed the 1,000
mg/kg threshold specified in HSWA
section 3004(d)(2)(E).
  If the total concentration of HOCs in
either a liquid or non-liquid hazardous
waste is greater than or equal to 1.000
mg/kg, the waste is prohibited from land
disposal even if the concentration of
PCBs is below 50 ppm. For example, a
liquid hazardous waste containing 25
mg/kg (ppm) PCBs and 980 mg/kg HOCs
other than PCBs is prohibited from land
disposal under section 3004(d)(2)(E)
despite the fact that the section
3004(d)(2)(D) prohibition on PCBs would
allow up to 50 ppm PCBs to be land
disposed. Abo, a non-liquid hazardous
waste containing 400 mg/kg (ppm) PCBs
and 700 mg/kg HOCs other than PCBs is
prohibited from  land disposal despite
the fact that existing regulations
promulgated under TSCA would allow
such non-liquid PCB wastes to be
disposed in an approved landfill.

3. Treatment Technologies (BOAT)

 . EPA is proposing to establish
treatment standards for most hazardous
wastes containing HOCs in total
concentration greater than or equal, to
1,000 mg/kg. Incineration is proposed as
BOAT for many of these wastes. The
Agency is not proposing BDATfor :
wastewaters with less-than 10% TOC.
See Section IV.Gfor further discussion
of these technologies. j.,_  _  - ...... '_-.  '.

4. Nationwide Variance From Statutory
Effective Date"    •      - .

  EPA has determined that therein
inadequate treatment capacity for the
HOC wastes covered by today's
proposed treatment standards.
therefore, the Agency is proposing a 2-
year nationwide variance from the
statutory effective date foe HOCs for
which BOAT has been proposed. See
Unit V for a further discussion of
capacity determinations.
G. Applicable Treatment Technologies

  The following section discusses
treatment standards for the California
list wastes. EPA is proposing BOAT for
HOC-containing hazardous wastes
(except for HOC-containing
wastewaters), for PCB-containing
hazardous wastes, and for corrosive
hazardous wastes. Where BOAT is not
proposed, this section includes a
discussion of those technologies that
may serve as the basis for setting BOAT
when wastes containing these
constituents are addressed later in
accordance with the final schedule,
promulgated at 51FR19300.

1. Proposed BOAT Treatment
Technologies

  a. Halogenated organic compounds.
Technologies applicable to hazardous
wastes containing HOCs in
concentrations greater than 1000 mg/kg
are similar to those identified for
solvent-containing hazardous wastes
F001-F005. These technologies include
incineration, batch distillation, thin film
evaporation, fractionation, biological
degradation, activated carbon
adsorption, and steam snipping.
  As explained hi the November 7,1988
Final Solvents and Dioxins rule (Si FR
40572). EPA believes that data front the
solvents rulemaklng under section 3004
support a determination that
incineration represents the best
demonstrated available technology for
most organic liquid and organic and
inorganic sludges and solids (e.g.. soils).
In that mlemaking EPA also found that
wastewater treatment technologies.
such as biological treatment activated
carbon, and steam stripping should be
the basis for determining performance  ••
standards for solvent-containing
wastewaters containing less than 1%
total organic carbon or less than 1%
F001-F005 solvents.
  However, die wide variety of wastes
included within the term "halogenated' .
organic compounds." even as limited
along the lines proposed by EPA in this
notice, and the wid* variation in their
physical properties and waste matrices,
makes it impractical for EPA to develop
wastewater treatment standards •-:•-••• :-
expressed either as concentration levels
or a* treatment technologies at thistime;
EPA will be addressing alTof the waste*
included in today's HOC proposal
(except for the solvent- and dloxin-
containing wastes for which EPA has
already established concentration-based
treatment standards on November 7,
1986) pursuant to the schedule published
in the Federal Register on May 28,1986
(51 FR 19300).
  EPA has identified the incineration as
the treatment technology that is BOAT
for all hazardous waste containing
HOCs in concentrations greater than
1000 mg/kg except wastewaters, and is
proposing to promulgate treatment
standards for HOCs expressed as a
specified technology under 40 CFR
268.42. Treatment technologies specified
as a method, however, are only
applicable to those HOCs that are not
covered by other Agency rulemakings
under $ $ 268.41, 268.42, or 268.43. For
example, a waste containing only F001
trichloroethylene (an organic hazardous
waste containing the halogen chlorine)
is already subject to a concentration-
based treatment standard which was
published hi the Federal Register on
November 7,1986 and is to be codified
at 40 CFR 268.41. As discussed in that
final rule, the Agency prefers to
establish concentration-based treatment
standards rather than treatment
standards expressed as specified
technologies because EPA believes that
this approach will provide the regulated
community with greater flexibility in
meeting treatment standards and will •
encourage the development of more
efficient and innovative technologies. In
order to maintain this flexibility. EPA
intends that any treatment standards
established for individual HOCs will
supercede today's proposed standards.
which are expressed as specified
technologies. Therefore, the FOOl
trichloroethylene waste mentioned
above need only be treated in ,
accordance with § 268.41. In other
words, the waste must be treated to the
specified level and the technologies
specified in S 268.42 do not necessarily
have to be utilized in reaching this level:
However, if the waste also contains an
HOC for which no treatment standard is
established, the specified concentration
level for trichloroethylene must be
achieved and the method specified for
the other HOC must be utilized; at least
with respect to that portion of the waste
which i»not FOOl trichloroemylene. This
would allow the separation of the waste
in order to provide flexibility hi meeting:
the trichloroethylene levei However, as
a practical matter, the Agency:*     •.;
anticipates that &i most casecwute
managers-wtB treat the entire waste
usingthemethbds spedfied-iB 1268=42.
  Since the California list was intended
only as a starting^poinHn prohibiting
land disposal and the group of
California list wastes known as HOCs is
very broad and diverse, die- Agency may
revise die treatment standards
established under section 3004fd) when
it develops further data to support-
treatment standards-for individual

-------
          44726
                Federal Register /  Vol.  51. No. 238 / Thuraday. December 11. 1986 / Propped Rule.
i*
    HOCa In future rulemakinga under
    section3004(g).
      For hazardous wastes containing
    HOC« with a total organic carbon (TOC)
    content of greater than 1%, including
    liquids organic and inorganic solids and
    sludges, and non-liquid HOC-containing
    hazardous wastes at greater than or
    equal to 1000 mg/kg BDAT is proposed
    to be incineration in accordance with
    the requirements of 40 CFR 264.343 or
    265.343. Because of the wide variety of
    chemical compounds that are included
    as HOCs (even in the limited universe of
    HOCs that the Agency has proposed).
    EPA does not believe that it can set
    treatment standards for HOC-containinn
   wastewaters.
     Application of technologies such as
   biological treatment, activated carbon
   adsorption or steam stripping may be
   effective for these materials, but a
   generalizatf on.that one or all of them
   constitutes BDAT for the wide variety of
   chemicals included as HOCs is not
   possible. EPA intends to pursue the
   applicability of these technologies to
   specific wastes in much greater detail in
   subsequent rulemakings for the wastes
   scheduled to be considered under
   section 3004{g). As part of those
   regulations, EPA plans to develop
   concentration-based treatment
   standards and reduce reliance on
   treatment standards defined as use  of a
   specific technology or group of
   technologies.
    EPA's analysis of available capacity
  for treatment of F001-F005 solvent
  wastes indicates that virtually all
  available incineration capacity and
  organic wastewater treatment capacity
  will be used up in complying with the
  solvent regulations promulgated on
  November 7,19S& Based on this
  analysis and on the similarity of
  treatment required, EPA is proposing a
  two-year national variance for HOCs
  requiring Incineration. However,
  bocauit EPA i* no t able to specify
  BDAT for HOC-conUining wastewaten.
  the Agency fs notable to propose an.
  extension of the effectiv* date, which
  must be baaed on an estimate of the
  earliest dat* by which treatment'~~  """
  capacity capable of-meetfa^tbe
  treatmant standard caa.bc raade-
  available. EPA requests comment on it*
  proposal of incineration as BDAT for jdl-
.  HOCa except wastewaters. The Agency
  also requests comment and data
  relevant to its proposal to extend the
  effective dates for these wastes. Finally.
 EPA requests comment on its decision
 not to propose BDAT for HOC-
 containing wastewaters and the related
 interpretation that it must not extend the
   effective date when it does'not establish
   BDAX.
     b. Potychlorinated bfphenyls. The
   Agency is proposing to establish BDAT
   for liquid hazardous wastes containing
   greater than or equal to 50 ppm PCBs as
   thermal treatment pursuant to the
   technical requirements in 40 CFR 781.60
   (high efficiency boiler standards) and
   § 761.70 (incinerator standards). Note
   that the TSCA regulations require the
   incineration of liquid PCB wastes in
   concentrations greater than or equal to
  500 ppm. Such wastes cannot be treated
  in high efficiency boilers. EPA is not
  proposing to modify this determination
  in today's proposal.
    Under the PCB regulations at
  § 761.60(e), any person who is required
  to thermally treat PCB wastes may
  obtain approval to use alternate
  equivalent methods ao long as such
  methods do not present an unreasonable
  risk of injury to health or the
  environment
    EPA will also accept such petitions for
  equivalent treatment for mixed PCB/
  Hazardous wastes. (Note that this is not
  the same as the variance from the
  treatment standard as described in the
  November 7,1986 final rule for solvents
  and dioxins). Such petitions should be
  submitted to the Administrator, with
  copies to the Director, Exposure
 Evaluation Division. Office of Toxic
 Substances and to the Chief. Waste
 Treatment Branch, Office of Solid
 Waste.
   The Agency recognizes that its
 regional offices have developed a
 certain degree of expertise in evaluating
 alternate treatment methods for PCB
 wastes. However, the PCB wastes
 subject to today's proposal an mixed
 with hazardous wastes and, in many
 cases, may contain as little as SO ppm
 PCBsandssmuchas200,000-300,OOa(or
 20-30%) ppm as hazardous-waste*
 regulated under RCRAvSmc* many-of *
 these, wastes may not fa* comprised of
 predominantly PCBs, tfce Agency
 believes that EPA headquarters is better
 suited to handle petitions for these
 mixed wastes at the present tana.
   a Corrosive wastes. BDAT for liquid
 hazardous wastes with a, pH less than or
 equal to ZO (corrosives} is proposed to-
 be neutralization to a pH above two.
 When the pH of th&waate-is above 2.0.  ~
it wiH no longer be subject to-the;
 California list land disposal
 prohibitions. Further, it will not be
 regulated as hazardous under RCRA
 Subtitle C, if it is hazardous solely
because it exhibits the characteristic of
corrosivity. Therefore, BwrJralization-of •-
corrosive wastes to levels above * pH of
2.0 is appropriate for purposes of the
  California list prohibitions, and the
  Agency proposes to consider such
  treatment BDAT for the purposes of the
  land disposal restrictions;  •

  2. Other Applicable Treatment
  Technologies

    In this section, EPA presents available
  data on treatment for those California
  list wastes for which the Agency lacks
  sufficient data to establish BDAT. The
  Agency solicits comment and data that
  would support establishing BDAT for
  these wastes.
   a. Cyanides. While not proposed as
  BDAT under today's approach, the
  treatment most often used for cyanides
  is alkaline chlorination. This treatment
  consists of adding chlorine gas, under
  alkaline conditions, to convert cyanides
  to cyanates. The cyanates can then be
  converted to carbon dioxide and
  nitrogen by adding sodium hydroxide.
  Two alternative treatments are
  chlorination by sodium hydroxide and
  chlorination by sodium hypochlorite.
  Available  data indicate that these
  treatments can reduce cyanide
  concentrations from as much as 12JOOQ
  ppm to as low as 5 ppm. However* the
  effectiveness of alkaline chlorination
  depends on the extent to which other
  constituents of the waste are monr
 readily oxidized than cyanide. Incases
 where mere are competing constituents,
 the addition of chlorine in amounts
 consistent with normal operating
 practice may not result in optimal levels
 of cyanide oxidation. The presence of
 metals, which will complex cyanides
 into metsJIocyanides. may also affect
 the performance of cyanide- oxidation.
   At this time, the Agency doesnot
 have adequate data to define BDAT
 either as a concentration-based
 standard or as a treatment technology
 for th» wide variety of cyanide wastes
 included Hi m»CahT0rnia list It abo
 should/Denoted that solidification to
 crow** liquid cyanide wastes to non-
 liquid«y«Bi6Vwastes meets- th*
 statutory nxpimueat to exclude wast*
 from consideration under today's-
 pn»pos*d rule. While this method of
 treatment may satisfy the reqtrirenwi's
 of this proposed rulemaking. generator-
 are cautioned that performance  __ -- -
 standards that Witt be~esboUsaed under
later rohm*Hngp are likely to be based
on more effective tedmologies such as
alkaline chkorinaikm. _-•.-.  .: -•    .
                                                                                   mestoftsnaimtie^toiiqaktiiazardoas
                                                                                   wasteseaatemn^&lifonii&hstMtais
                                                                                   is rheairit n si l|iil«Hap. P
                                                                                                                    , .
                                                                                   chreaftaat ie«<>,"Bick«tanJ *sieiiluin» fit*
                                                                                   most commo»fBagents are sodium, or
                                                                                   calcium hydroxide. When duomhna is

-------
             Fadarai gagjate- / Vrf: 51. No. 23& / Thnrgday. December 11.  1966 / Proposed Rofe.       44&F
present as.hexavalent«bzoadum (Cr VI},
it is first reduced to; trivalent chromium
(Cr 10} by using sulfur dioxida at low pH
levels. Arsenic, mercury and thallium
generally require the use of sulfide to
effect precipitation. Frequently, these
wastes are treated by filtration to
remove fine particles that did not settle
out in the clarifier. The precipitated
material is often dewatered and/or
stabilized with lime, kiln dust, portland
cement or other materials after removal
from the clarifier ot the filter in order to
further reduce the mobility of the waste.
  Given the variety of wastes that may
be covered by this category, and the
lack of adequate data on the
performance of stabilized materials, the
Agency does not believe that it is in a
position to specify BDAT at this time.
While it is known that precipitation is
frequently used as treatment for these
types of wastes, EPA's analysis of the
available stabilization data indicate that
waste matrix effects can play a
substantial role in the type and quantity
of stabilizing agents needed. In
particular, the overall organic content
and the presence of oils and chlorinated
solvents win influence the effectiveness
of moat stabilization processes.
  EPA does not have adequate data to
characterize all waste streams that the
California list metals restrictions may
cover at this time, and because of the
role that composition of the waste
stream play* in the effectiveness of the
treatment EPA cannot at this time
establish BDAT either as a
concentration-based standard or as a
treatment technology or series of
technologies. Unlike the case for
incineration of HOC*, "normal**
operation of the system may not result
in substantial treatment

H. Comparative Risk and Available
Treatment Alternative*
  As EPA recognized in establishing*
framework for implaMnting.the
statutorily mandated land disposal;
restrictions. Congress did not intend that
risks to human health-aoctthe-
environment beiacroaae&a* * result:of
such restrictions. Tc4«hjiptav«nt these -
increased-risksv die Agency conducted
comparative risk asaeaameatft forth*
first category of waste* subject to the
land disposal restriction*. i.Ci certain
dioxin-containing and solvent-
containing hazardous- wastes. (See the
solvent* and dioxins final rule of
November 7,1988 51FR 48572. which
establishes the framework for
implementing the land disposal
restrictions).
  The Agency is conducting
comparative risk assessments in
conjunction with establishing section
 3004(nt} treatment standards for several
 of the California list waste*. The
 methodology being employed is similar
 but not identical to that utilized in the
 November 7,1986 solvents and dioxins
 final rule. The RCRA Risk-Cost Analysis
 (WET) Model continues fo be the
 primary tool for assessing comparative
 risks; however, the WET Model has
 been revised on the basis of detailed
 case studies performed for the
 November 7,1986 final rule and public
 comments responding to the Agency's
 approach in mat rulemaking.
  Results of the comparative risk
 analysis will not be used to allow
 continued land disposal of hazardous
 waste. Instead, treatment technologies
 that are determined to pose greater risks
 than land disposal of untreated wastes
 will be considered "unavailable" as a
 basis for establishing the section
 3004(m] BDAT treatment standard for
 the waste. If the best or most efficient
 treatment technology for a waste is
 determined to be riskier than land
 disposal, the decision to classify it as
 unavailable will have a direct impact on
 the level or method established as the
 section 3004(m) treatment standard. The
 treatment standard, which must be
 based on the capabilities of the beat
 demonstrated available treatment
 technologies for a waste, would then be
 based upon the capabilities of the best
 demonstrated treatment technology mat
 does not pose greater risks than land
 disposal To the extent that the next
 best treatment technology performs less
 efficiently than the best technology (in
 terms of the fate of its residual* in the
 environment}, the resulting section
 3004(m} treatment standard wffl be less-
 stringent
  As noted in the November 7,1986 final
 rule, Ueatment technologie* classified a*
 "unavailable" doe to their greater risk*
may, however, continue to be ased by
 waste managers to comply with
 treatment standard* expressed ar
 constituent concentrations* According.
 EPA intends to develop svfficiem
 regulatory control* or prohibftkms over
 the design and operation-of these
 technologie* to ensure that theirnsein
 complying with concentration-based
 treatment standard* doe* not revolt in
 increased risks to Banian beahb and tn»
 environment The analyses coadactedto
 support of these comparative risk
 assessments wiB provide • basis for
 developing suck controls or prohibition*
however they wiB most likely need to be
 augmented by additional data. Where,
 as in today's proposed rule, the section -
 3004(m} treatment standards are
 expressed as specific methods which
must be utilized, a determination-to-
 classify a treatment alternative as
 unavailable will prohibit tfee nwrof that
 technology; far complying wift the BDAT
 standards applicable to the restricted
 wastes in question.
  Preliminary results indicate that the
 best demonstrated treatment method*
 for PCS* and other HOCs are not dearly
 riskier than land disposal Whenever
 treatment is less risky or it is uncertain
 that a given treatment technology or
 treatment train is clearly riskier than
 land disposal, as in today's proposed
 rule concerning California list wastes.
 the Agency will consider the treatment
 available for determining BDAT and wtB
 develop the necessary data to snpyurt   -
 any additional regulatory controls which
 may be appropriates.
  A comparative risk assessment for the
 corrosive wastes subject to today's
 proposal was not performed because the
 Agency'* establishment of a BDAT
 standard at the statutory threshold dees
 not impose any new requirements1 for
 treatment In both cases, hi order to be
 rendered non-hazardous, liquid
 hazardous wastes having a pH less than
 or equal to two (2.0) must be treated to a
 level above 2.0 before being land-
 disposed. Therefore, EPA believe* that a
 comparative risk assessment for '
 corrosives is not necessary for tHr
 California Hat restrictions; However, the
 Agency is requesting comments and
 data on whether neutralization is riskier
 than land disposal of corrosive wastes.
/. Dilution Prohibition

  In establishing a framework for
 implementing the eongressionally
mandated land disposal prohibition*,
EPA proMbiteda* a dHntion substitute
for adequate treatment of restricted -
waste* (51 FR 40572, November 7, 1986}.
In the November 7, 1966 Federal Register
notice, the Agency promulgated a final
rule (to be codified at 4OCFR 268.3V
which prohibits the regulated
community from dSnting restricted
waste* "as * substitute for adequate
treatment to achieve compliance with
SubpartUof tfifepart"
  Snbpart D ef«T CFR Ftet 2B8I
estabttshw treatment stHndard»for
restricted: westra>pnrs8snfctDElGCRA.
section 3604(m}: Subpatt C identifies
those wastes- that are prehibHiHiC
land dspoaeJ
with the respective effective e%ter of '
such prohibition*. Since me dimtfoff
proBiDition pronMugsteu orrrvovenioer*7^ *
1988 is only appfieabfe to waste* treated
"to achieve mmpifauut wHfr9nbpart •
TT, the ptohibitiOTdee* not apply to
concentration feBtt* established under-
section 3604fd%The Agency beBevw
that this is contrary to-congressional

-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 238 /  Thursday, December 11. 1986 / Propoaed Rules
  intent as expressed in H. R. Rep. No.
  198. Part 1,88th Cong., 1st Sesa. 34-35
  (1983), which states that;
    The (Energy and Commerce] Committee
  Intends that dilution to a concentration less
  than the specified [California List] thresholds
  by the addition of other hazardous waste or
  any other material during waste handling.
  transportation, treatment, or storage, other
  than dilution which occurs as a normal part
  of a manufacturing process, will not be
  allowed; such hazardous waste would still be
  prohibited from land disposal.

    Therefore, EPA is today proposing to
  amend the § 288.3 dilution prohibition to
  include dilution to avoid a prohibition in
  Subpart C of Part 288 (e.g., dilution to
  below the restrictions levels for the
  California list wastes). In addition,
  section 288.3 as amended covers those
  situations where wastes are diluted in
  order to circumvent the effective date of
  a Subpart C prohibition on land
  disposal. Capacity determinations are
  based on estimates of quantities of
  waste at the point of generation.
  Allowing dilution to a lower
  concentration in order to qualify for a
  nationwide variance undermines this
  determination. As stated in the
 preamble to the November 7,1988 final
 rule, section 288.3 is intended to prohibit
 dilution as a means of circumventing the
 requirements imposed by the land
 disposal prohibitions. EPA does not
 intend to prohibit dilution which is
 necessary to facilitate proper treatment.
 /. Evaporation Prohibition

  The Agengy is soliciting comment on
 the issue of whether evaporation should
 be prohibited as a means of treatment
 under the 40 CFR 288.4 treatment in
 surface impoundment exemption. The
 Agency is considering this action
 because of its particular concern that  •
 the hazardous constituents in wastes be
 treated to reduce toxicity or mobility,
 and not Just moved from one media to
 another. This prohibition is not intended
 to cover evaporation that occurs along
 with other treatment, such as an active
 biological treatment process with.  <
 mechanical aeration. Where the"'5
 restricted liquid hazardous waste  .
 contains volatile or semi-volatile
 constituents, evaporation, whether as a
 dewatering process or a constituent
 reduction process, would result in the
 volatile components being transferred to
 the air. This may increase the mobility
 of the toxic constituent and may
 increase the associated risk.   ' -
  The Agency is requesting comment on
 the risks posed by treatment processes
 that simply transfer hazardous
constituents from one environmental
component to another.
  K. Facilities Operating Under a Permit
  or Interim Status
    The Agency is proposing to amend
  Part 270 to give facilities more flexibility
  to handle restricted wastes. First, the
  Agency is proposing to add a new
  paragraph (p) to § 270.42 to allow
  permitted facilities to use the minor
  modification process, under certain
  conditions, to obtain approval to change
  their facilities to treat or store restricted
  wastes in tanks or containers as
  necessary to comply with Part 268 land
  disposal restrictiona. Second, EPA is
  proposing to amend § 270.72(e) to allow
  interim status facilities to expand their
  operations by more than 50 percent (in
  terms of capital expeditures) to treat or
  store restricted waste in tanks or
  containers as necessary to comply with
  Part 268 land disposal restrictions.
  These changes are in addition to the
  amendment to 5 270.42, promulgated in
  the November 7,1988 final rule
  establishing land disposal restrictions
  for solvents and dioxin-containing
  wastes, that allows permitted treatment
  facilities to use the minor modification
  process, under certain conditions,  to
  manage restricted wastes not previously
  listed hi their permits.

 1. Minor Modifications
   Under the current rules, permitted
 facilities desiring to change their
 operations to treat or store restricted
 wastes in tanks or containers are
 required to seek approval to make these
 changes through the major permit
 modification process of $ 270.41 with the
 exception of facilities treating new
 wastes in accordance with 9 270.42(o).
 (See 5140752, November 7,1986.) The
 major modification procedures, which
 are the same as the permit issuance
 procedures, require & draft pennit
 public notice and comment an
 opportunity for a public hearing, and
 administrative approval before the
 owner or operator is allowed to make
 the requested changes. These
 procedures are time consuming and
 could seriously delay treatment of
 restricted wastes in accordance with
 Part 268. In addition, the major permit
 modification process may seriously
 inhibit the ability of facilities to add
 short-term storage capacity to handle
 restricted wastes as treatment proceeds.
  In contrast under fi 270.42, minor
 modifications to a pennit can be made
 by the permitting authority upon consent
 of the permittee without formal notice
 and comment procedures. The Agency
 believes that the major modification
process may seriously reduce the
flexibility .needed by facilities to
respond to the land disposal restrictions
  in a timely fashion. Given the critical
  need to expand treatment capacity for
  restricted wastes and the significant
  environmental benefits that result from
  treatment instead of land disposal EPA
  believes that expanding the current
  minor modification provisions to
  provide greater flexibility for the
  treatment or storage of restricted wastes
  is necessary and appropriate.
    The Agency is proposing that owners
  or operators seeking to use the proposed
  minor modification process of
  § 270.42(p) comply with three
  conditions. First the owner or operator
  must submit a complete major permit
  modification application pursuant to
  S§ 124.5 and 270.41. Second; the
  applicant must demonstrate that
  changes in a unit to treat or store
  restricted wastes hi tanks or containers
  is necessary to comply with the hind
  disposal restrictions of Part 268. Third,
  the applicant must ensure that such unit
  complies with the applicable Part 264
  standards pending final administrative
  disposition of the major permit
  modification request For example, any
  tanks used to treat or store restricted-
  wastes would be subject to the tank
  system standards of Part 284, Subpart J,
  which include secondary-containment  -
  requirements (see 51FR 25422, July 14,
  1986). The authorization to continue in
  operation with the changes terminates
  upon final administrative disposition of
  the major modification request or the
  termination of a pennit
   In proposing this amendment to
  S 270.42, the Agency recognizes that the
 Part 124 public participation
 requirements will be deferred until  a
 permittee's major modification request
 is processed. However, EPA believes
 that this approach represents a
 reasonable balance  between its policy
 in favor of public participation and  the
 need to provide facilities mating^
 restricted wastes with the flexibility to
 respond to this land disposal restrictions
 in a timely and effective manner.
   The proposed change to the minor
 modifications requirements does not
 apply to storage or treatment other than
 in containers or tahksTEPA beHeVes that
 the addition of other treatment
 processes, such as incineration, is likely
 to raise issues that would be best
 addressed through the major
 modification process. However, the'
 Agency is exploring these issues as part
 of an overall review of the permit   ;
 modification regulations. The EPA is
 now conducting regulatory negotiations
 on pennit modifications? (announced on
 July 16,1986 hi the Federal Register (51
FR 25739)) and expects to issue a
proposed rule during the next year. The

-------
               Federal Register / Vol. 51. No.  238 / Thursday, December 11, 1988 / Proposed Rate*
                                                                      44723
  Permit Modification Negotiating
  Committee wffllre invited to submit
  comments on today's proposed rule.
  Furthermore; the language in today's
  proposal is hot intended to limit the
  Permit Modification Negotiating
  Committee's independent consideration
  of changes in the overall permit
  modification process. Rather, the
  Agency has proposed to amend § 270.42
  at this time because of the need to
  ensure that the provisions are in place
  when land disposal restrictions on the
  California list wastes become effective.
  If adopted, these permit modification
  provisions would be used until the
  permit modification process is further
  amended.

  2. Reconstruction Limits
    The Agency is also proposing to allow
  interim status facilities to modify their
  operations to treat or store restricted
  wastes in tanks or containers as
  necessary to comply with the land
  disposal restrictions of Part 268, without
  being required to obtain a permit even if
  such facility modifications amount to
  "reconstruction." Under existing 40 CFR
  270.72(e). EPA prohibits any
  modifications to an interim status
  facility that amount to the
  reconstruction of the facility. For the
  purposes of this prohibition, EPA
  considers reconstruction to occur when
  the capital value of the changes to the
  facility exceeds fifty percent of the
  capital costs of a comparable new
  hazardous waste management facility.
   EPA believes that the current
  regulations generally provide
.  reasonable flexibility to interim status
  facilities to comply with the land
  disposal restrictions. Under certain
  circumstances, however,'an owner or
  operator of an interim status facility that
 manages restricted wastes may need to
  expand the facility by more than SO
 percent (in terms of cost) to comply with
 the Part 268 land disposal restrictions. In
 these circumstances under the existing
 regulations, the owner or operator
 would have to delay the change* or
 discontinue operations until the changes
 could be approved in connection-with
 the issuance of a permit EPA believes
 that in light of the Knitted availability of
 hazardous waste treatment faculties, the
 time-consuming process necessary for
 permitting, and the clear evidence of
 congressional intent to allow interim
 status facilities to make the specific  '
 changes necessary to comply With new
 regulatory requirements, this result
 would be unacceptable.
   To address this problem, F^A is
 proposing to amend § 27O.72ie} to allow
 owners or operators to modify interim
 status facilities to handle wastes
 restricted from land disposal necessary
 to comply with Part 288 without being
 subject to the fifty percent capital
 expenditure limitjn 1270J2(eJ. Under
 the proposed regulation, interim status
 facilities would be required to file a
 revised Part A application prior to such
 changes. The applicant would have to
 demonstrate that the changes were
 necessary to comply with the hind
 disposal restrictions of Part 268. In
 addition, the only allowable changes
 would be for treatment or storage in
 containers or tanks. EPA believes that
 the addition of other processes that
 amount to reconstruction, such as
 incineration, is likely to raise issues that
 would be addressed best through the
 permitting process.
   Facilities  allowed to expand their
 operations by more than 50 percent (in
 terms of cost) under the proposed
 change would be subject to Part 265
 standards. For example, any tanks used
 to treat restricted wastes would be
 subject to the tank system standards of
 Part 265. Subpart J. which include
 secondary containment requirements (51
 FR 25422. July 14,1988).

 L. Procedures for Obtaining a Variance
 From Treatment Standards
   As a result of comments on the
 Agency's proposed BDAT standards, the
 Agency has  provided a procedure to
 allow interested parties to obtain a
 variance from the treatment standards.
 See 40 CFR 268.44, 51 FR 40572
 [November 7,1986). This procedure may
 be used by those whose wastes cannot
 be treated to meet the treatment
 standard issued by EPA. Essentially, the
 Agency will establish a separate
 treatment standard for, a waste if the
 interested party presents data which, if
 properly considered by the Agency at
 the time the  standards were .
 promulgated, would have required that a
 separate subcategory be created for.the
 waste. The procedure allows the Agency
 to fine-tune the regulations by
 considering the full range of current
 practices to which the treatment
 standards should apply.
  Section 288.44 establishes a variance
 procedure in the form of a ruleinaking
 that amends the regulatory treatment
 standards each time a variance is
 granted. The preamble to that rule lists a
 number of factors that the Agency
 believes will be relevant to the variance
 application. However, as noted in the
 preamble to the final rule, the Agency
 believes that the statute does not
 preclude establishing a more  '
 streamlined variance procedure. The
Agency has construed the statute to
 allow the setting of treatment standards
 applicable to specific treatabjlity groups;
 the same result could be achieved by
 issuing a variance in a case where EPA
 did not have sufficient data to establish
 treatability groups at the time of the
 final rule.
   EPA received comments both for and
 against providing a more streamlined
 petition procedure but did not have
 enough time before die final rule was
 issued to consider these comments
 carefully. EPA therefore requests further
 comments on the advisability of
 modifying the current procedure.
 Specifically, are there disadvantages
 that would outweigh the benefits of a
 simplified procedures? Should the
 Agency allow any interested party to
 apply? Should the procedure allow the
 Agency to adjust  the treatment
 standards to be more stringent as well
 as less stringent?  Should the Agency
 establish a deadline for applications,
 e.g., 3 or 6 months, after, the effective
 date of the treatment standards that
 apply to the waste?. What public notice
 procedures should apply? Are the
 factors cited in the preamble to the final
 rule published on November7r 1986; the
 appropriate factors for the Agency to
 consider? EPA also solicits comments on
 any other relevant aspect of the
 treatability variance procedure.

 V. Alternative Capacity and Ban
 Effective Date

   RCRA section 3004(h)(2) 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. Congress, however, intends
 for the land disposal restrictions to "go
 into effect immediately upon
 promulgation whenever and wherever
 possible." (S. Repi No. 284; 98th Cong.,
 1st Sess. 19 (1963?.) The legislative
 history also states that "[t]he Agency
 should expend every effort to assure
 that unsafe practices are terminated as
 quickly as possible." Therefore,
 "[ejxtensions based on capacity.
 shortfalls should be infrequently
 granted. Given consistent regulatory and
 economic incentives, .adequate capacity
will be quickly developed* (S. Rep. No.
 284,98th Cong,. 1st Sess. 19 (1983}.) EPA
 will .consider several factors when:
calculating alternative capacity and
when determining the length of any
variance from the  effective dates
mandated by RCRA^These factors,
which were alscuised for determination
of alternative capacity for the solvent*
and dioxuis rule, are-discussed below* -.

-------
         '44730     '  Federal Register  /  Vol. 51, No. 238 / Thursday. December 11, 1986 / Proposed Rules
1
 A. Agency-Authority With Respect to
 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
 restrictions will go into effect   ,
 immediately. If capacity is not available.
 RCRA section 3004(h](2) requires that
 the effective date of the restrictions
 shall be established 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 ban
 effective date will not be affected by the
 processing of petitions under RCRA
 section 3004 (d). (e), and (g). The
 interaction between the variance to the
 effective date and the case-by-case
 extension under section 3004(h)(3) la
 discussed later in this unit

B. Regional and National Capacity

  The Agency will determine both the
 quantity of retricted 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 restrictions. If
national capacity is sufficient, the
restrictions will become effective
immediately. If national capacity is only
slightly lacking. EPA may grant case-by-
case effective date extensions  while
allowing the nationwide restrictions to
go into effect immediately.,

C. The Nationwide Variance and the-
Case-by-Case Extension        • '  •

  In case's where EPA has not grantsdra
nationwide variance,-it i*,Bot precluded
from granting caae-by-CMe"e5ective
date extensions. For instance, if
alternative capacity exists to manage
moit of the restricted wastes, but
appears tb be slightly inadequate, the
Agency might choose not to grant a
nationwide variance. In these cases, it is
more desirable to grant case-by-case
extensions to specific applicants who
lack alternative capacity than to allow
everyone, even those for whom1    .
alternatives are available, to continue to
land disposa of their wastes. This- - • •
approach is consistent with
 congressional intent to restrict land
 disposal at the earliest possible time.
   For the same reasons, EPA may grant
 a variance of less than 2 years, even
 though some facilities may require more
 time to be completed. These facilities
 could be completed under a case-by-
 case extension, if all applicable criteria
 are met without allowing continued
 land disposal nationwide.

 D. Determination  of Capacity
 Requirements by Waste-Treatability.
 Group
   In general, EPA will develop
' treatment technologies for waste groups
 derived from the physical/chemical
 characteristics of the banned wastes.
 Where possible, EPA will also
 determine the quantified of wastes that
 require specific treatment or recovery
 methods by waste treatability group.
 These treatability groups will enable
 EPA to compare required capacity
 (capacity demand) with available
 capacity (capacity supply). The
 quantities of wastes land disposed'will
 be grouped according to the description
 of their characteristics. In addition, EPA
 will consider other increases in capacity
 demand generated by emergency and
 remedial responses. EPA also will
 include, to the extent possible, the
 impact of other final rulemakings such
 as the regulation of small quantity
 generators, that have occurred since
 EPA's capacity data were collected.

 E. Definition of Available Capacity.
   In estimating available capacity, the
 Agency will consider (1) current on-line
 facilities, which include permitted
 facilities and facilities operating under
 RCRA interim status and (2) planned
 faculties and capacity extensions that
 will be on-line by the time the ban goes
 into effect
  • Current on-line facilities consist of off-
 site and on-site fadlitieii, as well as
 stationary and mobile facilities. They
 are facilities that have been approved to
. operate and accept pertinent wastes.
 under current regulations by applicable
 Federal, State, and local agencies. •  ',
 Facilities operating under RCRA interim
 status meet these criteria, and therefore
 will be included in the capacity
 determmation.    	"     .  '

 F, Definition of Alternative Treatment
 Capacity   ,            ._
   RCRA section 3004(h)(2) states that a
 variance from the effective date of a
 land dispooalrestriction "shall be    •
 established on the basis of the .earliest
• date on which adequate alternative
 treatment recovery, or disposal  •
 capacity which protects human health
 and the environment will be available."
 In general, all treatment technologies  *
 that are capable of meeting the-
 treatment standards established.under
 3004(m), are considered to be available '
 treatment capacity under the above
 standard.
  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 "minimize" standard generally will
 be met by technologies classified as .
 BOAT (best demonstrated achievable
 technology).   •'
  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, undertaken pursuant to
 3004(h) (2) and (3).

 G. 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 more protective than existing
 land disposal methods" (see 51FR '**
 40599). Planned facilities, including*
 expansion of existing faculties, also will
 be considered where appropriate. On-
 line facilities are defined as those.
 facilities that have received approval
 from applicable Federal, State, and local
 agencies to operate a recovery or
 disposal facility for the waste in
 question or for a similar waste.
  However, alternative land disposal
 methods te.g., deep well Injection) will
 not be considered as available capacity
 for restricted wastes unless EPA has
 determined that such methods of    ::;
 disposal 'are fully protective of human
 health and the environment f0r the  :
 waste in question. This question will
 arise frequently in the context of   "'
 assessing underground injection as   . •
 alternative capacity. RCRA section
 30Q4(f) allows the Agency until August
 1968 to study the disposal by deep well
 injection of solvents, dioxms, ana
 California List wastes and tb promulgate
 any necessary regulations banning these
 wastes from deep weQ injection. This
 deadline occurs after the mandated'
 deadlines for ban decisions concerning
 disposal of these wastes by other land
disposal methods. For wastes scheduled
for later banning, the Agency will make
decisions to ban from deep Well
injection concurrently with decisions, to
ban from other land disposal methods.
Accordingly; in evaluating the capacity
of alternative protective disposal     •
methods for these wastes prior to a  •

-------
                               / Vol. 51. No. 238  /  Thursday,  December 11. 1986 /  Proposed Rules
 decision under section 3004(0, EPA will
 not consider underground .injection to be
 available disposal capacity, since the
 Agency will not have determined
 whether .the injection of such wastes is
 fully protective of human health and the
 environment.

fi. Estimation of Capacity

  EPA will estimate the annual unused
 or surplus capacity of alternative
 treatment recovery, and disposal
 facilities that are available nationwide
 to manage wastes restricted from land
 disposal. This nationwide capacity
 (capacity supply) will then be compared
 with quantities of banned waste
 generated annually nationwide
 (capacity demand).
  Surplus capacity will be expressed as
 the throughput capacity, the volume of
 waste that can be treated per year.
 Since data on actual unused throughput
 may be difficult to obtain in some
 instances, EPA may need to use other
 available information to calculate this
value, such as the difference between a
practical maximum design capacity and
 the capacity currently utilized, to
calculate capacity. In turn, practical
maximum design capacity represents the
theoretical maximum design capacity,
minus an estimate of die amount of
potential operating time lost to normal
maintenance.
  Frequently, treatment and recovery
technologies consist of a series of unit
processes. In these cases, treatment
system capacity will be based on the
capacity of the unit operation within
that system that is most likely to limit
the capacity of the whole system, if any.
This would occur, for example,, if a large
metals precipitation system contained a
much smaller capacity .for ntimmhim
reduction. In this case, the capacity for
trivalent chromium precipitation (which
does not require reduction)  would be
much greater than foe hexavalent
chromium precipitation that would
require reduction.    . .   ,\ .".  .
  For this proposal capacity estimates
are based on currently-available
information, primarily the 1981OSW  .
RIA Mail Survey. Tluu&gency is
currently working on a new survey of.
commercial and.priy.ate treatment
facilities and will use the results of this
survey when they become available to
calculate capacity, for future        <
rulemakings..
1. Current Surplus Capacity
  Current surplus capacity is defined as
present capacity that is not being;
utilized. Surplus capacity can be any of
the following:      ,   .: -.-....,...
  (a) Commercially, available.
   (b) Private capacity, which.can be
 used to process additional wastes . ,
 produced by the owner.
   (c) Private, where the owner will be
 willing and able to accept wastes from
 other generators, i.e^ to provide
 commercial services..      .      :
   EPA will assume 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 owner
 will be converted to commercial
 capacity. Due to limited information on
 the availability of private capacity, EPA
 has only considered commercial
 capacity for this proposal The Agency
 solicits comment on the assumptions
 used in this analysis (i.e., willingness of
 commercial faculties to treat California.
 list wastes), and also asks for comment
 and data on private capacity; Data
 received during the comment period will
 be included in the final rule.
 2. Planned Capacity
   EPA's general methodology calls for
 EPA to use, if possible, planned capacity
 estimates in determining available
 capacity. If EPA finds that current
 capacity is insufficient for a particular
 waste, it evaluates the potential for the
 development of planned facilities and  -
 capacity by the statutory ban effective
 date. If a national variance is granted.
 planned capacity is considered in
 determining the length of a variance.
 Planned facilities and capacity will be
 considered available only if EPA    •
 determines that, by the time the .ban
 goes into effect, the facility will be on-
 line. However, EPA has not included.
 planned capacity for this proposal due
 to lack of data. EPA is developing new.,
 data on planned capacity. Because these
 data are not expected to be available in
 time for promulgation of this nde, the
 Agency solicits comment on planned  .
 capacity not considered in this proposal
/. Time to Develop Capacity and Length
of Variance
  According to RCRA section 3004(h)(2),
 if the Agency determines that sufficient
 capacity currently exists, or if the  .
necessary additional capacity can be
 developed by the time of the mandated
ban date for each waste, the ban will go
into effect on that date. If not, a     :
variance of up to 2 years may be granted
at the same time that the final rule is
promulgated. The length of. the variance
will depend oft the time required to
provide alternative capacity that meets
the criteria described above. EPA's ;
analysis of tune .to provide capacity ;  .
 indicates that treatment requiring a
 permit will require at least two years to
 develop. Treatment not requiring a,  .
 permit (such as treatment in'gb-iday
 accumulation tanks) can be provided in
 as quickly as 6 months, depending on
 the complexity of .the facilities to be
 constructed.

 /. Wastes for Which Treatment
 Standards Have Not Been Established-

   Where EPA does not have sufficient
 information to establish treatment
 standards for a waste, the prohibition on
 land disposal for that waste will :
 generally be immediately effective. EPA
 believes that, considering the. criteria
 described below, the Agency .will
 generally not be able to establish a  .
 nationwide variance .for such wastes. As
 noted above, the purpose of the variance
 is to allow time for alternative .• •
 protective capacity to develop. If. the
 Agency cannot determine what specific
 type of treatment is needed for a waste
 (as is the case for metals .and cyanides
 in this proposal), it will not be able to
 define the capacity needs for-that waste.
 For this proposed ndemaking, EPA has
 been able to calculate alternative
 capacity for wastes containing HOCs,
 PCBs, and corrosives because it has
 been able to specify a technology as
 BOAT. However, it has not made BOAT
 determination for cyanides and metals.
 Therefore, it cannot estimate the
 capacity needed or available to treat
 these wastes.  •••
  However, EPA has included hi  the
 preamble and in the docket information
 on the capacity of various treatment
 technologies that may be used to treat
 metals and cyanides to below the
 threshold concentrations triggering the
 applicability of today's rule. Our review
 of these data suggests that BOAT, when
 developed, may be significantly, more .
 stringent than these threshold
 concentrations. In the interim, however.
 generators will be able to utilize the
 capacity of all of these alternative
 treatment, technologies in cor"?!yip5
 with the standards. If EPA receivea"or
 develops, sufficient Information to,.
 establish BOAT for these wastes, the .
 information in the .docket on the specific
 technologies meeti^ the definition or..:,
 performance identified as BOAT will be
 used to determine whether a variance is
 needed. The Agency invites comment on
 its analysis of the statutory.   •,•       .
requirements andean its capacity
information. This unit describes EPAs
 estimates of the^mused capacity that is.
currently available to treat'banned •
wastes by these-methods.      :

-------
 44732
Fetkrai Megfrfrr  / Vol. si. No. 2» / Thnndiy. December 11.  1966 / Proposed tales
 1. Incineration Capacity
   The Agency has already determined
 for the purpose of the solvents
 nilemaking November 7. 1988(51 FR
 40572) that inadequate capacity exists to
 incinerate the solvent-bearing wastes.
 Since this same incineration capacity
 must be used to dispose of HOC- and
 PCB-contaiiiing hazardous wastes it
 follows that there is no capacity
 available for these wastes at this time.

 2. Capacity for Other Treatment
   Although the Agency is not proposing
 BOAT for cyanides and the metals, the
 treatment methods that the Agency
 believes are applicable are rhtM^Sr^l
 precipitation, chromium reduction and
 cyanide oxidation. All of these
 treatment methods are referred to as
 tank treatment under the RCRA TSDF
 regulation.
   The OSW RIA mail survey is
 currently EPA's only source of
 information concerning the unused  '
 capacity for these treatment methods.
 The survey provides information on tank
 treatment capacity at both commercial
 and private facilities, although the data
 at wastewater treatment facilities
 exempted from RCRA requirements are
 somewhat limited. As discussed above,
 EPA will consider only commercial
 wastewater treatment capacity in mis
 proposed rulemaking. For each facility,
 the survey provided information on     ,
 each tank used for treatment types of
 wastes managed in tanks, and total tank
 treatment capacity for the facility. Using
 this information, EPA estimated this
 capacity for the specific types, of tank
 treatment The estimated available
 capacities for tank treatment are:
   (1) Chemical precipitation— 165X10*
 gaL
  (2) Chromium reduction— 35X10* gaL
  (3) Cyanide oxidation— 65X10*
 Thus; the total capacity available to
 treat the metal and cyanide
                                  ^
hazardous wastes restrictedfromland
disposal under section 3084(dl in
commercial treatmentfatiliBe* if ____
approximately 285 miffiongaironsJ ~
  Although it has no- specie data to
substantiate its position, me Agency •
believes that ttra relative case of
constructing new SOnlay aroummatioir
facilities that may simultaneously
provide neutralization solidification
capacity (or utilization of the- extensive
capacity in existfcytmitB)- argues that
there will be much mote than- 265 nriffibn
gallons of capacity available by July at-
1967. We believe that with, the notice
provided today, generators' will be abfe
to develop the- relatively simple
treatment facilities- needed to meet the
threshold concentrations that establish
                          applicability of titis date to waste*
                          containing metals, cyanides, orpH lew.
                          than 2. In fact we believe extensive use
                          of solidification already is occurring to
                          meet EPA's regulations limiting the
                          disposal of liquids in landfills. As a
                          result we believe this regulation only
                          may reinforce the nee'd for facilities to
                          continue to use existing solidification
                          capacity. EPA solicits comment on these
                          judgments and'data on the capacity to
                          treat these wastes.

                          K. Alternative Treatment Capacity
                          Required for California List Wastes'

                          1. Quantities of Wastes Land Disposed

                            EPA has estimated the total quantities
                          of California list wastes which are land
                          disposed annually, based primarily on
                          data provided La the OSW RIA Mail
                          Survey of Treatment Storage, and
                          Disposal Faculties regulated in 1981
                          [Ref. 12). Complete analysis of the data
                          is provided in the background document
                          to support today's proposed rule (Ref. 1J.
                            These estimates required four
                          conservative assumptions because of
                          the limited characteristics provided by
                          the survey. First EPA assumed all:
                          waste* identified in the 1981 survey
                          containing metals or cyanides described
                          as liquids or sludges were liquids using
                          the paint filter test Only those cyanide
                          and metal wastes described specfficalljr
                          as solids were assumed to not be
                          classified as- liquids by mis test and
                          exemption from mis proposed
                          regulation. EPA believes that many of
                          wastes that are described as sludges by
                          generators contain free liquids and are
 actually liquids Daccd on EPA'* test
 definition.  • •   '   .-..•••••••
   Second, in order to estimate die-
 quantity of corrosive- wastes that were
 acidic rather than basic, EPA also-
 assumed that all corrosive wastes mat
 were not specifically described as basic
 were acidic with a pH of less- than or
 equal to 2 and subject to this rule. Third,
 EPA assumed that all mefal* wastes-
 identified as nrmtaiujjig chromium
 contain chromium in the hexavaleot
 oxidation state and are subject to
 regulation,
   Finally, EPA has assumed mat to*
 concentrations- of constituents of alt
 wastes identified by waste codes
 associated with the California list
 constituents are in excess of die
 threshold levels set by any of the
 option* in today's proposed rule.
 Therefore, die entire universe of these
 California list waste* would be
 considered subject to die proposed
 restrictions.
   The following table indicates, me
 distribution of die total quantities of
 waste* diat were estimated to be , .
 corrosive waste* (pH <2) or to conlaift
 total cyanides, hatogenated organic;
Cr, Pb, Mi, Hg, Se, Tl). The quantitjnof
liqiriii motnl waahm rjintnining •
hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) is
presented separately because of die
frequent requirement for treatment
separate from other metals to reduce it
to bivalent chromium to facilitate
precipitation as a hydroxide. Figures in
the following table do not include the •
quantities of those California list wastes
that are deep wettinjected.   ••••••
                         SUrtKaknpoundMM
                           Ota
                         Lmdipplc
                             •ToM tad dhpoMd..
      318  .

      '•at
       TO*
                                                                           tot*
                                                                                        'MSt
                                                                            . SIS
                                                                             22.1
                   tw
                    SlJt
                    ISA
                                                                                  t,OBf»
                                                                                          8f»
                                                                                               HOC
                                                                                                              SZ3
                           The total quantity of wastes-. .  . .
                         rnntnining HflfTa in thi« (MKmaf»
                         include* both, solid or liquid wastes,
                         consistent with thastatanry, '•,.",
                         requiramants for HOCs.Howavajv thia-
                         quantity, doe* not include- those waste*
                         containing hriogcnated wasteaolvealm
                         or dioxin* dut have already beea
                         addressed previously in a> final   .
                         regulation specific to those-wastea. It
                         also does not include mixed RCRA/PCB
wastes.' E^An
                         estimated^
million gallon* o£ mix*
                          t?&
                          \tK&
waste* that are both liquid and that,
exceed SO.ppm. are landdisposed per
year.. ,-•:••
         F4Ktt*ta**?IB*tC8IXmtly •
wast
generators and generated ftom reinedtet
or removal action* anticipated to>b«

-------
            Federal Register / VoL 51, No. 238 /  Thursday,  December 11, 1988 / Proposed Rules      4473&
taken under CERCLA or RCRA
corrective action, these have not been
included in the total quantity estimates.
However, EPA does not anticipate that
significantly large quantities result from
any of these sources. Small quantity
generators produce less than 1% of all
wastes generated and were responsible
for less than 1% of the waste solvents
EPA considered in the previous
rulemaking. CERCLA responses and
RCRA corrective actions generally
produce wastes that contain less than
the statutory concentrations of waste
constituent, but can include acid wastes.
EPA will attempt to develop estimates
for all these wastes prior to
promulgation of today's proposed rule.

2. Quantities Requiring Alternative
Capacity
  In order to estimate the alternative
treatment capacity required to address
the volumes of California list wastes
given in the previous section and to
determine the effective date for the land
disposal restrictions, these wastes must
be assigned to potential alternative
treatment methods. The technologies
identified in this section are those which
EPA believes will generally be used to
treat these California list wastes.
  EPA believes that neutralization
generally will be used for acidic liquid
wastes. EPA does not believe that
capacity will be an issue for waste
solely requiring neutralization. Such
neutralization can be done rapidly in
tanks or even in pipes. However, EPA's
limited waste characterization data
suggest that the majority of the acidic
corrosive wastes also contain significant
concentrations of metals that will need
treatment to meet the constituent
concentrations established by any the
options on today's proposed rule.
Therefore, EPA is assuming that all
acidic wastes also will require chemical
precipitation or solidification. This is a
conservative assumption because some
acidic wastes will require only
neutralization. To the extent that
neutralization could.be used for these
wastes, EPA recognizes thaFifhas
overestimated the capacity requirements
for chemical precipitation or
solidification.
  EPA also believes that all liquid
wastes identified as metal wastes
(containing As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Ni, Hg. Se.
Tl) will require chemical precipitation,
and wastes that contain hexavalent
chromium (Cr+6) will require additional
chemical reduction. For the purpose of
estimating  capacity needt ZPAhas
assumed wastes containing cyanide will
require chemical oxidation of the
cyanide. Alternatively, solidification to
meet the paint filter test definition of
non-liquid may be used for metals or
cyanides.
  EPA has assumed that all wastes
identified as containing HOCa or PCBs
will require incineration. EPA also has
estimated, based on its economic impact
assessment that the majority of the
California list wastes treated in surface
impoundments .will continue to be
treated in these impoundments after
compliance with RCRA section
3005(j)(ll) (A) and (B). However, EPA
has assumed that wastes treated in
these impoundments will be treated by
alternative methods (in tanks, by
solidification, etc.), on an interim basis
while the impoundments are retrofitted
to meet the minimum technology
requirements of section 3004(o) as
specified in section 3005 Q)(ll).
  The information presented below
represents the Agency's best estimate of
the volumes of California list wastes
thatmay require alternative treatment
capacity. However, EPA is unable to
determine the incremental capacity
required for any wastes other than the
HOC and PCB wastes.   .

            CMHofM o» gtforal



Mrtato wtttM wfthout
CywwfewaslM 	










*•*
capably
6745
1SS4
898
7542
458
VL State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
  Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the state. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008,3013, and
7003 of RCRA, although authorized
states have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 40 CFR Part 271.
  Prior to HSWA. a state with final
authorization administered its
hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA
administering the federal program in
that state. The federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized state,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities that the state was authorized
to permit When new, more stringent
federal requirements were promulgated
or enacted, the state was obliged to
enact equivalent authority within
specified time frames. New federal
requirements did not take effect in an
authorized state until the state adopted •
the requirements as state law.
  In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g) (42 U.S.C. 6926(g)), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
states at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized states. EPA is
directed to carry out these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized states,
including the issuance of permits, until
the state is granted authorization to do
so. While states must still adopt HSWA-
reiated provisions as state law to retain
final authorization, HSWA applies in
authorized states in the interim.
  Today's rule is proposed pursuant to •
sections 3004 (d) through (k), and (m), of
RCRA (42 U.S.C. 6924). Therefore, it will
be added to Table 1 in 40 CFR 271.1{j),
which identifies the federal program
requirements that are promulgated
pursuant to HSWA and take effect in all
states, regardless of their authorization
status. States may apply for either
interim or final authorization for the
HSWA provisions in Table 1, as
discussed hi the following^section.
When this rule is promulgated. Table 2
hi 40 CFR 271.1(j) will be modified also
to indicate that this rule is a self-
implementing provision of HSWA.

B. Effect on State Authorizations
  As noted above, EPA will implement
today's proposal in authorized states
until their programs are modified to
adopt these rules and the modification is
approved by EPA. Because the rule is
promulgated pursuant to HSWA,  a state
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
3006(g)(2) or 3008(b), respectively, on the
basis of requirements that are
substantially equivalent or equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule  for
state program modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described in 4OCFR 271.21. It should be
noted that HSWA interim authorization
will expire on January 1.1983 (see40
CFR271.24(c)).
  Section 271£l{ej(2) requires that
states that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect federal
program, changes,««i«l must
subsequently submit the modification to
EPA for approval. The deadline for the
state to modify its program for this
proposed regulation will be determined
by the date on which this regulation is
promulgated in final form. If final rule
promulgation occurs before July 1,1987.
state program modifications must be
made by July 1,1989. if only regulatory
changes are necessary, or July 1,1990 if
statutory changes are necessary. If this

-------
 44734
F«d«tat Begbtar / Vot ffit. Mm 238- / Tfaunday; December t* 1986 / Proposed Rafa»
 nils is promulgated in. final form after
 July 1, 1987, state program modification*
 must be made by July 1*1991. if only
 regulatory changes are necessary or luly
 1, 1992,  if statutory changes are
 necessary. These deadlines can.be
 extended in exceptional cases (see
 § 271.21(e)(3)).
   States with authorized RCRA
 programs may have requirements
 similar to those in today's proposal.
 These state regulations have not been
 assessed against the federal regulations
 being proposed today to determine
 whether they meet the tests for
 authorization. Thus, a state is not
 authorized to implement these
 requirements in lieu of EPA until the
 state program 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 proposal wHcfr affect state
implementation- and impact state-actions
on the regulated cotnmunityr
  1. Under PartaOK-Subpart C, EPA is
proposing- land disposal restrictions- for
all generatnrssndidkpcwerffof certans
 types of hazardous wastes border to
the regulatioastunder thi
state requirements ess bennies*
stringent than federal requieuouUfc.
date of land di»p<»»ipca&itttis*»far ant
to two years if-itis;m*ndta*fetfanMSi
insufficient alternative- traatment
capacity. Under & 2S&?, caserby-case
extensions o£up;mte>
                         allow the asosaics:o£penni(xni
                         applicants whoscwastesfiBilktasaaip^r
                         with, one as mar* of thcMPHSA
                         rmrirfrnrMintalif ilJsiiis. Tiul nlsj
                         successfully deraaastntes nacdfhcthe
                         permit; tttmttmimtmA fim ifip/fofff lUmjtnmmlt
                         fTrtHirf ^T*?rrSSfr Sn^MBBHn8nHt
                          ThttAsjcscjr candBBtadiSBi analysis of
                         mepotaBnaUttftnx.daanadlfar.
                         rfirmniir (nrinnriiiiiipiaj.i
                                                                             Impacts of Land Disposal Restrictions*
                                                                             on Ocean Dumping and Ocean
                                                                             Incineration of Solvents. Dioxins, and
                                                                             California- Us* Wastes." (Refr U.S. EPA,
                                                                             1986) This assessment was based' on * •
                                                                             methodology to score and rank waste
                                                                             streams for relative acceptability for
                                                                             ocean disposal, supplemented with an>
                                                                             analysis of cost factors and capacity
                                                                             constraint*.
                                                                              The scoring/ranking methodelogjri
                                                                             based on technical'requirements (e.g.,
                                                                             physical form and heating value) and1
                                                                             MPRSA environmental criteria (e.g*.
                                                                             constituent concentrations, toxichy,
                                                                             solubility, density, and persistence of
                                                                             the waste) associated with ocean
                                                                             disposal of hazardous waste. The
                                                                             capacity analysis assumed that those
                                                                             wastes least acceptable for ocean
                                                                             disposal will be treated or disposed of
                                                                             by land-based methods. The cost
                                                                             analysis assumed 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 &
                                                                            port located on the East coast}.
                                                                            analysis indicated that, as a resultof the
                                                                            land disposal restrictions,          ./
                                                                            approximately 21X3 milling gallons pec"
                                                                            year of hazardous wastes containing
                                                                            HOCs, 15.1 - iffion gallons per year of
                                                                            liquid t"»imTdo"t og^ffs con*a'"'ng
                                                                            metals, and &2 million: gallons peryear
                                                                            of liquid hazardous wastes containing;
                                                                            PCBs potentially could create- demand
                                                                            for ocean: dumping and ocean-based
                                                                            incineration. Such demands result hem
                                                                            capacity shortfalls o£ load-based
                                                                            treatment gnemecatieB sad- chemical
                                                                            predBitelten]haadta*M}advely lower
                                                                            cost of oceaa dumping and oeesarbsssd
                                                                            incinenstiesv tskte«Bits accaant th*
                                                                            costs •£transyoctatfs»oa:lan«L1lKse
                                                                            resiilte estimate ta*dMMne\ mat sorb
                                                                           revised tn nHmirthn IssiiiMi nf pemils
                                                                           fcr wastes. Aatdtesiet cgmpfrjr »dlfc
                                                                           »*™-** T—r'rnriTnmifil rrihirio. hnroisM
                                                                           the ana^sisdU se> ttlm into seauuA
                                                                           teehaleai
                                                                           criteria.
                                                                             The Agency expanded the oost/f-
                                                                           capadrjri
                                                                           wastes mvtdai
                                                                           requicenNnt»o
                                                                           criteria* Ike resvitsefthat ssn^ni*
                         restrictions oat land «fi«p"T»l of solvent.
                         dioxiiu and California list wests*. The
                         results are described is "Assessment of
                                                                           regal aOcasvCe«^iiMtjitsoneiqita» .
                                                                           PCB-caiitamrine WasterfM mimost

-------
             Federal Rgguter / Vol. 51. No. 238 / Thursday. December 11. 198» / Proposed Rnjea       44735"
 gallon, pet year) identified by the cost/
 capacity analysis would be acceptable
 for ocean-based incineration, baaed on
 technical requirements and the proposed
 ocean incineration regulations. The
 other potential waste stream candidates
 (HOC-containing wastes, liquid metal-
 containing wastes, and the remaining
 PCB-containing wastes) would fail one
 or both of the technical requirements for
 ocean-based incineration (i.e. physical
 form and heating value).

 vm. 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
innovation, or international trade.
  The Agency has performed an
analysis of the proposed regulation to
assess the economic effect of associated
compliance costs. Total coats of
proposed restrictions on affected wastes
are expected to amount to
approximately $100 million. The
proposal thus constitutes a major rule
under Executive Order 12291. and EPA
has prepared a formal regulatory impact
analysis, of today's proposal
  The remainder of Unit Vffl describee
the economic .analyst* performed by
EPA in support of today's proposed rule
affecting all California HstJwaste*
idenHfied in section 3004fd)(2) of RC5RA.
1. Cost and Economic Impact
Methodology
  EPA has assessed the coats and- ""
potential economic effects of thir
proposeoVnrie'and of major regulatory
alternatives to it.
  EPA is proposing to codify the. levels
specified by Congress in section
3004(d)(2) of RCRA.Jn addition to-
assessing the proposed regulationv me
Agency has examined major regulatory
alternatives to it In this preamble, EPA
presents results for the proposed rule
only. Each of the alternatives is
 explored in detail in the regulatory
 impact analysis. The methodology for
 establishing total costs and economic
 impacts of the rule has 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 for 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
 California list wastes either directly at
 the generation site or indirectly through
 the purchase of off-site commercial land
 disposal services. Four distinct types of
 plants comprise this population: non-
 commercial TSDFs, which generate and
 dispose of their own wastes; commercial
 TSDFs, which manage wastes generated
 elsewhere; generators that send  large
 quantities of wastes off-site for  •
 management; and small quantity
 generators, who generate between 100
 and 1000 kg of hazardous waste  per.
 month. Waste management practices for
 each of these groups are assessed to
 identify current costs of managing
 wastes and incremental cost increases
 attributable to today's rule.
   The number of facilities that land
 dispose affected wastes was determined
 using the EPA's 1981 Regulatory  Impact
 Analysis Mail Survey.* Waste quantities
 and management costs 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 mat 495 facilities comprise the
 total national population of commercial
 and non-commercial faculties tend
 disposing of California list wastes on-
 site, excluding facilities disposing of
 PCS containing waste. This estimate is
.based on 1981-survey data adjusted for
 intervening regulatory requirements.
 Because the 1981 survey was a
 statistical sample and not a census,...
 updating it with more current ->•—~"
 information available to the Agency'
 from other sources is difficult Based on
'these sources, however, EPA believes
 that mis estimate may overstate  the
 actual number of TSDFs now land
 disposing of California list waste.
  1 EPA conducted tha HI* Mail Survey at
hazardous waate generators and TSDFa to
determine wwte management pnctfcM In 19SI.
Faculties that bandied to* thn MOO kilogram, of -
waste per.BOnth won not r*g*iated la MSI and
thua an not Included in the data, fat man
information see the "National Survey of Hazardoua
Watte Generator* and Treatment Storage and
Diapasa) Facilities Raguteled under ROTA in 1981."
   EPA estimates that an additional 3£79
 plants generate more than l.OOff
 kilograms per month of wastes that are
 sent off-site for management The waste
 is disposed of by either non-commercial
 TSDFs (e.g. owned by the firm
 generating the waste but at a different
 location] or by a commercial TSDF.
   Generators of less than 1,000
 kilograms per month were not included
 in the 1981 survey because they were
 considered exempt at that time.
 However, the 1984 amendments to the
 Solid Waste Disposal Act direct EPA to
 lower the exemption for small quantity  ,
 generators (SQGs) from 1.000 to 100
 kilograms per month by March 31,1988,
 so SQGs generating between 100 and
 1000 kilograms of waste per month for
 off-site disposal are also included hi the
 affected population. The Agency
 estimates that SQGs add 2,131 plants to
 the affected population. Plant and waste
 specific data on this group are derived
 from EPA's Small Quantity Generator
 Survey.'
  Because of the design of the Mail
 Survey, generators of PCBs mixed-with
 hazardous wastes regulated under  •
 RCRA were not represented in it. Data
 on this group have been developed more
 recently, end-indicate approximately 63
 generators of mixed PCB/RCRA
 hazardous wastes.4
  EPA's characterization of
 management practices for these groups
 includes the cost of compliance with
 regulations which have taken effect
 since the 1981 survey was conducted. In
 particular, EPA adjusted waste
 management practices reported to
 reflect compliance with the provisions of
 40 CFR Part 28* of RCRA. m making this
 adjustment, the Agency assumes
 faculties elect the least costly legal
 methods of compliance. This adjustment
 defines not only current management
 practices and costs associated with
 them, but also the number of waste
 streams in the-sffected population. For
 example; for 55 facilities, the costs of
 land disposing'of certain wastes are
 driven sonigh by regulations predating
 this proposal that other management.
 modes are less likely to resolve disposal
 of these wastes and, therefore that
 these wastes are no longer part of die
 population of waste streams thatmay be
 afferted by any restriction* on land
 disposal. No aggregate modtteliaw
 been.d8veloped.for.the population of
  » Offlee of SoM-WMtft Tftrthmar SmaltQuantity
Ha««io«ia.Wae4« Generator Swvey," February
1885.
  4 Office of Solid Wtsi* "Characteriulfen of
Mixed PCB/RCRA Hazardous Waatea." Febraan
1985.

-------
  44736
Federal Register /  Vol. 51. No. 238 / Thursday. December 11. 1986 / Proposed Rules
  treatment, storage and disposal facilities
  andI small quantity generators, examined
  in this analysis. Instea'd, individual case
  observations in the data sources have
  been weighted to represent the national
  population of wastes and management
  practices. For generating plants
  disposing of large quantities of
  California list wastes off-site, "model"
  plants representing average, maximum
  and minimum waste quantities were
  developed to assess the range of
  potential economic effects. For
  generators of mixtures of PCBs and
  RCRA hazardous wastes, economic
  effects were assessed using "model"
  plants representing typical waste
  quantity and plant size characteristics.
    b. Development of costs. Once waste
  quantity, type and method of treatment
  are known for the affected population,
  EPA developed estimates of costs of
  compliance for individual facilities. The
  analysis detailed in this section is based
  on cost estimates for surveyed facilities
  representing the affected population.
  Wastes amenable to similar types of
  treatment were grouped to identify
  economies of scale available through co-
  treatment and disposal.
   EPA developed current waste
 management costs by adjusting 1981
 waste management practices to reflect
 compliance with regulatory
 requirements predating restrictions on
 land disposal. Estimated costs for
 disposal in surface impoundments
 assume compliance with Part 264 of
 RCRA, which requires surface
 impoundments to have double liners and
 leachate collection systems between
 liners, subject to certain exemptions.
 This assumption could lead to an
 overestimate of current disposal costs
 and. thus, to an underestimate of
 incremental costs for surface
 impoundments exempted from these
 requirements. Existing requirements
 under RCRA  are also considered in
 developing coats for disposal in landfills
 and waste piles.  •  .
  Facilities face several possible option*  -
 if they may no longer landdispose of  "~ •
 their wastes.  EPA applies the samT' —
 rationale in predicting: facility-choice  ~
 among these options a« it does in
 establishing the affected population:
 facilities are assumed to elect the least
 costly method of complying with the
 requirements of this proposal. Costs of
 compliance are derived by predicting
 the minimum-cost method of compliance
with land disposal restrictions for each
facility and calculating the increment
between that  and current disposal costs.
As in the analysis of current costs,
economies of scale  in waste
management are considered.
                            Shipping costs for wastes sent off-site
                          tor management are also considered. In
                          the development of current waste
                          management costs, the transportation
                          distance assumed for off-site waste
                          treatment and/or disposal is 100 miles.
                          Most plants now sending wastes off-site
                          do so for disposal.  Although the likely
                          effect of restrictions will be to require
                          pretreatment in addition to disposal, the
                          Agency has not increased the assumed
                          transportation distance. This assumes
                          that plants now sending wastes off-site
                          for disposal only can also purchase
                          treatment services  from the same
                          commercial facilities. But even if the
                          assumption of no increase in
                          transportation distance does not
                          accurately predict the effects of this
                          rule, our examination of the sensitivity
                          of results to this assumption found that
                          varying the assumption in travel
                          distances, even by as much as a factor
                          of eight, has a minimal effect on results.
                         This is because many plants that send
                         wastes off-site send small amounts, and
                         thus economies of scale (reflected in per
                         unit prices of waste disposal at large
                         commercial facilities) outweigh even
                         major increases in shipping costs.
                           EPA developed facility-specific
                         compliance costs in two components,
                         which are weighted and then summed to
                         estimate total national costs of the
                         proposal. 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
                         depreciable assets. Capital costs are
                         restated as annual values by adjusting
                         them into equivalent yearly payments
                         using a capital recovery factor based on
                         a real cost of capital of 7 percent These
                         annualized capital costs are then added
                         to yearly O&M costs to derive an annual
                         equivalent cost The result is EPA's
                         estimate of the impact of the regulation
                         on annual firm cashflow.

                        c. Economic impact analysis..
                          i. Non-commercial TSDFs and SQGa. -
                        Economic impacts on non-commercial
                        TSDFs 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
  costs of compliance. For this ratio, a
  value of less than 20 is considered to
  represent a significant adveree effect
  The coverage ratio is the more stringent
  of the two ratios, but exceeding the
  critical level in either one suggests that
  a facihty is likely to be significantly
  affected. Both of these ratios implicitly
  assume that facilities will be unable to
  pass on compliance costs  to consumers
.  of their products and services in the
  form of higher prices. This analyst*
  considers only pre-tax costs, because
  census data are stated in before-tax
  terms.
    Once facilities experiencing  adverse
  economic effects are identified using the
  two screening ratios, more detailed
  financial analysis is performed to verify
  the results and to focus more closely on
  affected facilities. For this subset of
  facilities, the coverage ratio is adjusted
  to allow a portion of costs to be passed
  through. Economic effects on individual
  facilities are examined assuming, that
  product price increases of one and five
  percent are possible. Those facilities for
  which, the coverage ratio is still legs
  than two are considered likely  to close.
   ii. Commercial TSDFs. Commercial
 TSDFs are defined here as those
 facilities which accept fees in exchange
 for management of 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 and solid waatea.
 Consequently, our analysis of economic
 effects on commercial facilities  is
 qualitative. This analysis includes an
 examination of the quantity of waste  •
 each facility receives from the waste
 group restricted by today's proposal.
 EPA also examines the ability of each
 facility to provide the additional
 treatment required once these
 restrictions are promulgated, and thus to
 retain or expand that portion of its
 business generated by restricted wastes.
  iii. Generators of large quantities of
 wastes. EPA's analysis of the economic
effects of this proposal 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-
i

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 51, No.  238 / Thursday December 11, 1988 / Proposed Roles
 specific waste characterization,
 treatment methods, and compliance
 costs for generators, as it has for TSDFs.
 Our analysis of the economic effects of
 the proposed regulation on this group
 uses RIA Mail 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
   Total costs of regulating California list
 wastes qualify today's proposal as
 major under Executive Order 12291,
 since total annualized costs of
 restricting land disposal of these wastes
 are estimated at $97 million. These costs
 are not adjusted for the effect of
 taxation, which is merely a transfer
 from one sector of the economy to
 another. Costs are stated in 1985 dollars.
   The proposed regulation and
 alternatives will affect entities in a
 variety of four-digit SICs, including
 chemicals and allied products,
 petroleum products, and metals
 industries. Among non-commercial
 TSDFs, three sectors account for
 approximately 81 percent of all land
 disposal restriction compliance costs
 likely to be incurred by sectors land
 disposing of California list wastes. SIC
 28, chemicals and allied products, alone
 accounts for 40 percent Two other
 sectors also contribute significant
 amounts, although much less: SIC 33.
 primary metals, accounts for 16 percent;
 and SIC 34, fabricated metal products,
 accounts for 5 percent In the aggregate,
 non-commercial TSDFs account for 65
 percent of the costs of .this proposed
 rule. Commercial TSDFs, included
 predominantly in SIC 4953, account for
 the balance;      .
  Economic effects have been assessed
 for both non-commercial and
 commercial facilities. Non-commercial
 facilities are those that generate and
manage their own wastes, as distinct
 from facilities that accept fees in
exchange for management and disposal
of wastes generated by others. Of 457
(weighted) non-commercial faeilitie*
nationally, 84 may experience financial
distress because of this rule, and 9 of,.
these appear likely to close. Five of the 9
likely closures belong to die chemical
industry (SIC 28). and the primary (SIC
33)'and fabricated metals (SIC 34)
Lndustries. Employment effects
 associated with these 9 closures amount
to 188 jobs lost
  We estimate that 38  commercial
facilities incur incremental costs as a
result of the restriction, on land disposal
of California list wastes. Forty-two
percent of these commercial facilities
 offer a range of hazardous waste   .
 management services, including land-
 based disposal, storage and treatment.
 The increased demand this rule will
 create for highly-priced treatment
 services may actually strengthen the
 financial position of these firms by
 allowing them to increase market share.
 For the 16 percent of commercial
 facilities that offer solely land-based
 management of restricted wastes, on the
 other hand, the increased emphasis on
 treatment prior to land disposal may
 prove economically disadvantageous. It
 was not possible to characterize the
 remaining 42 percent of commercial
 facilities based on services offered.
   Turning to effects on generators, EPA
 found that based on average waste
 quantities, the 187 sectors generating
 California list waste include 3,279
 plants. Of these. 133 plants may
 experience significant financial distress
 based on costs imposed by restrictions
 on land disposal. This represents nearly
 four percent of all the waste-generating
 plants that may face increased waste
 management prices. Most significantly
 affected plants belong to either the
 chemical or primary or fabricated
 metals products industries. Based on
 further analysis, 14 of the 133 distressed
 plants appear likely to close.
 Employment effects associated with
 these closures amount to 264 jobs.
  Total annualized national costs for the
 2,131 small quantity generators of
 California list wastes are  $5.1 million.
 Based on engineering estimates of prices
 for off-site waste management services,
 costs for SQGs generating the maximum
 of 1,000 kilograms per month of nothing
 but hazardous wastes named in the
 California list would incur less than
 $13,200 annually in incremental
 compliance costs. Economic ratios for
 all plants in each 4-digit sector
 represented in the SQG survey were
 examined, and in 66 cases plants
 seemed likely to experience aome
 financial distress, and two of tnese
 plants appear likely to close. Thus.
 restricting land disposal of California
 list wastes may have substantial
 adverse economic effect on
 approximately 3 percent of aQ    '
 generators of small quantities of'wastes.
  Economic effects on generators of
 mixed PGB/RCRA wastes are also not
 expected to be significant, although
because of data limitations no plant-
 specific analysis could be undertaken.
Further information on economic effects
on all groups mentioned above is
 available in the regulatory impact
analysis supporting this proposed rule.
 3. Benefits and Cost-effectiveness of
 Restricting Land Disposal of California
   The regulatory impact analysis
 performed by the Agency evaluated
 three regulatory alternatives for
 restricting the land disposal, of ,
 California list wastes. As with the
 discussion of cost and economic
 impacts, this preamble presents results
 associated with the proposed approach,
 to codify the statutory levels for the
 California list as set forth in section
 3004(d).
   The benefits of today's proposal were
 evaluated by considering the reduction
 in the number of cases of human health
 effects that result from treating
 California list wastes with alternative
 technologies rather than management by
 current land disposal practices.
 Predicting potential human health
 effects entails estimating quantitatively
 the consequences of human exposure to
 disease causing agents. Human health
 risk is the probability of injury, disease,
 or death over a defined time period. To
 estimate risks of baseline and J
 alternative technologies, the analysis
 characterizes wastes, technologies,
 releases, environmental transport, and
 dose-responses, based largely on-
 comparative risk assessment
 methodologies. The analysis includes an
 evaluation of individual risk due to
 chronic exposure, where the risk
 determination accounts for, the dose, the
 chronic risk per unit dose, a factor that
 distinguishes between, the dose-
 response for carcinogens and other
 types of substances. The analysis also
 weights the cases by the relative
 severity of the toxic effect The
 individual risk is- converted into a
 number of cases using estimates of the
 population exposed. For each
 combination of California list waste,
 technology,, and environment, the model
 derives estimates of the total number, of
 people affected by the waste
 management practice.
  In assessing the benefits of the
 proposed approach, the analysis, is
 limited to reductions in human health
 effects attributed to a reduction in
 exposure to the: toxic, constituents in
 these wastes. Aa a result ;the benefits of
 the land disposal restrictions for
 California list wastes may be
 underestimated. Other benefit
 considerations such as improvements in
environmental quality were not
 quantified. Furthermore, the assessment
may underestimate-benefits since the.
effects of the comparative risk analysis
were not included. Therefore,: negative
benefits resulting from a technology •

-------
  44738       Federal Register  /  Vol. 51. No. 238 /Thursday. December 11. 1986 / Proposed Rules
  considered riskier than- land disposal
  (which, would be designated not
  available as an alternative to land
  disposal) were included in the analysis.
  Although this assessment does not
  estimate potential increases in risk from
  increased transportation and handling
  of California list wastes, an initial
  analysis indicates that increases are not
  likely to be significant.
    Based on this benefits analysis,
  implementing the statutory levels and
  defining BOAT technologies for HOCs
  and PCBs are estimated to result in a net
  reduction in health risks equal to 2853 '
  weighted cases (e.g.. cancer, fetal
  toxicity, decreases in reproductive
  capacity, etc.) over seventy years, or a
  33.9 percent reduction from baseline
  practices. As mentioned earlier,  the total
  increase in annualized cost of restricting
  land disposal of California list wastes is
  estimated at $97 million. .This yearly
  incremental cost represents a 250
  percent increase in costs over current
  land disposal practices. Division of the
  total increase in annualized cost by the
  annualized reduction in health risks.
 40.75 cases, determines that the cost of
 the proposed regulatory approach is
 S2.38 million per case avoided.

 B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
   Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
 Act. 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., 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 that 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 agency's 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
 effects on small businesses as required
 by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and"
 has concluded-that today's proposed "
 rule will not have a significant economic  •
 effect on a substantial number of small-
 entities. As a result of this finding. EPA
 has not prepared a formal Regulatory
 Flexibility Analysis document in support
 of this rule. The following discussion •
 summarizes the findings oh which the
 conclusions above are based. More
 detailed information is available in the
 record and in technical  background
 documents prepared in  support of this
 rulemaking.
  EPA evaluated the economic effect of
 the proposed rule on small entities,
 defined here as firms employing fewer
than 50 people. Because of data
limitations, this small business analysis
  excludes generators of large quantities
  of California list wastes. The "small
  business" population examined
  therefore includes only two groups: all
  treatment, storage and disposal facilities
  employing fewer than 50 persons, and
  all small quantity generators that are
  also small businesses. 158 TSDFs are
  small businesses. Of these. 5 exceed
  threshold values on the cost of
  production ratio, a figure that represents
  3 percent of this small business
  population.
    Of the total of 2,131 small quantity
  generators examined in this analysis,
  the vast majority (1,914 or 97 percent of
  the total population of SQGs) are also
  small businesses. A total of 5 SQGs (or
  less than one percent of all small
  businesses) exceeded threshold values
  on the cost of production ratios.
  According to EPA's guidelines for
  conducting Regulatory Flexibility
  Analysis, if over 20% of the population
  of small business are likely to
  experience financial distress based on
  the costs of a rule, then the Agency is
  required to consider that the rale will
  have a significant effect on a substantial
  number of small entities and must
  perform a formal Regulatory Flexibility
 Analysis.6 Economic impacts on small
 entities are not expected to exceed three
 percent of the total small business
 population, and thus EPA has not
 prepared a formal RFA.

 C. Review of Supporting Documents and
 Request for Public Comments
 1. Review of Supporting Documents
   The primary source of information on
 current land disposal practices and
 industries affected by the proposed
 regulation is EPA's National Survey of
 Hazardous Waste Generators and
 Treatment, Storage and Disposal
 Facilities. 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), andU.S, EPA,
. "The RCRA RisbCost Analysis Model;'
 (March 1984). The survey  of small
 quantify generators has been the major -
 source of data on this group. Data used.
 to characterize generators of mixed
 PCB/RCRA hazardous wastes were
 taken from an EPA study. •*•"•>.
 "Characterization of MiXetfFCB/RCRA
 Hazardous Wastes," (Febrearrl985L
  For financial and value of shipment
information for the general screening
analysis, 1982 Census data were used,
  • See U.S. EPA. "Guideline! for Compliance with
the Regulatory Flexibility Act." February 1982.
  adjusted by 1983 Annual Survey of
  Manufactures data. Producer price
  indices were also used to restate 1983'
  dollars in 1985 terms.

  2. Request for Public Comments

    EPA recognizes mat due to constraints
  of time and data availability, this
  analysis has significant limitations.
  Specifically, EPA requests comment on
  the following:
    a. EPA would like to refine the
  assumption that costs imposed on
  commercial hazardous waste facilities
  can entirely be passed through in the
  form of higher prices. The Agency
  requests any estimates of typical profit
  margins in the commercial hazardous
  waste industry, data on waste
  management fees, and on the percent
  price increase in waste management
  fees that may force substitution on.
  generators.
   b. The Agency requests public
  comment and data on the feasibility o£ .
  small business waste recycling; -
  reclamation, or in-process reduction.  .
   c. The Agency requests comment and -
  data on the technical feasibility of, and -
  costs associated with, waste       '
 segregation;            .       ~t-

 IX. References

 Background Document*  ''•••'.'
   (1) U.S. EPA. "Background Document for
 Land Disposal Restriction* of Hazardous
 Waste* Listed in section-30M(d) of the '"
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-
 US. EPA, OSW. Washington. DC. 1988
   (2) U.S. EPA. "Comparative Risk
 Assessment of Selected California List
 Wastes for the RCRA Land Disposal
 Restrictions." US, EPA. OSW. Washington.
 DC, 196ft -        •-.'.-.."

 Regulatory Impact Anafyai*           . .
   (3) U.S. EPA. "Regulatory Analysis of
 Proposed Restriction* on Land Disposal of
 California List Wastes." U.a EPA, OSW.
 Washington. DC, 1969      •'• •
 Other References _ .._..-,       ,.  .
  (4) American Public Health Association.
 American Water Work* Association. Water
 Pollution Control F»derano«.5/o«farrf -   ,
 Method* for thiExononaiion of Water ami
 Wastawataf.-ltiOiMUtoef.l9m '  .
 • (5) American Society of Testing and
 Material*,AnnuafBaoAofASTM Standards.
 Philadelphia, PA, Mi* -
  (6) Cherry, KP* 1082, Plating Waste
 rreotoiwjt Ann Arbor Science     •
  (7)Kelada. NJR, Lue-Mins; C. and LordL
 D.T.. 1978; "Cyanide Spede* and
 Thiocyanate  Methodology to Water an*  -
 Wastewater." Chapter ao, IK Cheaiittryof
 Wastewaier  Technology. Ann Arbor Science
  (8) Lowenheia. RA,,wn. electroplating.
Sponsored by the American Electroplating
Society. McGraw-Hill Book Company. New
York.NewYork

-------
              Federal Register  /  Vol. 51. No» 238 / Thursday. December 11. 198B  /  Proposed Rules  -    44739
   (9) U.S. EPA. "Assessment of Impacts of
 Land Disposal Restrictions on Ocean  ,
 Dumping and Ocean Incineration of Solvents,
 Dioxins, and California List Wastes." U.S.
 EPA, OSW, Washington. DC, 1986
   (10) U.S. EPA. "Characterization of Mixed
 PCB/RCRA Hazardous Wastes." U.S. EPA,
 OSW, Washington, DC, 1985
   (11) U.S. EPA. "National Small Quantity
 Hazardous Waste Generator Survey." U.S.
 EPA, OSW, Washington, DC, 1985
   (12) U.S. EPA. "National Survey of
 Hazardous Waste Generators and Treatment,
 Storage and Disposal Facilities Regulated
 Under RCRA in 1981." U.S. EPA, OSW,
 Washington, DC, 1984
   (13) Goldman, L.J. and Tatsch, C.E.,
 "Compatibility of Corrosive Acids with
 Codisposed Wastes," 1985

 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 260,
 261,262,264,265,268,270, and 271
   Adminstrative 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.
  Dated: November 28,1986.
 L«« M. Thomas,
Administrator.

  Therefore, it is proposed that Chapter
 I of Title 40 be amended as follows:

 PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

  1. The authority citation for Part 260
 continues to read as follows:
  Authority: Sees. 1006,2002(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, 6930,6934,6935,6937,6938,
and 6939).
  2. In § 260.11, paragraph (a)
introductory text is revised to read as
follows:           • _    	

§260.11 Reference«.._
  (a) When used in Parts 260 through ,
268 of this chapter, the following
publications are incorporated by
reference:          '•••'•   '
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS

  1. The authority citation for Part 268
continues to read as follows;
  Authority: Sees. 100ft, 2002(a). 3001. and
3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
 Recovery Aet of 1976, as amended (42 U.&C.
 6905,6912(3), 6921, and 6924).
   2. The Table of Contents for Subpart'C
 is amended by adding an entry for
 5 268.32 to readjas follows:
 Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land Disposal
 *    *'•' •   *    ' *    *
 268.32  Waste specific prohibitions—
    California list wastes.

 Subpart A—General

   3. Section 268.3 is revised to read as
 follows:

 §268,3  Dilution prohibited as • 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, to circumvent the
 effective date of a prohibition in Subpart
 C of this part, or to otherwise  avoid a
 prohibition in Subpart C of this part
  4. In 5 268.4, paragraph (a)(2) is
 revised and paragraph (b) is added to
 read as follows:

 §268,4  Treatment surface impoundment
 exemption.
  (a) *  *  *
  (2) The residues of the treatment are
 analyzed, as specified in § 268.7, to
 determine if they-meet the applicable
 treatment standards in Subpart D of this
 part, or, where no treatment standards
 have been established for the  waste, the
 applicable prohibition levels specified in
 Subpart C of this part. The sampling
 method, specified in the waste analysis
 plan under 5 264.13 at § 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 Oof this
 part, or the applicable prohibition levels
 promulgated under Subpart C  of this.
 part (where no treatment standards
 have been established), or which are not
 delisted under § 280.22 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 -to-
 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, or Subpart G : •
 prohibition levels where no treatment •
 standards have been established, must •
 be specified in the facility's'wdstB
 analysis plan as required under §  264.13
 or S 265.13 of this chapter.
 *     *     *    *   • *'

   (b) Evaporation of hazardous
 constituents is not considered treatment
 for purposes of an exemption under this
 section.

   5. In § 268.5, paragraph (a)(2) is
 revised to read as follows:

 §2683  Procedure* for case-by-case
 extension* to an effective da.te.
   (a) * * *
   (2) He has entered into a binding
 contractual commitment to construct or
 otherwise provide alternative treatment,
 recovery (e.g., recycling), or disposal
 capacity that meets the treatment
 standards specified in Subpart D or,
 where treatment standards have not
 been specified, such disposal capacity is
 protective of human health and the
 environment.
Subpart C—Prohibitions on Land
Disposal

  6. In Subpart C. § 268.32 is added to
read as follows:.

§268.32 Waste specific prohibitions—
California list wastes.
  (a) Effective July 8,1987, the following
liquid hazardous wastes are prohibited
from land disposal (except in injection
wells):  '••'..'••
  (1) Liquid hazardous wastes, including
free liquids associated with any solid.or
sludge, containing cyanides at
concentrations greater than or equal to
i,000mg/l;
  (2) 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  .
greater than or equal to those specified
below:                           .    .
  (i) Arsenic and/or compounds (as As)
500mg/l;   :        ;-=..:
  (ii) Cadmium and/or compounds (as
Cd)100mg/l; ....;      -.,..'.   :
  (iii) Chromium- (VI and/or compounds
(asCrVI))5p0.mg/l;
  (iv) Lead and/or compounds (as Pb)   •
500mg/l;    •          •:
  (v) Mercury and/or compounds (as
Hg)20mg/l;    • •  '   •        .     .

-------
  44740
Federal Register / Vol 51. No.  238 / TTiursday. December 11, 1986 / Proposed Rules
    (vi) Nickel and/or compounds (as Nil
  134mg/l;
    (vii) Selenium and/or compounds fas
  SD)100mg/l;and                 l
    (viii) Thallium and/or compounds fas
  Tl)130mg/l;
    (3) Liquid hazardous wastes having a
  pH less than or equal to two (2.0); and
    (4) Liquid hazardous wastes
  containing halogenated organic
  compounds in total concentration
  greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/kg but
  less than 1%.
    (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 § 26S.5; or
    (4} The wastes are treated in surface
  impoundments pursuant to 9 288.4.
    (c) The requirements of paragraph (a)
  of this section do not apply until
  November 8,1988 where the wastes are
  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
 RCRA Subtitle C.
   (d) Effective July 8, 1989, the following
 wastes are prohibited from land
 disposal (subject to any regulations
 promulgated with respect to disposal in
 injection wells]:
   (1) Liquid hazardous  wastes
 containing polychlorinated biphenyls at
 concentrations greater than or equal to
 50 ppm;
   (2} Non-liquid hazardous wastes
 containing halogenated organic
 compounds in total concentration
 greater than or equal to 1.000 mg/kg;
   (3) Liquid hazardous wastes
 containing halogenated organic
 compounds in total concentration
 greater than or equal to 196.
   (e) The requirements of paragraph (d)
 of this section do not apply ifc
   (1) The wastes are treated to meefTne
 standard* of Subpart D of (his part; or
   (2) The wattes are disposed at a
 facility that has been granted a petition
 under 5 288.6; or
  (3) An extension has been granted
 under 1288.5; or
  (4) The wastes are treated in surface
 impoundments pursuant to § 288.4.
  (f) To determine whether or not the,
waste is a liquid under paragraphs (a) or
 (d) of this section, the following test
must be used: Method 9095 (Paint Filter
Liquids Test) as described in 'Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes,
Physical/Chemical Methods," EPA
  Publication No. SW-648 (incorporated
  by reference, see S 260.11(a)).

  Subpart D—Treatment Standard*

    7. Section 268.42 is amended by
  adding paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2) and
  by revising paragraph (b) to read as
  follows:

  §268.42  Treatment standards expressed
  as specified tectinotogien.
    (a) * *  *
    (1) Liquid hazardous wastes
  containing polychlorinated biphenyls
  (PCBs) at concentrations greater than or
  equal to 50 ppm but less than 500 ppm
  must be incinerated in accordance with
  the technical requirements of 40 CFR
  761.70 or burned in high efficiency
  boilers in accordance with the technical
  requirements of 40 CFR 781.60. Liquid
  hazardous wastes containing
  polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs] at
  concentrations greater than or equal to
  580 ppm must be incinerated in
  accordance with the technical
  requirements of 40 CFR 781.70.
   (2) Non-liquid hazardous wastes
  containing halogenated organic
  compounds (HOCs) in total
 concentration greater than or equal to
 1.000 mg/kg and liquid hazardous
 wastes containing HOCs in total
 concentration greater than or equal to
 1% must be incinerated .in accordance
 with the requirements of S 264.343 or
 §285.343.
   (b) The applicant must submit
 information demonstrating that his
 treatment method is in compliance with
 all federal, state, and local requirements
 and will not present an unreasonable
 risk to human, health or the environment.
 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 matting 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 a'
 determination.
  8.40 CFR 268.43 is added to read as
follows:

§261.43 Treatment standards expressed
as waste concentration*.
  (a) Liquid hazardous wastes having a
pH less than or equal to two (2.0) must
                                                                be treated in order to raise the pH of the
                                                                waste to a level above two (£0).
                                                                  (b) [Reserved]

                                                                PART 270—EPA-ADUINISTEREO
                                                                PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
                                                                HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
                                                                PROGRAM

                                                                  1. The authority citation of Part 270
                                                                continues to read as follows:
                                                                 Authority: Sec*. 1006.2002.3006.3007.301ft
                                                                and 700* of me Solid Waste Disposal Act «s
                                                                amended by the Resource Conservation and
                                                                Recovery Act of 1976, as emended (42 US.C.
                                                                6905.6912.6025,6927.6039 and 6974).

                                                                Subpart D-Changes to Permits

                                                                 2. In 5 270.42. paragraph (p) is added
                                                                to read as follows:

                                                               §270.42  Mnormodmcatfons of permits,
                                                                *    *   •    »    *
                                                                 (p) Allow changes at a permitted
                                                               facility to treat or store in containers  or
                                                               tanks hazardous wastes subject to land
                                                               disposal restrictions imposed by Part
                                                               268, provided that the permittee:
                                                               requests a major permit modification
                                                               pursuant to S1243 and S 270.41;
                                                               demonstrates in the major permit ~
                                                               modification request that the treatment
                                                               or storage is necessary to comply with
                                                               the land disposal restrictions of Part 280;
                                                               and ensures that the added units comply
                                                               with the applicable Part 284 standards
                                                               pending final administrative disposition
                                                               of the major permit modification
                                                               request The authorization to make
                                                               changes conferred herein shall terminate
                                                               upon final administrative disposition of
                                                               the permittee's major modification
                                                               request under i 270.41 or termination of
                                                               the permit under 127O43.
                                                                3. In 1270.72. paragraph (e) is revised
                                                              to read as follows:

                                                              §270.72  Changes during interim statue.
                                                              ******        ,
                                                                (e) In no event shall changes be made
                                                              to an HWM facility during interim -*chw
                                                              which amount to reconstnctioB of uVs
                                                              facility. Reconstruction ocean when the
                                                              capital investment in the changes to the
                                                              facility exceeds fifty percent of the
                                                              capital cost of a comparable entirely
                                                              new HWM facility. Changes prohibited
                                                              under this paragraph do not include
                                                              changes to treat or storentcoatatoen or
                                                              tanks hazardous wastes subject la land
                                                              disposal restrictions imposed under Part
                                                              268, provided that such changes are
                                                              made solely for the purpose of
                                                              complying with Part 288.
                                                              [FR Doc. 88-27305 Filed 12-10-88; &4SamJ
                                                              B4LUMQ CODE 65(0-60-11

-------